Unorthodox Teachings of Peter Ruckman

[tmjbog]

"In the Tribulation, there seems to be two “plans” of salvation operating. One of these is a Gentile “gospel” (Rev. 14:6-7, which is contingent on conscience, and not taking the mark of the beast. The other is a Jewish “gospel” (Rev. 12) which is contingent on observing the Commandments in the Pentateuch (including sacrifices and temple worship – Rev. 11:1-3, and not taking the mark of the beast. Neither of these “gospels” is to be found anywhere in the “Church Age.” (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 87)

Here, again, [during the Millenium] we will encounter salvation by Works, through Works, and “that of YOURSELVES” for there is no “gift” to it. (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 91)

“The book of Acts consistently presents the same keys, the same plan of salvation.”
It does if you are as blind as blind Bartimaeus on a weekend drunk—just as blind as a bat backing into a blizzard. There are SIX “plans of salvation” in the book of Acts, as God continued to reveal more light on “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) (which was not revealed to Peter; it was revealed to Paul—Gal. 1, 2). Peter himself testifies to Paul’s “plan of salvation” in Acts 15:11. Read it. I said, “Read it.” Read it or shut your big, tongue-wagging blabber mouth.
1. Salvation by repentance and water baptism with NO tongues as evidence in a single convert (Acts 2:38).
2. Salvation by belief and water baptism without any convert speaking in tongues (Acts 8:12).
3. Salvation by grace through faith before water baptism or tongues (Acts 10:44).
4. Salvation by grace through faith after water baptism (Acts 19:2–6).
5. Salvation by belief and baptism without getting the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16).
6. Salvation by grace through faith without tongues or water baptism (Acts 8:37) and without tongues or laying on of hands (Acts 8:38). (Bible Believers' Bulletin Jan. 2007, p. 16)

 

[Twisted]

Thanks for the post.

Do you believe that salvation in the Millenium is by faith?

Asking for a friend.

 

[UGC]

As an IFB I can appreciate that.

Why did you run away from the thread we just called you out in to triple post something you already spammed elsewhere.

What IFB camp do you represent. Post a website to its doctrinal statement.

 

[tmjbog]

Why did you run away from the thread we just called you out in to triple post something you already spammed elsewhere.

What IFB camp do you represent. Post a website to its doctrinal statement.

What are you talking about? The last post on that thread is you responding to something Twisted said. I don't "represent" any IFB camp. I'm a member of an IFB church.

 

[UGC]

I don't "represent" any IFB camp. I'm a member of an IFB church.

Which doctrinal camp does your IFB church identify with?

Post a page of the doctrinal statement your IFB church agrees with.

 

[tmjbog]

Which doctrinal camp does your IFB church identify with?

Post a page of the doctrinal statement your IFB church agrees with.

What difference does that make? I don't agree with much of it myself-I've already told you that.

 

[tmjbog]

Thanks for the post.

Do you believe that salvation in the Millenium is by faith?

Asking for a friend.

Tell your friend to ask.

 

[UGC]

I don't agree with much of it myself

So now you go to a church where you don't even agree with much of their doctrine.

Post a page to the doctrinal statement you identify with.
You are going around accusing people of starting their own "new" doctrinal camps "exactly like the Mormons", claiming they aren't "orthodox".
This thread has "unorthodox" in the title. Obviously you must have your own clear position on what you believe "orthodox" is, then.

So again, post a page to this mysterious "orthodox" doctrinal statement you identify with.

 

[Twisted]

Tell your friend to ask.

Dodging the question....again.

 

[tmjbog]

So now you go to a church where you don't even agree with much of their doctrine.

Post a page to the doctrinal statement you identify with.
You are going around accusing people of starting their own "new" doctrinal camps "exactly like the Mormons", claiming they aren't "orthodox".
This thread has "unorthodox" in the title. Obviously you must have your own clear position on what you believe "orthodox" is, then.

So again, post a page to this mysterious "orthodox" doctrinal statement you identify with.

And if you are in agreement with much of what Peter Ruckman believed you are in a completely new arena of "Christianity" Using Bible to support racist doctrines, blue blooded aliens, black blooded aliens, eve in adulterous relationship with satan, water circulatory systems, double inspired KJV. Your free to jump in and distance yourself from him but whenever there is posting referencing him (like this thread) you are typically the first to rush to his defense.

 

[UGC]

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's even though you disagree with much of your own church's doctrine...

"for reasons that will not be detailed."

I think we uncovered your identity:

 

[logos1560]

Dodging the question....again.

Perhaps you are trying to dodge the subject of this thread--unorthodox teachings of Peter Ruckman.
Some seem to suggest that they do not always agree with Ruckman, but yet they repeatedly defend him and his views.

Instead of sticking to the subject, some posters try to divert and avoid the subject by personal attacks and carnal smear tactics against the poster who started the thread.

Is that their incorrect tactic to use in their seeming effort to defend the unorthodox teachings of Ruckman?

 

[tmjbog]

Yet you can't fully espouse Arminianism because Baptists are not Arminian;

The rise of Free Will Baptists can be traced to the influence of Baptists of Arminian persuasion who settled in the colonies from England. The denomination sprang up on two fronts at almost the same time. The southern line, or Palmer movement, traces its beginnings to the year 1727 when Paul Palmer organized a church at Chowan, North Carolina. Palmer had previously ministered in New Jersey and Maryland, having been baptized in a congregation which had moved from Wales to a trace on the Delaware River in northern Pennsylvania.

The northern line, or Randall movement, had its beginnings with a congregation organized by Benjamin Randall June 30, 1780, in New Durham, New Hampshire. Both groups of Free Will Baptists taught the doctrines of free grace, free salvation and free will, although from the first there was no organizational connection between them, only voluntary association.

Digital Archives – Free Will Baptist History

fwbhistory.com

 

[tmjbog]

Now back to the matter at hand. Ruckman's beliefs on race: (Not a guy I would want to defend)

If you notice that no matter how much integration is carried out, the IQ of blacks is ALWAYS lower than whites… (Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, p. 15)

…people who could not invent a calendar or even a wheel…If white Dutchmen had not come down there and showed "the first black man to use a white bathroom" how to farm, build, manufacture, mine, merchandise, sanitize, regulate, and organize a civilization, there would be no civilization there. It was the Shemites who built the Egyptian empire, and it is NOT in central Africa; it borders Asia and had access to all the wisdom and culture of the east (Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Chalead, and Israel) through the centuries. Eqypt is now the exception which the monkey men use to overthrow the rule. It is an old, old story. The rule is: unless "whitey" shows the black man how to play the piano, the tuba, the trombone, the banjo, the saxophone, the clarinet, and the trumpet, he stays squatted in front of a hollow log. (Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, p. 20)

We believe that history is absolute proof that “race-mixers” are mentally sick (Deut. 32:8). (Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers' Bulletin Volume #7 Strictly Personal. 2004, p. 112)

Negroes have to be carried. Where they are left to themselves they resort to mugging, rape, slavery, dope traffic, and eventually cannibalism. (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church. Vol. 2, 1984, footnote 44.9, Chapter 11)

 

[Twisted]

Negroes have to be carried. Where they are left to themselves they resort to mugging, rape, slavery, dope traffic, and eventually cannibalism. (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church. Vol. 2, 1984, footnote 44.9, Chapter 11)

Have you seen the news lately?

 

[Twisted]

If you notice that no matter how much integration is carried out, the IQ of blacks is ALWAYS lower than whites… (Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, p. 15)

Whether Ruckman said it or not, whites have a lower IQ than Asians.

So what?

 

[tmjbog]

Have you seen the news lately?

Primarily it's a white problem. When you have governors, mayors, police chiefs ,who are mostly white, say we are not going to enforce the laws in the inner cities and make it known that in the name of protest looting and stealing is acceptable. You will have people in those inner cities (black & white) take you up on it.

 

[UGC]

Perhaps you are trying to dodge the subject of this thread--unorthodox teachings of Peter Ruckman.

This subject has already been fully addressed in multiple other threads on these forums.

Spamming threads for the purpose of smear campaigning while ignoring the information already addressed in those threads doesn't imply any such obligation.

 

[UGC]

The rise of Free Will Baptists

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 a Free Will Baptist 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]

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.