Timeline of Peter Ruckman's Life

I guess the Apostle Paul was not in the "big pond of the traditional Baptists" when he urged the Corinthians to repent in a manner that was obviously much more than just a mental "change of mind," 2 Corinthians 7:9-11. The Apostle John was not in the traditional dispensationalist pond when he condemned those who would not repent of their idolatry, sorcery, murders, fornications and thefts, Revelation 9:20-21. I will admit that quite possibly most Baptists today are wallowing in that big mud pond of Dispensational interpretation, which in at least some cases leads to antinomianism and excuses for bad behavior. (Such as, look at what David did and God forgave him - I find it amusing that dispensationalists do not recognize that God handled some issues differently in the Old Testament, and besides, David was not a clergyman, so please, let's all stop trotting out David as an excuse for modern-day IFB preachers who run off with the church secretary).

Baptists need to jump out of their traditional pond and just read the Bible for itself without the tint and slant of their dispensational eyeglasses (blinders actually) which leads them to say that repentance is "not for today."
 
Your admission of loss.

Not even close. I posed you some questions about the scriptural use of metanoia back in post 16, which you have not yet answered. Instead, you keep harping on Dispensationalism as though it was the main topic of the thread (when in reality I mentioned it once, in passing).

I guess it is too much to ask, in a discussion of biblical repentance, for you to discuss the actual Bible. But by all means, go ahead and claim victory. It ashames me not at all.

Now, you feckless coward, do you want to discuss the uses of metanoia I raised in post 16? Or do you want to "leave a mark" in your undies again, and hide behind Irenaeus' skirts some more?
 
That'll leave a mark!

I know he certainly changed my mind....especially the part about not wanting to deal with Ransom's scripture citations.
I now have a man centered, soteriology and I've joined the Gail let her Riplinger 'Im a bibul skolar fan club'. Haymannnn!
 
I guess the Apostle Paul was not in the "big pond of the traditional Baptists" when he urged the Corinthians to repent in a manner that was obviously much more than just a mental "change of mind," 2 Corinthians 7:9-11.

This passage is not talking about eternal salvation at all. This is the danger of not having ministers/teachers called and trained by God in his word: people come up with all kinds of interpretations.

The passage is referring to an incident in a previous letter that Paul rebuked the Corinthians with to correct them in their walk, and these Corinthians were already saved. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is speaking to saved "brethren" "in Christ" and calls them "carnal", your first proof that born-again saints can be carnal. Then he tells them in 1 Cor. 3:13-15 that even saints who have bad works are still saved, your second proof not every saved saint successfully "turns from all their sins" toward "obedient and holy living". Then in 1 Cor. 5 he rebukes a man for sleeping with his father's wife and tells them they should hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (the old man), but that his spirit will still be saved (the new man / new creature, which is already sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and in Christ).

Not every verse that mentions the word "salvation" is speaking about eternal salvation (which is why I made the point to add "eternal" to all my prior posts, in case someone dropped this verse). Similarly, not every parable about fire is talking about hellfire unless we want to debate eternal security as well (big pond). 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).

The Apostle John was not in the traditional dispensationalist pond when he condemned those who would not repent of their idolatry, sorcery, murders, fornications and thefts, Revelation 9:20-21
UGC will eventually make video Bible studies about Revelation which will also involve the Tribulation. I'd like those to fully answer questions like these in better detail. Do note, though, that Revelation is not the first place we should go to for salvation doctrine, and more importantly that abstaining from sin for salvation is an attempt to attain it by keeping the law, for sin is the transgression of the law and by the law is the knowledge of sin. We are not saved by keeping the law, for anyone who offends in one point is guilty of all, but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, unto all and upon all them that believe (resulting from a change of mind). Also, keep in mind there's a reason Dr. Ruckman taught faith-works in the Trib, and he is not entirely wrong (I said he erred). UGC has refined all previous forms of Dispensationalism into what we're calling "Complete Dispensationalism", another reason we started the channel.

Baptists need to jump out of their traditional pond and just read the Bible for itself without the tint and slant of their dispensational eyeglasses (blinders actually) which leads them to say that repentance is "not for today."

No, God specifically calls and trains pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). We are not supposed to just sit and read the Bible all by ourselves for doctrine (although this is part of it: but it must go hand-in-hand with listening to God's appointed teachers of sound doctrine throughout history). Think about your argument, it's like saying all of the devout men who were called to seminary were wrong for adopting a doctrinal tradition (God isn't going to lead them all astray while giving some individual private revelation and abandoning all the seminaries): my argument is that some camp of seminaries out there has to have it right, at the very least on soteriology or how to be saved, and I do believe it is the Dispensationalists (beyond just the Baptists: again Dr. Ryrie and Dallas Theological Seminary). Also, I'm not in the traditional pond, I just share doctrine with the traditional pond because it actually comes from the Bible and not outside it. Unlike Calvinism, for example, which neither John Calvin nor his TULIP flowers are found in the Bible, dispensationalism is actually a word in context found in the NT numerous times, along with the instruction to "rightly divide" the word found in the only verse in the entire Bible telling us how we should study the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15 KJV).
 
Last edited:
There's a medieval style of castle known as the "motte and bailey." It consisted of the bailey, an open courtyard with buildings, which provided most of the bastle's economic activity; and the motte, a mound with a stone or wood keep on it. The bailey was productive land, but weakly fortified. If an enemy were to attack the castle, the people in the bailey would retreat to the safety of the motte, which was easily defendable, and there the defending forces could wear away at the enemy until they gave up.

Similarly, in rhetoric, there is a form of bad argument known as the motte-and-bailey. Someone puts forward an opinion that is controversial and not easily defended (the bailey). When he is challenged, he claims he was actually defending a much less controversial opinion (the motte). When his opponent gives up, he claims victory for the bailey argument.

This is a bait-and-switch. It's a scam.

In this thread, we've seen UGC pull exactly this kind of scam with Dispensationalism. As I said before: Dispensationalism is something I mentioned once, in passing, to point out that the so-called "Lordship Salvation" controversy is an internal debate amongst Dispensationalists. Since I'm not a Dispensationalist, it's pointless to drag me into your in-house debate. So I'm not going to argue that point. I bring this up only to demonstrate the kind of intellectual dishonesty UGC is dealing out.

Earlier in this thread, UGC wrote:

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. (emphasis in original)

UGC has expressed what Charles Ryrie called the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. If not for the clear distinction between Israel and the Church and the literal interpretation of Scripture, in other words, Dispensationalism could not exist.

But is this the grounds upon which UGC defends the system? Nope. Instead, he appeals to the early Church fathers Irenaeus and Augustine.

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". (emphasis in original)

See the bait-and-switch? Having told us that the distinguishing mark of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church and a literal interpretation of the Bible (the bailey), UGC tries to prove Irenaeus was an early Dispensationalist because he wrote "in defense of a pre-trib rapture" in Against Heresies (the motte).

Which makes you wonder how closely this supposed Dispensationalist actually held to Dispensationalism's sine qua non. Not much, it turns out.

Irenaeus writes, in the same book, interpreting the Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 22:33-44):

God planted the vineyard of the human race when at the first He formed Adam and chose the fathers; then He let it out to husbandmen when He established the Mosaic dispensation. . . . But last of all He sent to those unbelievers His own Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the wicked husbandmen cast out of the vineyard when they had slain Him. Wherefore the Lord God did even give it up (no longer hedged around, but thrown open throughout all the world) to other husbandmen, who render the fruits in their seasons — the beautiful elect tower being also raised everywhere. For the illustrious Church is [now] everywhere, and everywhere is the winepress dug: because those who do receive the Spirit are everywhere. For inasmuch as the former have rejected the Son of God, and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him, God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV.36.ii)​

In Irenaeus' allegorization of the parable, the wicked husbandmen represent Israel, entrusted with the vineyard via the "Mosaic dispensation." God the Father is the landlord; his servants and his son, whom the wicked tenants kill, are the prophets and Christ himself. Therefore, God hands over the vineyard to other tenants representing the church, and they are the ones who receive the benefits of God's promises.

Does that sound like a discontinuity between Israel and the Church? On the contrary, Irenaeus understands the relationship between the Old and New Covenants to be one of unity. So much for Irenaeus the Dispensationalist. If UGC actually understood his thought, he'd denounce him for his "replacement theology."

Here's more evidence of UGC's dishonesty: in his citation of Irenaeus, he omits the very next sentence: "For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption" (Adv. Haer. V.29.i). What are they contesting? What do they overcome, if they are indeed raptured to escape the Great Tribulation? UGC simply assumes "caught up from this" means "caught up in advance of the Tribulation."

Yet, in the section immediately following V.29.i, Irenaeus allegorizes the story of Nebuchadnezzar throwing Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace, saying it represents the Antichrist persecuting the church:

Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship [the golden statue], were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man's [the Antichrist's] coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men. (Adv. Haer. V.29.ii).

Irenaeus was indisputably a premillennialist. But he was no Dispensationalist believing the Rapture would rescue the church from the Tribulation.

[continued in next post due to length]​
 
[continued]

Augustine also supposedly "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 . . . 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. . . ." (emphasis in original)

Once again, UGC retreats from the sine qua non of Dispensationalism (the bailey) and claims Augustine believed in Dispensationalism because he used the word "dispensation" and said God dealt with his people in different ways at different times (the motte). Well . . . duh. Every Christian believes in dispensations. That no more makes Augustine a Dispensationalist than using the word "covenant" makes him a covenant theologian.

Again, though, how does Augustine stack up against Dispensationalism's sine qua non? Because of the radical distinction between Israel and the Church, Dispensationalists tell us that the promises made to Abraham will be literally fulfilled in the Millennium: they will inherit the Promised Land, they will become a great nation, and the world will experience blessings from them.

Augustine believed that the land promises were literally fulfilled by the time of Solomon:

And it was fulfilled through David, and Solomon his son, whose kingdom was extended over the whole promised space; for they subdued all those nations, and made them tributary. And thus, under those kings, the seed of Abraham was established in the land of promise according to the flesh, that is, in the land of Canaan, so that nothing yet remained to the complete fulfillment of that earthly promise of God, except that, so far as pertains to temporal prosperity, the Hebrew nation should remain in the same land by the succession of posterity in an unshaken state even to the end of this mortal age, if it obeyed the laws of the Lord its God. (Augustine, De Civ. D. 17.ii)​

Yet Augustine sees prophecies fulfilled in the earthly Jerusalem to be types of the heavenly Jerusalem:

For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. (De Civ. D. 16.iii)​

The "seed of Abraham according to the faith" are the inhabitants of the heavenly Jerusalem, "the Church of Christ, the city of the great King, full of grace, prolific of offspring" (De Civ. D. 16.iv). The promises made to Abraham's descendants by the flesh are fulfilled to Abraham's descendants by faith. Like Irenaeus, far from declaring Augustine a Dispensationalist, UGC would have to denounce him as a "replacement theologian." He neither believed in the distinction between Israel and the church, nor what the Dispensationalists term a consistently literal reading of Scripture.

And so much for UGC's intellectual honesty. Earlier he was whining that I was avoiding his posts about Dispensationalism. So here is my response. I eagerly await UGC returning the favour and answering the questions about metanoia that I posed in post 16 of this thread. (Indeed, should he try to follow the Dispy red herring further, I'll just remind him that he's avoiding these questions and say no more.)
 
Last edited:
Dude. First of all, relax and grab a crumpet.

Sure. I'll eat it while reading your answer to my questions in post 16.

But geez, man, if you're too ignorant or cowardly to give me a straight answer, just say so.
 
There's a medieval style of castle known as the "motte and bailey."

Why are we talking about medieval castles now. And I was the one accused of red herrings? (Edit: this motte and bailey assertion has now been completely refuted in post #78 of this thread)

If not for the clear distinction between Israel and the Church and the literal interpretation of Scripture, in other words, Dispensationalism could not exist.

But is this the grounds upon which UGC defends the system? Nope. Instead, he appeals to the early Church fathers Irenaeus and Augustine.

Uh... you just strawmanned. That is not the grounds. It was explaining what most Baptists believe and that that belief is most commonly found in Dispensationalism, and both Irenaeus and Augustine absolutely held certain beliefs that only Dispensationalists still hold to today, even if they weren't entirely Dispensational in their theology. Facts.

Does that sound like a discontinuity between Israel and the Church? On the contrary, Irenaeus understands the relationship between the Old and New Covenants to be one of unity. So much for Irenaeus the Dispensationalist. If UGC actually understood his thought, he'd denounce him for his "replacement theology."

You quoted that completely out of context, go back and read it again. Also, Dispensationalists do not believe ethnic Jews cannot still be saved into the body of Christ today, and we do not nullify the covenants nor override them with "dispensational ages" if that's your standard strawman. We believe there are distinctions such as physical promises i.e. the land Israel will inherit spoken of in Jeremiah (the full dimensions of which were never held by Israel: Augustine got it wrong there with his Catholic doctrine), which the Gentiles will not inherit, though we share in the commonwealth of eternal life. Read the very passage you just quoted by Irenaeus again, he clearly held to the rapture. We believe in accordance with Romans 11 that Israel as a nation has been temporarily blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles come in, as Rom. 11:11 says through their fall, salvation has come to the Gentile world, but that during the Trib after the rapture of the Body, God will again resume his focus on Israel as a nation to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel's 70th week and the time of Jacob's Trouble will be upon them, before all Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:26).

Irenaeus was indisputably a premillennialist. But he was no Dispensationalist believing the Rapture would rescue the church from the Tribulation.

... "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.'" He states that when the church will be "suddenly caught up", then "there shall be Tribulation". The church is rescued from the Tribulation.

Irenaeus certainly taught the church would be "caught up" (raptured) prior to the wrath at the very least, but at face value it can certainly be said he was pre-trib, even if he didn't agree in other areas of his doctrine with Dispensationalism. This was my original point, to prove that Darby did not invent the rapture in the 1800's, as is the common strawman attacked by non-Dispens. It was never to assert that Irenaeus was a Dispensationalist in all categories: you continue to strawman.

You keep accusing UGC of bait-and-switch and dishonesty by taking everything I'm saying completely out of context (like you take metanoia out of context) and then making arguments that I can't find the logic in no matter how hard I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. You sound smart, but I wonder whether you're more practiced in applying your intelligence to smear opposing views or in accurately assessing information in search of truth, regardless where data that disagrees with your own may land you.
 
Last edited:
Why are we talking about blah blah blah...

That's nice. Have you got an answer for my questions in post 16 yet? Here, let me repost them for you:

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?
 
That's nice. Have you got an answer for my questions in post 16 yet? Here, let me repost them for you:

I answered your questions in my previous post, I just didn't do it in the verse-by-verse format this time for obvious reasons I then explained in yet another post. Here, let me repost it for you:

Second, 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. The reason I didn't then answer you in verse by verse format is 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.
 
I answered your questions in my previous post.

No, in your previous post, you continued dragging your Dispy red herring around. If you can't be bothered to answer my questions, I can't be bothered with your Dispy drivel.

Meanwhile, here is a reminder about the questions concerning metanoia in the Bible that you keep running away from like a frightened little girl:

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?
 
No, in your previous post, you continued dragging your Dispy red herring around. If you can't be bothered to answer my questions, I can't be bothered with your Dispy drivel.

Your question was answered.
 
Your question was answered.

Then you should have no problem posting a link to the specific post where you answered them, right?

In the meantime, here they are again, in the unlikely even that you're just making feeble excuses.

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?
 
Then you should have no problem posting a link to the specific post where you answered them, right?

I just did that in post #35 of this thread.

I'll also post this again as it was referenced as my first answer to that definition of repentance in #35:

 
Last edited:
Sure, friend, I just did that in post #35 of this thread.

Ah, so when you said "I didn't then answer you in verse by verse format," what you were really doing was answering me?

That's some epic doublespeak.

So here, once again, are those questions you are answering by not answering (LOL):

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?

Let's see if UGC, the feckless coward, can grow a pair and actually try to interact with my post.
 
Not only did I interact with it, I demolished it using my "pair" as wrecking balls.

When questions reared their ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir UGC turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his "pair" of feet
UGgy beat a brave retreat.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir UGC!

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?
 
Last edited:
OK, this is getting monotonous now.

Henceforth I shall only mock UGly in haiku form.
 
All I heard was "Scooby dooby doo!"

Ransom: the all bark and no bite cartoon pez dispenser of haiku

1582686867220.png
"Ransom and the London Baptists: The Unsolvable Mystery of Dispensationalism at the Medieval Castle of Motte and Bailey"

I'll write the intro theme. It'll be clown music.
 
Top