Ruckmanites lying about David Cloud..................again

May God heal her for His glory. :praying:

I've been to two of those bookstores, Zondervan and another, I disremember which. At that second one I once bought about 5 different Greek NTs, several of them very rare.

Wow, the whole inventory of Kregel's moved overseas! I wonder where. That's an interesting story! :type:

 

Pastor Larry

Could you prove that statement about clouds dishonesty about others. or point to an article where he was dishonest.

Ehud

 

Yes, and I have. I have had personal correspondence with Cloud about it, and have cited proof from his website.

 

Put your cards on the table

Larry, we share many views in common but I can't hold with you on your accusation of David Cloud. I have read and seen your supposed exposure of Cloud but it amounted to little more than differences of interpretation and opinion. You have not demonstrated an intention of deception or dishonesty. Just because his interpretation disagrees with your own understanding does not mean that he is dishonest. Now, please withdraw or establish beyond a reasonable doubt your accusation. Dishonesty involves the intention to deceive, not just a difference of opinion or interpretation of data.

To be more specific, you accuse him of misrepresenting others' viewpoints, if I recall correctly. In the cases that I seem to recall, it appeared that you and Cloud interpreted some third parties' positions differently. However, I, as an outside observer, could see how both you and Cloud arrived at your interpretations. Thus, Cloud is not being dishonest if he honestly represents his understanding of another's position. His accuracy and understanding may be called into question but not his integrity. This is where you err, brother.

IMHO, you are doing to Cloud the very thing that you accuse him of doing to others.

 

In no means comparing the two, but I have found that you might even say the same about the Lord Jesus.:rolleyes:

 

Huh? An extremist calling others extremists?

 

Evidences for such a harsh claim?

 

Rightfully so, and where can I find his book?:applause:

 

Are we talking about Ruckman?

He believes there are blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood, and gray aliens with clear blood. He claims the CIA implanted brain transmitters in children and old people. He claims the CIA operates underground alien breeding facilities. He claimed that there is a Government mafia out to kill him.

Nah, I wouldn't call a person like that a kook. ;)

 

Calling some one a "kook" isn't nearly as harsh as calling some one a "false prophet": take ur pick.

Oh, you already did that, but pick the other one now.

 

I'm not sure what a false prophet would be today. A false teacher, maybe? Then Ruckman qualifies. Anyone who says the differences between versions of the KJV are "advanced revelation" (Ruckman's words) is teaching falsehoods.

 

In my library.

Nothing more to add, I just wanted to increase my post count. :type:

Ed

 

You can buy either of his books on Amazon.com.

You can find one of his books on line here: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm :type:

 

Oh, good grief.

 

When he said that a fundamental Baptist seminary professor under whom I have sat denies inerrancy, he was dishonest. He knew better. When confronted on it, he merely said, "I disagree." I have seen (and used to have copies of) the correspondence between him and a fundamental Baptist pastor that I know where Cloud was plainly dishonest and was confronted on it and justified it rather than repenting.

He sows discord among the brothers over matters on which there should be charity and liberty. He shows an ungodly attitude and cantankerousness towards fellow believers.

Furthermore, he routinely draws unjustified and false conclusions about people who differ with him on the text issue. The text issue itself is a matter, to some degree, of interpretation, but not entirely.

I would make a distinction between dishonesty and being wrong, but when you are continually wrong, having been shown the truth, you can no longer pretend it is an innocent mistake.

I think Cloud has some good stuff. But his repeated false statements make it necessary to call him out so that people are warned about him, in line with the NT teaching about how to handle a schismatic.

 

What does this mean?

 

Fighting fairly

Larry, this is no proof. This is your interpretation of an interchange between Cloud and yourself. You are asking us to accept your conclusions but we see no primary source evidence. Whereas I accept your conclusions as sincere and honest, I do not necessarily accept them as true or accurate without seeing firsthand evidence. Cloud, I’m certain, would give a different perspective of the same matter.

Although Cloud takes some strong, controversial stands on issues that he believes, I have found him to be mild, civil, reserved and almost reticent in person. Speaking as one who likes to dip his pen in acid occasionally, I do not find David Cloud to be so. His writings and sermons, although strongly stated, are not like Ruckman, hateful and vicious. Can you give an example of his “ungodly attitude and cantankerousness?”

Again, this is a difference of opinion, not dishonesty.

The problem, Larry, is that you have only convinced yourself that he is blatantly wrong but you have not persuaded Cloud. You cannot judge his thoughts by your conclusions.

Yes, call him out and refute his arguments but don’t question his integrity if you have no proof. From what I’ve seen, you do not have proof that he intentionally deceives people. As stated heretofore, if you question his honesty without compelling evidence then you are doing the same to him as you accuse him of doing to others. As for Biblical principle, I’m sure that Cloud would invoke the same principle in support of his correcting those deviating from his views of Scriptural teachings. So, the bottom line is a difference of beliefs and interpretations between you and Cloud. Except by force of superior argument, you cannot claim a more Biblical stance than Mr. Cloud.

Why am I defending Cloud? Well, I have a burr in my saddle about villifying those holding views with which we strongly disagree or find repugnant. Whatever happened to the old liberal spirit of I disagree with you but I will fight for your right to hold a different opinion. It seems that we feel justified in villifying those whom we deem to be wrong. If we must fight, let's fight fairly.

 

So a headline that read "Fundamental Baptist Seminary Professor denies inerrancy" is a matter of interpretation? Come on Paid, you know better. The article was posted on a Saturday, and I emailed him about it that day and received a reply back that said "I disagree." I emailed for a response and he never responded. Sometime later, the article was removed. I lost it in a hard drive crash a few years ago.

I have never met him in person, but I have found him to be anything buy mild and reserved in writing.

No, not really. Again, one must only read his website to find these unjustified accusations. He accuses people of compromising on the Bible becuase they use a modern translation. That is a false accusation and, after having been confronted with the truth and persisting, dishonesty.
.

I am not. I am judging his thoughts by his writing.

So what is it when he states something that he has been told is not true? I have furnished compelling evidence on a number of occasions. I could go back and do it now were I willing to take the time. It would not be good stewardship however.

I completely agree. When Cloud fights, it is not fair. He is welcome to his opinion. He is not welcome to the opinions of others to use and distort them as he wishes. Furthermore, truth is at stake.


In the end, I have no problem that Cloud differs from me. I find his argumentation lacking seriously. I find his exegesis to be stilted at best. And I find his theology greatly lacking in the area of Bible translations since it does not actually deal with Scripture. But I don't care about that.

I do care that he attacks other fundamentalists who differ with him and make unjustified and false accusations. That is unacceptable and every single believer should be calling on Cloud to repent of these tactics.

 

Quick thoughts

No, Larry, I don’t know better in the sense that you mean. I suspect that Cloud was probably basing his headline on inference and implication, although I don’t specifically recall the article to which you refer. You should know better. Many times, commentators or reviewers base their critiques on inferences and implications. One may argue that this is not a good practice but one cannot necessarily call it dishonesty which must involve the intent to deceive.

Would you show me some of his malicious writing, please?

Larry, you don’t seem to get the point that this is disagreement, not dishonesty. Your accusation against Cloud is false, IHMO. I’m having as difficult time making my point with you as you had convincing Cloud. Now, does this give me the right to call you dishonest because you refuse to acquiesce to my view?

Okay, please show me a quote that indicates he intends to deceive folks.

It could mean that he doesn’t believe you and he still believes that it is true.

Evidently it is not compelling evidence for Cloud and I haven’t seen any compelling evidence in several voluminous posts. So, the strength of your statement is nothing more than unsupported personal opinion. All excuses aside, one ought not make statements or accusations that one cannot or is unwilling to back up with evidence.

Now, Larry, be real. You should know better here, I believe. I cannot believe that a man of your intelligence and education would be naïve enough to think I was referring to Cloud. I was speaking of your fighting fairly. This was readily apparent from my post but you turned my meaning upon its head. You speak of truth, yet you have completely distorted my sense meanwhile vilifying Cloud for supposedly twisting the words of others. You said: “He is welcome to his opinion. He is not welcome to the opinions of others to use and distort them as he wishes. Furthermore, truth is at stake.”

Now, isn’t this exactly what you did to my post? I ask you candidly: Did you not understand that my post referred to your fighting fairly, not Cloud? Did you deliberately or unintentionally misconstrue my post? You call the shot.

Then, why do you post criticism against him?

[/color]I think you are begging the question here. Not all agree with your assessment. In fact, I am persuaded that Cloud’s attacks on others are no worse than your attack on him. If your behavior is acceptable, then Cloud is also within the limits of argumentation and debate regardless of any unpopular opinions that he may hold.

And, Larry, I haven't impugned your character or integrity in my disagreement with you. Thanks for your time and responses.

 

When you headline an article "Seminary professor denies inerrancy," that is something that means something. And when your article quotes said professor saying he believes in inerrancy, you have lied. CLoud did not say anything about implications or inferences. Why would Cloud say this seminary professor denied inerrancy when in fact he doesn't and Cloud knew he didn't?

Some of it had to do with the FBF meeting several years ago that sticks out in my mind. I can't recall exact articles of others. As I say, it is frequently sprinkled throughout his writings.

It is a disagreement when you say "So and so believes this and I disagree with him." It is dishonest when you say "So and so believes this" when so and so doesn't believe that. I can't help but thing you are the one not getting the point here.

The difference is in the validity of the points. You are disagreeing with my position. You are not being dishonest about my position. Cloud was dishonest about the position of another, and he knew he was dishonest about it.

When he said a professor denied inerrancy.

His own article refuted his headline. Furthermore, the fact that he believes it is true does not mean that it is.

But he is not objective and has a tendency to dismiss anything he doesn't already agree with or anything that makes him look bad.

No, it has been supported.

I am able and was willing. I have done it before. I don't believe it would be a good use of my time to go back and do it again now.

No, I knew you were talking about me, but I was using your position to argue that Cloud should be held to the same standard. I don't think I am fighting unfairly. In fact, I am not even fighting really. I made a few observations. Folks can check for themselves.

I knew you were referring to me. But I was pointing out that Cloud is guilty of what you accused me of doing.

To warn people that he is not entirely trustworthy on some issues, and to warn them about is divisiveness and critical spirit.

Of course not. But they should :D ... Seriously, I think if we take an honest look at the facts, we can assert that Cloud's position, while demonstrably wrong or at least inadequate, is not the problem I am addressing. I am concerned with how he addresses the issue.

I think what I have said and what Cloud has said are two very different things.

Never thought you did, and I have no problem with what has been said here. I hope I haven't impugned your integrity or character. I certainly have not intended to.

I think I will bow out here. Thanks for the conversation.