Timeline of Peter Ruckman's Life

The Underground Church

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
1921 - born
c. 1965-2016 - played the fool
2016 - his works tested and burned like wood, hay, and stubble
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,170
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Glad to see that Ruckman still causes these whack's to spend time promoting him to their people.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,170
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Sorry, I won't be joining Petey in hell.
So you're saying none of your works will burn at the Judgement Seat?

You must be special.
 

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Sorry, I won't be joining Petey in hell.
?

The video by OP is all Ad Hominem except for the point about teaching works salvation in the trib (where I do think Ruckman erred).

Should we also reject the throne of David, the murdering adulterer, along with the entire book of Psalms? Maybe we should only listen to preachers with bad doctrine since the devil never attacks them nearly as intensely.

"Hey, God may hate Pharisees but if their history appears spotless and they massage my holier than thou pride, they can watch the super bowl at my house." -same logic
 

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Should we also reject the throne of David, the murdering adulterer, along with the entire book of Psalms?
David wasn't perfect, but he was penitent.

Did Petey repent of his false teachings? You did acknowledge that he had some. The Bible does say, after all, that teachers who lead people astray incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).

Heck, did Petey even believe in the necessity of repentance? Quite frankly, the man was so insignificant that I can't be bothered to find out where he fell on the whole Antinomian Salvation controversy.
 

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Did Petey repent of his false teachings? You did acknowledge that he had some. The Bible does say, after all, that teachers who lead people astray incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).

Heck, did Petey even believe in the necessity of repentance? Quite frankly, the man was so insignificant that I can't be bothered to find out where he fell on the whole Antinomian Salvation controversy.
"Petey" had far more sound doctrine in his teachings than most. By the way, how would you define repentance? Because the majority use of that word today is wrong.
 

illinoisguy

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
11
Points
18
I am a former IFB, and one of the reasons I do not care to go back to that movement is because I was tired of being browbeaten over my lack of support for, or interest in, Petey. I object to the entire system of hero worship in the IFB movement, especially when we are required to become followers of crackpots who are extremists in their doctrine and disreputable in their personal lives, like Petey, Gail the Ripper, Jackie-Boy Hyles, etc. How does having these people rammed down my throat all the time help me to be a better Christian? Why are these people so high-and-mighty important, that it becomes necessary to keep on promoting them and proselytizing on their behalf, even though these personality cults are divisive and cause many people to stay away from the IFB movement? This stuff about the glories of Petey keeps coming up again and again and again - how does this help to promote the progress of God's Kingdom or our sanctification as Christians? Sorry about the rant, but as President Reagan might have said, I've had it up to my keister (kiester?) with all this hero worship of people who are nothing but an embarrassment to fundamentalist Christianity.
 

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
"Petey" had far more sound doctrine in his teachings than most.
I'd never know, because I don't go to insult comics for my theology.

By the way, how would you define repentance? Because the majority use of that word today is wrong.
I define it the correct and biblical way: a God-given regret for one's sin and an earnest desire to turn to God for deliverance from it, resulting in a change of conduct.
 

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
I'd never know, because I don't go to insult comics for my theology.
If you don't know something how do you already know it's wrong

I define it the correct and biblical way: a God-given regret for one's sin and an earnest desire to turn to God for deliverance from it, resulting in a change of conduct.
"Regret or remorse" is one of 3 different variants translated from Greek to "repent" in the NT. Not once is it used in reference to eternal salvation. The correct word is "metanoia", which means a change of mind.

Here, I timestamped this where I give a direct example from scripture that shows repentance for salvation is the opposite of your interpretation (example given @22:21). You just cited the Lordship Salvation interpretation, which all Baptists outside the SBC (and even many in the SBC) disagree with as a majority. Unless you are already saved, if you rely on your current interpretation of salvation, you, not Petey, will be the one in hot water. Except without the water.

 
Last edited:

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
I am a former IFB, and one of the reasons I do not care to go back to that movement is because I was tired of being browbeaten over my lack of support for, or interest in, Petey. I object to the entire system of hero worship in the IFB movement, especially when we are required to become followers of crackpots who are extremists in their doctrine and disreputable in their personal lives, like Petey, Gail the Ripper, Jackie-Boy Hyles, etc. How does having these people rammed down my throat all the time help me to be a better Christian?
I was never in the IFB and I don't worship Petey, in fact I share certain disagreements with him. I actually grew up in Nondenominational churches in South Carolina (conservative) and California (liberal) that were not under the same unbiblical cultural strongholds as the IFB. We used the ESV and NIV.

Then I studied these issues independently for myself after getting out of the Air Force (where we're trained to have attention to detail where if we assess data wrong, people can die) and came to the personal conclusion that the hard facts show the KJV is the most accurate English translation (and wherever you may fall on the spectrum of Ruckman's position that it is perfect, or even gives "advanced revelation", doesn't change the fact that it is at least the most accurate), and after considering both sides (which, by bias I would've preferred to stay in the comfort zone of non-denominationalism and new versions, but I set my biases aside) it was so blatantly obvious Gail Riplinger was politically smeared by the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (bling bling) and their fallacious arguments that I couldn't willingly continue with their delusion just because it was popular. An overwhelming amount of Gail's evidence was never properly addressed and remains solidly intact. As does Dr. Jack Moorman's.

I never cared or know anything about Hyles, I've only heard bad things. Your post actually only proves my usual points against some of the unbiblical cultural aspects of the IFB that some of their legalistic traditions and "browbeating" as you testify to are scaring many away from the truth. It causes people to throw out the baby (truth) with the bathwater. Imagine if these guys came across more professionally and less "junkyard dog", then people might take what they say to heart instead of associating their method of delivery with the message itself (Ad Hominem, but that's just how most people are). "These people were rammed down my throat" yeah that's why I didn't jump in and completely adopt their culture. And it's one reason my friends and I started the UGC podcast.

We have to realize intellectuals who are the true geniuses on these issues do not typically come with a strongly empathetic feeler personality (and btw, no one, not even those who disagree with him entirely, dispute that Dr. Ruckman was a genius, and if you read his books it's obvious he studied and knew scripture on a completely refined level). Thinkers live in a different realm and can err by ignoring or hurting others' feelings.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
"Regret or remorse" is one of 3 different variants translated from Greek to "repent" in the NT. Not once is it used in reference to eternal salvation. The correct word is "metanoia", which means a change of mind.
Which is the literal meaning of metanoia, but I'm sure you know as well as I that it's an exegetical fallacy to insist the original or literal meaning of a term is the "correct" one.

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?

You just cited the Lordship Salvation interpretation, which all Baptists outside the SBC (and even many in the SBC) disagree with as a majority.
You must live in a very small pond. The debate over antinomian salvation is basically nonexistent outside of a small circle of Dispensationalist fundies.
 

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Ransom, your arguments are that of Lordship Salvation. You've taken the definition of repentance and totally distorted it to fit your interpretation, along with your examples. Try watching my video again.

Rather than trusting that Christ paid for your sins, you think you have to be the one to turn from them. Did he pay for them all or are there still some left for you to turn from that he missed? Who's saving you? Half you, half Christ? This is why you had to twist plain and simple terms out of their obvious, elementary, literal meaning to force-fit them into your self-righteous philosophy. You have lost sight of the simplicity that is in Christ: the gospel is simple, it is not nuanced or scholarly as deeper doctrines might be.

By your definition, almost all Baptists are antinomian. Keep in mind even Apostle Paul was accused of the same thing, which is the very reason he constantly had to reaffirm that just because eternal life is a free gift doesn't mean it's also a license to sin, otherwise he wouldn't have had to reaffirm this if they weren't accusing the true gospel of being "antinomian": antinomianism in it's proper context entails living however you want after you get saved, which is not the Baptists', nor Paul's stance, but we do not change the gospel just because of these false accusations.

As far as living in a "small pond", you should read my response to illionoisguy right above your post to see just how silly this nonsensical conjecture is. Btw, Dispensationalism is the dominant view held by Baptists as a whole, because we recognize a distinction between national Israel and the church and strive to take the Bible literally when it is literal, without twisting or overcomplicating it to fit our own private desires.

Not only that: many
outside the Baptists are Dispensational: take Biola University or Dallas Theological Seminary (home to one of the most widely recognized American theologians of the 20th and 21st centuries: Dr. Charles Ryrie (RIP), who was Dispensational but NOT a Baptist KJV guy). "nonexistent outside a small circle of Dispensational fundies" are you sure you're not the insult comedian? Because this is a joke. That or you're just here to discredit truth.

What camp do you espouse? Calvinism ("New" Baptists of the SBC)? Arminianism (Charismatic perhaps)? Because I tell you right as rain you are not in the big pond of the traditional Baptists.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Ransom, your arguments are that of Lordship Salvation.
Sounds fine to me. Since Jesus is Lord, and nothing can make him not Lord, it's only by his Lordship that anyone can be saved at all.

You've taken the definition of repentance and totally distorted it to fit your interpretation, along with your examples.
These would be the examples you failed to interact with at all, right?

Since you ignored them, may I feel free to ignore your arguments as well? I notice, for example, that this post is rather light on Scripture. In fact, it was nonexistent.

What camp do you espouse? Calvinism ("New" Baptists of the SBC)? Arminianism (Charismatic perhaps)? Because I tell you right as rain you are not in the big pond of the traditional Baptists.
I take the Second London Baptist Confession as my doctrinal position. I dare say I'm probably a lot more "traditional," therefore, than your "traditional Baptists," whatever those are.
 

Ransom

Pronouns: My Liege
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Rather than trusting that Christ paid for your sins, you think you have to be the one to turn from them.
Sure, by the grace of God.

Peter, answering those critics who accused him of eating with the uncircumcised, explains that God has given the Gospel to the Gentiles, asking: "So if God gave them the same gift as He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder the work of God?" (Acts 11:17). To which they responded:

When they heard this, their objections were put to rest, and they glorified God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance [metanoia] unto life." (Acts 11:18)​

Paul instructs Timothy to correct his opponents gently, because "God may perhaps grant them repentance [metanoia] leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:25).

So that thing, metanoia, that Peter told the Pentecost hearers to do (and I remind you that you have still not told us what he was telling them to do), is affirmed by multiple Scriptures to be a gift of God. If it is a work, it is not a meritorious one, but a product of divine grace.

To quote the LBCF:

This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, does, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self–abhorrancy, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well–pleasing in all things.(15.iii)​

Note:

  • Saving repentance is an "evangelical grace." It is a grace of the Gospel itself. If repentance is of grace, then it is not of works (Romans 11;6).
  • It is an act of the Holy Spirit. As we've seen from Acts 11:18 and 2 Tim. 2:25, repentance comes from God's initiative, not man's. What is begun by the Spirit is not perfected by the flesh (Gal. 3:3).
  • It is faith in Christ that brings about godly sorrow. And godly sorrow "brings repentance [metanoia] that leads to salvation and leaves no regret" (2 Cor. 7:10). Despite the cavils of the lordless salvationists, repentance is an act of faith, not of works.
  • I asked previously what Peter was telling his hearers to turn from and turn to (Acts 3:11). You avoided the question. The confession supplies the answer: he turns from the "manifold evils of his sin," and turns to "walk[ing] before God unto all well-pleasing in all things."
  • This, again, is a grace supplied by the Spirit. It is not of human origin.

And that is the meaning of biblical repentance.
 

UGC

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
7
Points
8
To quote the LBCF:

This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, does, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self–abhorrancy, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well–pleasing in all things.(15.iii)​
Yeah this is wrong. At least it's closer than many Lordship Salvation doctrinal statements, but it still includes self-abhorrancy and "prayer for pardon" which are not part of the Gospel of Grace, which comes by simple faith in the finished work of the cross (which may then be followed by prayer telling God you accept his gift and trust what Christ did as sufficient to cover it all, but not with asking him to pardon you, for why would you request pardon if you already believe what he did was sufficient to cover it all: it's a contradictory notion). Whoever is in charge of this, tell them UGC called and admonished them to straighten out their doctrine, and if anyone wants a friendly debate, find a way to contact us and we will politely oblige.

Dispensationalism goes back to the early church fathers, and to many of the Anabaptists, long before your "LBCF". Take Irenaeus for example (2nd Century), who in Against Heresies (V.XXIX.1) said "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be,'" in defense of a pre-trib rapture thousands of years before Non-dispensationalists imagined the idea that "Darby invented it in the 1800's".

Even Augustine, of all people, began as a Dispensationalist:

Augustine, To Marcellinus, CXXXVIII, chapter 1, section 5:

"The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him."

Finally, it would literally waste time to address all of your verse citations individually when 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.
 
Last edited:
Top