Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Sister Deb, Aug 15, 2002.
What does Ruckmannite mean to you?
A Ruckmanite is a person who accepts, in whole or in part, the hetrodox teachings of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman of Bible Baptist Church, Pensacola, Florida.
What specifically sets him apart from other Baptists? Obivously, I am uneducated in "religion". Please define hetrodox for me, if you would be so kind.
A Ruckmanite is a name given by liberals & bible correctors to a person who like Dr Peter S Ruckman believes in the infalbility of the KJB. Who also has a understanding on how to rightly divide the word of truth;and are dispensationalist,but not "hyper".And who also believe that God means what he says and does not need a theologian to explain what He "meant" to say.Also,if this is truly what it means,and I belive it is,with the exception of a few things unmentioned;count me in!!!!!!!!
Dr. Ruckman was a KJV ony person to the extreme belief that the KJV was inspired even above the Textus Receptus. He believed that the KJV corrected the Greek.
Here a website that explains Dr. Ruckman's position. Please know that this writing was done by an opponet of Dr. Ruckman so it very well may be biased. I do not agree 100% with the author but it will give you an idea of what is meant by the term "Ruckmanite."
does the term also include Ruckman's views on remarriage, Zionism, n interracial marriage?
For a good definition, see Thomas's post. For a lousy one filled with myth and untruth, see Coley's.
Incidentally Mr. Coley, you were warned in the past by me and by Thomas about the "Bible Corrector" nonsense. You know it's just drivel, so cut it out.
Too bad Ruckman hasn't listened to more theologians, might do him some good! Notice what types of jokes he likes to tell. Wonderful fellow.
[ August 16, 2002, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: kman ]
It means people who read the KJV only because they prefer the KJV have to defend themselves against being associated with this moron.
It means unnecessary division has been caused in otherwise sound churches.
[ August 16, 2002, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]
"Ruckmanite" is a term given to people who believe the KJV;regardless if they even know or heard of him.Dr Ruckmans stand for the KJV brings him much critisism by those who doubt we have the word of God to begin with. Besides, some may consider this a slur to be called a ruckmanite;If a Ruckmanite is what a person is called who belives the infalability of the KJV,I'm guilty..
I agree with you. I was labeled a "Ruckmanite" even before I heard of Peter Ruckman. After searching and finding what this man believed, I always declare when discussing the KJV that I am not a Ruckmanite. There are several tenets of Ruckman that I just cannot support.
The facts that he has been married three times and divorced twice raised the red flag in my mind and prompted further inquiry into his position.
Let me add a controversial side note. I have seen Dr. Jack Hyles' name mentioned in this forum on several occassions. Very few with anything positive to say.
Let me say this about Dr. Hyles; he was not a Ruckmanite either. Dr. Hyles has been called a legalist, a hyper-conservative, and various other labels. But, when it came to his friends, he was a true friend.
Bringing this back to topic, Jack Hyles was the best of friends with John R. Rice. They shared a platform together hundreds of times. Jack Hyles was KJV only; John R. Rice was not. Dr. Hyles never made this an issue with Dr. Rice. Dr. Hyles was always gracious and just left the issue alone when preaching with Dr. Rice.
That is something that no Ruckmanite would do. Dr. Hyles was not perfect, but he was a gracious man of God.
Just a question, do you think Hyles would have gone where he did with the KJV had Rice been alive? It seemed in the later years that Hyles took a decidedly different road on this issue. I can't help but think that had Rice still been alive, either 1) Hyles would have never gone where he did or 2) Rice and Hyles would have separated. Of course, at this point it is just wondering. We will never know.
Thank you all very much! You have been a tremendous help. I prefer the KJV cause it is the one that clearly speaks to me with the most power as well as having important things the others leave out.
I have only one minute,
Sixty seconds in it,
Didn't choose it,
Can't refuse it,
Must give account if I abuse it;
And yet, eternity is in it.
(heard on Back to the Bible, early 60's)
I wonder how many souls are wandering the streets whilst we debate which copy containing God's word is best?
The average citizen is not embroiled in theology and I doubt if any version of scripture will seriously lead them astray. Indeed, a modern version may even direct them towards God. Maybe, just maybe, we should be about our Father's business; preaching the word, in season and out of season, pointing to the One who is able to save the lost.
You are very right. Spreading the Gospel is what it is about 100%. I was just trying to educate myself on a term I had heard and didn’t understand. After savalvation I wore out a copy of Good News for Modern Man and got a lot of help from it before I found the KJV.
1 Tim 1:4 Lets go reach somene for the LORD today
That's what this is all about: doing what the early church did in Acts, just going about Preaching the Word, gospeling! Sowing the seeds and then stand back and watch God give the increase. To God be the Glory!
Of course any opinion I give would be just that, my opinion. I do know that, even while Dr. Rice was alive, Hyles-Anderson College taught KJV only. Dr. Hyles declared the KJV in chapel and in his own pulpit.
His friendship with Dr. Rice caused him not to make this an issue or a "bone of contention" when preaching together or for each other.
It is my understanding, and I could very well be misinformed, that it was Dr. Ruckman's constant criticism of Dr. Hyles after the home-going of Dr. Rice that finally prompted him make a public statement in support of the KJV.
This issue was not the only issue in which they disagreed. Storehouse tithing and the "gap theory" was two more.
It should stand to show us that we can get along with those who disagree on the lesser issue as long as we disagree agreeably.
Having had several discussions with you Pastor Larry, I feel that you and I have come to this understanding.
I agree with you but this warning could be said about any topic on this forum. In fact, the question could be asked why are you spending time on this forum instead of reaching those "out wandering the streets?"
This forum has been a blessing to me in that it has caused me to dig into God's Word and "be ready always to give an answer to every man."
Rest assured that the time I spend on here is not taking away from the ministry God has called me to.
My response is, "They should be."
Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Theology is nothing more than the study about God. This forum, if you are careful , will help you in your quest to know more about God and His Word.
Jim, I don't know you and I'm not trying to be critical by I detected just a hint of a Pharisaical attitude in your post. If I've misinterpreted your post, please forgive me Brother.