Timeline of Peter Ruckman's Life

[Ransom]

And again: I addressed it thoroughly in post #81 of this thread,

UG is retarded.
"Thoroughly" is not one verse.
I asked four questions.

Ruckman's character
is reflected by his drones.
Dumbest cult ever.

If metanoia means a change of mind, what does that entail?


When Peter told the people at Pentecost to "repent metanoesate, the verb form of metanoia] and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38), what (not counting being baptized) was he telling them they were to do?


Similarly, when he told the crowd at the Temple to "repent [metanoesate], therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you" (Acts 3:10-11), what did he mean they should do?


While we're at it, when he told them to "turn back," what was he telling them to a) turn back from and b) turn back to?


When Paul told the Athenians that "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent [metanoeo]" (Acts 17:30), what was he saying God commanded them to do?

 

[Ransom]

I'm reliably
told that Ruckmanites should like
my new avatar.

 

[Ransom]

Great googly moogly.
Look at UG's obfuscation.
All to avoid this:

If metanoia means a change of mind, what does that entail?


When Peter told the people at Pentecost to "repent metanoesate, the verb form of metanoia] and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38), what (not counting being baptized) was he telling them they were to do?


Similarly, when he told the crowd at the Temple to "repent [metanoesate], therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you" (Acts 3:10-11), what did he mean they should do?


While we're at it, when he told them to "turn back," what was he telling them to a) turn back from and b) turn back to?


When Paul told the Athenians that "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent [metanoeo]" (Acts 17:30), what was he saying God commanded them to do?

 

[UGC]

Denial.

 

[Ransom]

"Denial": UG's mom
Taught UGgy a brand new word.
He'll annoy us all.

 

[bruinboy]

Just my .02. I would never listen to a person, who is stupid enough to go into a war of wits with Ransom unarmed,would produce.

 

[Edwards]

Just my .02. I would never listen to a person, who is stupid enough to go into a war of wits with Ransom unarmed,would produce.

I agree. The thing is - this individual is attempting to get us to come to his blog or podcast or something when he can't even answer the simple question that Ransom asked.

 

[UGC]

(...)

Let's see shall we, clown?

Is it in fact true that I "didn't answer" Ransom's questions on metanoia?


FROM MY POST, #20:

the original definition of metanoia/metanoeo still stands for every verse in the NT dealing with eternal salvation without having to eisegetically wrest any of them out of context just to fit your late LBCF. Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide. It wouldn't matter if the Queen of England declared repentance of sins a necessary part of London's official soteriological doctrine: it's still not in the Bible for eternal life.

Also, it's clear from your citations and interpretations that you are not practiced in rightly dividing the word (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) according to situational context, audience, and/or timeframe (probably because you're a non-Dispensationalist: there's your foundational problem), but perhaps worse, your exercising of logic is rather weak. Again, you have taken the eisegetical approach, using the LBCF as your foundation and then shoehorning its context into the Bible rather than starting with scripture by which you then judge whether the LBCF aligns with scripture (which it obviously doesn't in this particular area for anyone well-practiced in logic). Additionally, "Lordship Salvation" is not OK just because "Jesus is Lord". That's a kindergarten argument.

If Jesus is Lord, you would listen to what he said about salvation, which is that it is a free gift, which cannot be earned by our works, and since sin is the transgression of the law, if you are making an effort or promising to make an effort to abstain from (turn from) sin, you are making a commitment to the law instead of changing your mind (metanoia) from works toward grace (Hebrews 6:1). If you can't get past this simple first step, it proves my point that your exercising of logic is weak and we cannot continue into further complexities until you get the basics down: we can't put the cart before the horse. Again, get a professional representative for the London Baptists if need be, I have no issue engaging in a friendly doctrinal discussion with them.

FROM MY POST, #30:

did you finish the video I posted first? Because the example passage I gave there should have cleared up your new definition of the word before your post that followed... because the original definition of metanoia still works for them without having to consider your new definition of the word: simply go back and read the verses dealing with eternal salvation in the church age using the original, proper definition and there is no "repentance of sins" for eternal salvation, as this would contradict Paul's statements on salvation by Grace.

FROM MY POST, #81:

I already addressed your metanoia issue, but since you kept refusing to see that, I'll address some of it in further detail now. I shouldn't have to spoon feed everything when anyone can study Dispensationalism on their own, and I certainly am not obligated to do it on your timeline, or at all.

Acts 3:14-19 (KJV):
"...19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

He is speaking specifically to Israel here and telling them they "denied" and "killed" their Messiah. They must repent therefore (because they did this) and be converted (believe on their Messiah) that their sins may be blotted out WHEN THE TIMES OF REFRESHING SHALL COME (they had not come yet). Israel is being giving another chance here, even after rejecting and giving up their Messiah for crucifixion, to repent and accept him as their Messiah, by which then the Gospel of the Kingdom (Jesus spoke of when walking on the earth) would have been put into full effect and they would have had to endure in this faith into the Millennial Kingdom, where the times of refreshing shall come in the presence of the Lord.

Acts is a transitional book, and what then happened was Israel as a nation rejected their Messiah a final time with the stoning of Stephen in the chapters following this one, which caused them to be scattered in Acts 8. God then called and trained Paul and revealed the mysteries to him that were kept hidden from prophecy prior (mystery vs. prophecy: can be studied in Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, though I do not agree Paul was the first person in the body nor with hyper-dividing entire books away from Paul). These mysteries included the mystery Gospel of Grace (the "what" Jesus did: pay for sins on the cross: the mystery Gospel of Grace, Rom. 16:25, vs. the previous "who" Jesus was for Israel: "Jesus is your Messiah, you just messed it up Israel, repent and be converted to endure in your faith in him into the refreshing Millennial Kingdom": the Gospel of the Kingdom).

Also around this time we see God calling and saving the first Gentiles in Acts as the transition from Israel's scattering and temporary blinding (Rom. 11) begins and the move to provide the Gospel of Grace to the entire Gentile world "through their fall" (Rom. 11) begins, with mystery instructions for this parenthetical Church Age (DISPENSATIONALISM) being revealed to Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who magnifies his office to them. During this Church Age, we are not under the New Covenant as Covenant Theologians would like to believe. That has been put on hold. The New Covenant will be instituted in the Millennial Kingdom (read Hebrews 8)...

This is why you guys really need to study Dispensationalism. It is way deeper and more accurate to scripture than covenant theologians who are like "Old Covenant, New Covenant, that's it. Unity. Sameness. Yay." It's not that simple. The mysteries must be divided from prophecy, and I'm not going to explain why, go back and read or do a keyword search in the KJV in all the Pauline Epistles for passages on the mysteries and read them in context.

I do believe I've provided plenty of info in here and I'm not obligated to give you doctrinal lessons on anything when I had to pray and study to find these things in my own time, and so should you. I did feel some conviction to show some proper respect to Ruckman, who even though I don't entirely agree with, and certainly never "idolized" or "worshipped" the guy, the man was nevertheless a genius and knew scripture better than all of these Covenant Theologians, and a certain aspect of his legacy deserves to be heard in its proper context when attacked for being in hell by someone who doesn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Grace and the Gospel of the Kingdom.

FROM MY POST, #35:

I answered your questions in my previous post.. Here, let me repost it for you

FROM MY POST, #37:

Your question was answered.

FROM MY POST, #39:

I just did that in post #35 of this thread. I'll also post this again [video] as it was referenced as my first answer to that definition of repentance in #35

AND EVEN MORE ON METANOIA FROM MY POST, #28:

Notice how in the passage you cited, godly sorrow was what led them to repentance, but the repentance itself is not godly sorrow, otherwise you'd have to read it as "godly sorrow led them to godly sorrow", which is why you don't change the definition of repentance to fit your doctrine, you change your mind to fit the doctrine in the Bible. More importantly what did their sorrow save them from? 2 Cor 7:9 tells us: "for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing." Paul had authority to tell the Corinthians to hand the fornicator over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, but not the authority to unseal him and send him to hell. Eternal security. Then it says they are cleared, not of their sin debt for eternal life (since Christ did that, because mankind's efforts in turning from their sin could not), but they are cleared "in this matter" (2 Cor. 7:11)...

Also, do remember that repentance is always translated from 1 of 3 Greek words in the NT, and it is not always speaking in context of eternal salvation. Consequences for church age saints continuing in sin can even include physical death of the body (1 Cor. 3:17), while the soul that is already saved will remain eternally secure (2 Tim. 2:18-19 KJV)

So unless you're blind or refuse to read, your argument and false definition of metanoia was already completely refuted. As was your ridiculous misapplication of motte and bailey (read my post, #78).

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lol, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending, of all FFF posters, Ransom. Could it be that someone has done something that no other poster in the history of the forum has ever done? Unite the FFF??? Who could possibly ever pull off such a monumental feat? Well,....

Could it be Satan?

 

[illinoisguy]

For someone who is "not even a Ruckmanite," Mr. UGC sure does keep bringing up Ruckman all the time.

First Century AD carnal Christianity: "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas."
21st Century AD carnal Christianity: "I am of Hyles, and I of Gothard, and I of Ruckman."

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to say it in polished, literary haiku form.

 

[UGC]

Lol, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending, of all FFF posters, Ransom. Could it be that someone has done something that no other poster in the history of the forum has ever done? Unite the FFF??? Who could possibly ever pull off such a monumental feat? Well,....

Could it be Satan?

First of all, there's barely been anyone speaking up in here, you're not uniting anything, you're just a black sheep dumb enough to speak out against the finished work of the cross.
That's because all the real Baptists reading this know you're making yourself look like morons by coming onto a Fundamental Baptist forum and trying to argue against the most Fundamental doctrine of the faith: the Gospel of Grace.

You want to try and unite your tiny fringe group against God and his way of Salvation, then you ask who's of Satan? Here, I'll help: it's you. You worship your own offended feelings at the cost of going to hell instead of submitting to the Word, because you're arrogant and you want to be your own God, you don't want to believe what the Bible plainly and clearly says: even a 5th grader can understand the Gospel, but you somehow can't.

Is this a "Fundamental" Baptist forum or not? Why are all those "Fundamental" Baptist Colleges listed in this forum if you think the Gospel of Salvation they preach from the Bible is of Satan?

You do realize Ransom has been arguing for one of the biggest heresies in the Baptist church: Lordship Salvation, do you not? You do realize I am defending the word of God and your only ticket out of hell, do you not?

You hate the Bible and what Jesus Christ did for you on the cross that much. Insane.

For someone who is "not even a Ruckmanite," Mr. UGC sure does keep bringing up Ruckman all the time.

he mentions Ruckman 12 times in a single post. Maybe it's just me, but this is the kind of cultic hero worship

Lol you are one of the biggest liars on this forum.

I wrote a condensed version of my church history growing up in post #52 and you literally sat there, ignored everything I said, and counted every time the word "Ruckman" was mentioned, even though he was brought up to point out that I was never in the IFB, or studied under him at PBI, nor attended his church a single time: I never even met the guy. I grew up on the opposite side of the country: in liberal California going to large Korean nondenominational churches: how on earth did you conflate this with the IFB or Ruckman? Are you mentally challenged?

"He keeps bringing up Ruckman all the time" Hey blind man: read the topic of this thread. It's about the Doc. He's going to be brought up sometime, but that doesn't automatically make the person bringing him up a Ruckmanite.

You live in a black and white little world of your own imagination.
THIS IS YOU: "If someone is defending someone, that makes him part of their group!" Really? So let's say you guys were trying to accuse white people of not being able to jump, and I provide an example of a professional white athlete who can jump exceedingly high. Does that automatically make me that athlete's fan? Since you don't have a brain, let me help: No. No it does not. More importantly: does that make anyone who defends his ability to jump "in a cult"?

Let me tell you something: you're the one in a cult. You think everyone who doesn't think and believe the same way as you is in a cult. That's a cult.

 

[UGC]

This is for everyone else reading who wants reassurance on the true, Biblical definition of repentance:

It's one of the best sermons out there clearing the entire issue up. Of course, only for those with the patience and humility to actually be able to sit through all of it and learn, meaning not these 2 or 3 bozos posting in here.

I'm glad the majority of us who are saved know that Jesus' payment was sufficient to cover it all, and that Salvation is not of ourselves (Eph. 2:8).

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lol, dude, don't take yourself so seriously. Nobody else is.

You keep assuming things about people and you know what they say about people who assume.?

Correcting just a few of your errant preconceptions...

1) I ain't easily offended, by your wrong assumptions, nor any dissenting opinions.

2) I am a King James guy.

3) I frequently, for years now, have disagreed with Ransom, sometimes extremely harshly. Until very recently he had "honored" <ahem> me in his tag line (which is his way of mocking posters) by quoting me.

4) I absolutely loathe "everybody gets a trophy" crap and have written on this forum of such

5) You ain't the only one here with post grad education

6) Calling Edwards a "kid" is absolutely stinkin' hilarious! He's a retired Methodist gospel centered minister that could weave circles of Grace around you!

I will stop there, because spilling more ink/type for you is undoubtedly a waste of correction.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Mmhm. Because using POKEMON and Harry Potter gifs and Scooby Doo PEZ Dispenser images is definitely the mark of someone who "takes himself seriously".

No, it's obvious that you take yourself too seriously to anybody who reads your own pompous-sounding rhetoric.

....stop acting like tribal apes and rushing in to the defend a person just because he's been here longer.

It has nothing to do with who has been here longer, nothing. It has everything to do with the way you present information. You condescend, lecture, and finger-wave. I don't look for respect from such individuals.


Yes, you are presumptuous, as amply demonstrated, and unable to be civil, nor engage in dialogue rather than monologue. You can continue down that road, but it ain't gonna help you here, or in real life discussion either.

 

[voicecrying]

OK, whose sock is UGC?

 

[ALAYMAN]

OK, whose sock is UGC?

LOL, I am not trying to needle anybody here, really I'm not, but I literally did think that might be the case. The answers are so way over the top, it's just too much!

 

[ALAYMAN]

...

 

[voicecrying]

LOL, I am not trying to needle anybody here, really I'm not, but I literally did think that might be the case. The answers are so way over the top, it's just too much!

I agree, or the quarantine done drove him batty. Any cases of COVID-19 in your kneck of the woods? They've had 2 in my county.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I agree, or the quarantine done drove him batty. Any cases of COVID-19 in your kneck of the woods? They've had 2 in my county.

Your cases are closer than the other cases east of us in Gallia county, it's right by the river....bleed over from the case in West Virginia.

 

[UGC]

"He's making me read full paragraphs."

Hey "voicecrying"... what gender are you?

*mic drop*

Haha, yes. My imaginary internet crowd is laughing at you.

POWER.... I FEEEEL THE KEYBOARD POWER....





Welcome to the club. You get it.