What does Ruckmannite mean?

Amen! In a spirit of humility and love!

-kman

 

2 Tim 2:24-26 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

You want more or do you stick by your request for one?

One can stand for the truth without being rude, crude, abrasive, and crusty. And that is what we should be. We are to "speak the truth in love" (Eph 4:15). The "love" part of it so often gets left out as does the "truth" part of it. The Bible (whether KJV or not) is not a book we can pick and choose from. It is not okay to stand for the truth with an unloving demeanor. It is impossible to truly love without standing for the truth.

 

I am in 100% agreement. I could not have said it any better. Is there any way we can make this comment the first post of every thread that is started?

 

Pastor Larry,
I am not saying to use harsh condemnation to a babe in Christ or to one that does not know better that would do more harm than good but to a person that should know better and is spreading false doctrine and/or teaching others that God's Word cannot be understood by the common man, THIS MUST BE PUBLICALLY AND HARSHLY DEALT WITH.
Jesus,Paul,Moses and Stephen all condemmed the Pharisees and false teachers not only for their personal belief but because they led nations astray, primarily because of their influence on others.
And I asked for a reference to a believer in the OT or NT that was teaching false doctrine or belief(that knew better) that was handled gently and lovingly.
Thanks for replying..

 

But not through unbiblical means. First, the doctrine must be false. Most the people that Ruckman treats in such manner are teaching the doctrine of the church for 2000 years. It is only in the last few years (30 or so) that this new doctrine that Ruckman defends has sprung up contrary to Scripture.

That men condemned Pharisees and false teachers is true. That they did it using profanity and generally undecent language is not. That they did it to people who held to biblical doctrine is not.

Many people for years have tried to approach Ruckman, both in person and in print, to urge him to repent of his false teaching and his method of presentation. He has resisted all those attempts. Titus 3:10-11 instructs to deal with those people in this way: Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

Ruckman is factious, dividing the people of God over a non-biblical issue and teaching false doctrine. He has used profanity, crudity, rudeness, misrepresentation, and the like to communicate that. That is why we as believers who love God and his truth should be willing to stand up for the sake of the truth and correct and rebuke and separate. But we do not have to be ugly about it. We can be forthright, truthful, and firm in love.

 

Again Larry most of what you said is not true.I believe you told me on another thread that you had read Ruckmans autobiography.He doesn't have one. Ruckman does not teach false doctrine.That is untrue.Some of these teachings seem far fetched,but just study some of them in depth,like angels being 33 and one half year old males,demons,and the antichrist.We have followed the traditions of men for so long that when someone teaches something different everyone flips out. A lot of things on this thread that have been said that Ruckman teaches is false,but some of it is true.Study it for yourself,using the kjv1611 of course,that could be the problem,a lot of you are using the wrong book.

 

You may think this a nit.

IMO Ruckman himself does not fully endorse the
1611KJV because he spells Jesus with a "J".

The 1611KJV spells His name "Iesus" with an "I".

HankD

[ August 21, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Ruckman's autobiography, "The Full Cup", is available for the low low price of $13.95 on his website.

And here we see true Ruckmanism at work - where his followers defend even the most ridiculous doctrines, not because they come from Scripture, but because they come from Ruckman. This is why Ruckmanism, despite being so ridiculous, thrives in certain circles. Sad, really.

Which are false? They all have references.

Sorry, no giant negros walking off of UFOs and kissing people in my KJV. Which edition do you have?

 

KEVO: "I believe you told me on another thread that you had read Ruckmans autobiography.He doesn't have one."

http://www.kjv1611.org/PSR.htm

 

It is interesting KEVO, how strongly you defend Ruckman without knowing what those of us who do not profess this allegiance know. How is it that we know more than you do?? Could it perhaps lend credibility to some of the other things we are saying?

I have heard the reasons for the 33 year old arguments. They are not biblical arguments, no matter which version of the Bible you use.

The version is not the problem. It goes far deeper than that. When someone can deal frivously with God's word and God's command, it will not have a positive affect on his ministry. There will be some followers, but there will never be the full blessing of God. One cannot trifle with the word of God and expect to get away with it.

 

I am sure that a person could find somthing wrong with anybody;man is not Infalble. However, any man that stands for the KJV as the final authority will be branded a heritic.

 

If that were the only issue then there would be no problem.

However, to call other honest translations by men just as worthy as the KJV translators "perversions" (amongst other statements) then we may very well have an heretic.

HankD

 

That's right. Dr. Waite and David Cloud stand
for the KJV. They've been branded heritics (or
the like) by Ruckman and crew.

An example of how Ruckman treats KJV defender
David Cloud:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/discussion.htm

===========================================

by David Cloud
---------------
I, for one, am not an "adversary of that Holy Book." I have never questioned one word in the King James Bible nor have I encouraged anyone else to do so. Even so, Ruckman has treated me as an apostate and a fool in his paper. Consider a couple of examples --

"Peter Ruckman ... is the Lord's 'junkyard dog' for biting the britches out of conceited asses like David Cloud that don't have enough real knowledge about the contents of the Book to put into the left eye of a blind mosquito" (Bible Believer's Bulletin, November 1994).

"... you little lying rascal, you. ... you lying little hypocrite ... Davey, ole son, you need to get you a sail stitcher's needle and puncture your inflated ego. ... you buttery, smook, slick, mush-mouthed sissy ... The wimps all talk alike if you analyze them. ... Correction, Davey! You smooth, slick, little, fluctuating compromiser ... A puffed-up, conceited ass cannot stand to have his balloon punctured" (Bible Believer's Bulletin, November 1994).

=================================================

[ August 22, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

If that were the only issue then there would be no problem.

However, to call other honest translations by men just as worthy as the KJV translators "perversions" (amongst other statements) then we may very well have an heretic.

HankD</font>[/QUOTE]That IS the only issue! He is PRO-KJV.Anybody that causes "waves" in the defence of the KJV issue will be "raked over the coals."

 

Even the KJV translators and its revisers? They never claimed direct inspiration over their choice of words. In fact, they denied it. How can an imperfect group of men who are not under direct inspiration create something perfect?

 

I encourage you to read what is being said here. His KJV stance is only one issue among many. There are multiple other issues (doctrine, morality, decency, etc.). We have been very clear about this. There are men with equally abberant doctrine who use MVs whom we regularly expose when the topic comes up.

As for the KJV as final authority and being branded heretics, it is a matter of exclusivity. I have no problem with someone who says the KJV is the final authority, provided that by that they mean the KJV as a accurate translation of God's word. If they are exclusive, that the KJV is the only final authority, then there is a problem.

 

Easy, they were inspired of God 2 Tim 3:16.. I stand on the KJV As the only Word of God,Ruckman or not. Most people have a problem with that.Oh well....

 

The KJV translators were inspired of God???

 

Japtheth, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KJV! I love the KJV. Go to http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/RuckamnHymers2.htm
spend a little time to read it and come back here and tell me he doesn't teach false doctrine.

 

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This scripture does not single out the KJV as the only English version that communicates God's inspired Word. The KJV translators are not prophets nor holy men of old nor were they operating under apostolic authority. They were nothing more nor less than the best scholars the Church of England had in the early 1600's. Their word and textual choices were no more nor less inspired than the word and textual choices made by the NASB translators. They may or may not be the correct choices but they are not inspired in the sense that Paul's word choices were inspired.

This verse applies other good translations every bit as much as it does the KJV.