Unorthodox Teachings of Peter Ruckman

[tmjbog]

My point is, if you're going to spam threads on the same topics accusing others of being something they are not, such as "Mormons" or "unorthodox", you should probably find an orthodox camp yourself to represent, not teeter on the fence as a half-Arminian member of a Free Will Baptist Church who "does not agree with much of their doctrine anyway".

Boy, you need to pay attention more. I'm a member of an IFB. I didn't say you are Mormon I said many of your beliefs are similar to the Mormons and wondered if Ruckman had been influenced by the Mormons. Unorthodox-yep eve in an adulterous relationship with satan, many ways of getting saved, water circulatory system. Another Ruckman unorthodox gem included below:

This makes Cain the greatest type of the Son of Perdition in the Bible. If you will get The Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, you will find he is also a type of two other things: the NEGRO and the JEW.
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 1993, p. 9

 

[UGC]

@tmjbog You're a chronic liar. Facts.

I've followed you on these forums since you arrived to harass people with these lies, you've flip-flopped and loopholed more than a politician.

 

[tmjbog]

@tmjbog You're a chronic liar. Facts.

I've followed you on these forums since you arrived to harass people with these lies, you've flip-flopped and loopholed more than a politician.

You mean I tell lies like this guy:

If possible, every Christian in the Laodicean church (1900-1990) should read the life of Billy Bray—especially about the time he literally moved a mountain and the time he gave away his last cent… (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Vol. 2, 1984, p. 69)

Nothing in the book mentions ole' Billy moving a mountain.

 

[UGC]

Since you don't even know what you believe, I recommend becoming a Christian first before trying to break down others' like a mad scientist.

 

[UGC]

As you missed this to spam your outdated thread since these issues have already been addressed numerous times in numerous places on these forums:

Time for the roast of tmjbog

(our most recent active noob who arrived to sup at the table of FFF).

He's a Non-Calvinist defender of Calvinism, an Anti-Dispensational member of the IFB who "is IFB" but "it isn't accurate to say he's IFB", and he wants us all to think that all the KJV translators were Calvinists because of the Church of England's Articles of Faith, taking a debate position against the Arminian presence on the translating board by promoting Calvinist Reformers who he defends as vitally important and highly respected "influential men of the faith", but he's a zero-point Calvinist, and he's "orthodox".

So Calvinism is wrong, Dispensationalism is wrong, KJV-O people are wrong (but you still use the KJV as a member, not an attendee, a member of an IFB church that you don't even share "much of their beliefs" with yet are somehow still qualified to be a member). Yet you can't fully espouse Arminianism because Baptists are not Arminian; in terms of orthodoxy they're either Calvinist (LBCF) or Dispensational (most IFB), so you claim you're close to an Arminian, but aren't a full-on orthodox Arminian. And you're still a member of this IFB church as someone close to a doctrinal Arminian even though you disagree with much of your own church's doctrine...

"for reasons that will not be detailed."

 

[UGC]

Missed this too, Mr. Defender of Orthodoxy Against "Unorthodox Saints".

Do you even know what an Orthodox Baptist is?

First of all, the Free Will Baptists are Arminian. They hold to the traditional Arminian position.
You said you were close to an Arminian, something "along the lines of".

Second, while the Free Will Baptists do carry the name of Baptist, they are not considered orthodox Baptists by all other Baptists because they believe all saints can lose their salvation under the traditional Arminian doctrine, much like Catholics also believe.

Third, I don't know why you were defending Calvinist Reformers with such incredibly high regard instead of defending the Arminian presence on the KJV translating board since the Free Will Baptists reject the system of Calvinism, particularly the Puritan form of it. "For reasons that will not be detailed" perhaps.

My point is, if you're going to spam threads on the same topics accusing others of being something they are not, such as "Mormons" or "unorthodox", you should probably find an orthodox camp yourself to represent, not teeter on the fence as a half-Arminian member of some IFB church who "does not agree with much of their doctrine anyway".

If you don't even know what orthodox beliefs you hold to, why should anyone listen to you on your accusations of others being "unorthodox".
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -Matt. 7:5

 

[tmjbog]

Since you don't even know what you believe, I recommend becoming a Christian first before trying to break down others' like a mad scientist.

Which of the 8+ plans of salvation should I use?

 

[tmjbog]

First of all, the Free Will Baptists are Arminian. They hold to the traditional Arminian position.
You said you were close to an Arminian, something "along the lines of".

Well you best tell them to stop referring to themselves as reformed Arminians then. There are differences such as the belief that one who rejects their salvation (they won't often use the term "lose") has no recourse to return to Christ. And on top of that each church is independent (except for the denomination called "Original Freewill Baptists") so their are other variations.

Second, while the Free Will Baptists do carry the name of Baptist, they are not considered orthodox Baptists by all other Baptists because they believe all saints can lose their salvation under the traditional Arminian doctrine, much like Catholics also believe.

In your opinion.

Third, I don't know why you were defending Calvinist Reformers with such incredibly high regard instead of defending the Arminian presence on the KJV translating board since the Free Will Baptists reject the system of Calvinism, particularly the Puritan form of it. "For reasons that will not be detailed" perhaps.

Recognizing history is not defending the doctrine. The translation board was heavily influenced by Calvinists. This does not change on the basis of my support for Calvinism. On top of that the most similar in practically living the faith to an Arminian is a five point Calvinist. As an Arminian if one was to neglect their salvation and fall into sin, eventually they could fall to the point of rejecting Christ. There is no easy believism where you pray a magic prayer and your locked in-free to continue ignoring God and living for the world. In 5 point Calvinism your fruit is proof you are part of the elect. In practical matters 5 point a zero point Calvinists are most similar.

 

[Twisted]

Second, while the Free Will Baptists do carry the name of Baptist, they are not considered orthodox Baptists by all other Baptists because they believe all saints can lose their salvation under the traditional Arminian doctrine, much like Catholics also believe.

In your opinion.

I have never heard of ANY FWB's that DON'T believe that one can lose their salvation. If there is, that is not the norm. UGC is correct.

 

[UGC]

(they won't often use the term "lose")

free wills believe you can throw away your salvation

There are differences such as the belief that one who rejects their salvation.. has no recourse to return to Christ.

Which is a position that is not only agreed to be heretical by all Orthodox Baptists, but is actually further away from said Orthodoxy than Wesleyan Arminians (i.e. Methodists who are now hiring gay Pastors behind the pulpits), since Wesleyans reject the idea that a saint who walks away cannot come back to Christ like a prodigal son.

You are closer to a Catholic in doctrine than the Methodists who have gay pastors behind their pulpits, so why don't you take that knowledge you claim by which you judge who's "unorthdox" somewhere else.

 

[tmjbog]

I have never heard of ANY FWB's that DON'T believe that one can lose their salvation. If there is, that is not the norm. UGC is correct.

It's difficult to pin down Freewills being they are independent and typically even rally that closely around a college. The fundamentalist leaning ones do not like the term lose because it implies your just walking down the street and it falls out of your pocket. Rejecting or throwing away is the terminology typically used.

 

[UGC]

It's difficult to pin down

Of course it is. This is tmjbog we're talking about.

 

[tmjbog]

View attachment 1149


View attachment 1150



Which is a position that is not only agreed to be heretical by all Orthodox Baptists, but is actually further away from said Orthodoxy than Wesleyan Arminians (i.e. Methodists who are now hiring gay Pastors behind the pulpits), since Wesleyans reject the idea that a saint who walks away cannot come back to Christ like a prodigal son.

You are closer to a Catholic in doctrine than the Methodists who have gay pastors behind their pulpits, so why don't you take that knowledge you claim by which you judge who's "unorthdox" somewhere else.

For not being a Rucky you sure are intent do defend the fella.

 

[UGC]

For not being a Rucky you sure are intent do defend the fella.

Nowhere in that quote you just responded to was Ruckman mentioned.

In fact, nowhere in this thread did I once even mention the name "Ruckman".

The issue is you spamming threads with information you already copy-pasted at least 3 times in other threads that already address these topics, and also you spamming accusations of others for being "Mormon" or "Unorthodox" when you yourself clearly have no clue what you believe or what Orthodoxy even is.

 

[tmjbog]

Nowhere in that quote you just responded to was Ruckman mentioned.

In fact, nowhere in this thread did I once even mention the name "Ruckman".

The issue is you spamming threads with information you already copy-pasted at least 3 times in other threads that already address these topics, and also you spamming accusations of others for being "Mormon" or "Unorthodox" when you yourself clearly have no clue what you believe or what Orthodoxy even is.

You are absolutely correct. Good job. Ok the reason I call him Mormon is because some of his beliefs are Mormon like. I call his unorthodox because he's unorthodox. Like this belief of his:

"Angels are thirty-three year old males without wings; and all women in the Church Age will receive thirty-three year old male bodies at the Rapture."

 

[logos1560]

In fact, nowhere in this thread did I once even mention the name "Ruckman".

Are you suggesting that you in effect spam this thread with off-topic comments that do not relate to its subject?

Are you in effect admitting that you try to avoid the actual subject of this thread?

 

[Ransom]

Nothing in the book mentions ole' Billy moving a mountain.

But ol' Petey sure is braying, though.

 

[UGC]

Are you suggesting that you in effect spam this thread with off-topic comments that do not relate to its subject?

Are you in effect admitting that you try to avoid the actual subject of this thread?

Weren't you just over there ragging the KJV day and night while reassuring everyone that's the Bible you love and use?

No, that's getting the cart before the horse. The very creation of this thread, in which the first post was essentially a copy-paste job from something tmjbog already posted multiple times and was responded to elsewhere, yet he ignored those responses to start his own marketing campaign for Mr. Pibb (not Pepsi, not Coke, not Dr. Pepper, but that Orothodox product we all know and love, Mr. Pibb).

And he doesn't even hold an Orthodox doctrine himself, therefore how is he claiming the position of judge going around accusing others of being unorthodox. Cart before the horse.



...In fact, the doctrine he holds to, he doesn't even hold to in full.
He's "close" to it, "somewhere along the lines of". "For reasons that will be not be detailed".
What kind of private cult doctrine do you believe, man? Why is it a secret?
Enlighten us all to your Biblical understanding by which you judge that others are unorthodox by comparison.

 

[UGC]

 

[tmjbog]

Pretty chart. So... are you in agreement with Ruckman on this:

"Ruckman believes in a ten foot-tall Antichrist with a bad right arm and a bad right eye that will land in St. Peter's square in a 600 feet in diameter by 60 feet thick flying saucer, who will implant the mark with his huge black lips.Ruckman, Peter. (Mark of the Beast. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Institute, 4th edition 1977, pp. 79, 106, 108)