Wicked "Christian" Catalogs

[The Rogue Tomato]

apparently the KJV agrees with the Watch Tower Society

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV

John 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. NASB

John 14:14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. HCSB


you notice what is missing in the KJV?

NKJV:

14 If you ask[a] anything in My name, I will do it.

Footnotes:

John 14:14 NU-Text adds Me.

 

[T-Bone]

Ruckman loves the Bible so much..he has no problem disobeying.  Several broken marriages are hardly the Spirit's fruit..you blaspheme to say so.  I notice you avoid the questions about multiple divorces and the adultery of remarriage.  Hypocrite!

And I mentioned already that he did not want the divorces to happen. Both of his wives departed and left him. And they were the ones who filed for the divorce.

And because both his wives left and departed from him, in both cases he had Biblical grounds to remarry.

And let's suppose this desertion happened..even if that is some fancy historical revisionism on your part...but let's suppose it happened the way you said, then where Scripturally is this "great" Bible teacher allowed to remarry, not just once but twice.  Go ahead Mr KJVO, spin again.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Biblebeliever,

On what biblical ground was Peter Ruckman eligible for divorce?
        - Did all of his former wives commit adultery?

Hi there boomer,

While I am not exactly sure whether brother Ruckman's former wives committed adultery on him or not, what I am aware of though is that they both left him. And that he did not want it that way, but they left him and they filed for divorce. And since desertion is a legitimate cause for divorce (see 1 Cor. 7).

BB, I am a KJV guy, but not a proponent of Ruckman. I understand the position regarding divorce and remarriage that you are proposing.

Here is part of what you refereed to.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

What you are alluding to is here:
1 Corinthians 7:12-15  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

You would have to make the case that they were both unbelievers.

Then, you would have to make the case that Peter Ruckman had not disqualified himself from the Pastorate.

Here is where he did, even according to your position on divorce and remarriage.

1 Timothy 3:1-7  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So, even if you can make allowance for his divorces and remarriages, (which I can't, especially based upon 1 Corinthians 7), he disqualified himself here:
1. No longer the husband of one wife
2. He is not of good behaviour, as evidenced by the letter "hey buzzard puke"
3. He is not patient, a requirement of the pastorate as evidenced by his caustic mannerisms.
Here is the big one:
4. He is incapable of ruling his own house. Two divorces means you are not in control of the house at all.
5. He no longer has a good report of them without. Not because of doctrine, but because of the two divorces and remarriages.

I love the old book BB, but I'm trying to follow it, not just hang onto it like a magic talisman. I don't care how smart the man is, disqualified is disqualified.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]5. He no longer has a good report of them without. Not because of doctrine, but because of the two divorces and remarriages. he's a pompous jerk.[/quote]

Fixed it for you.

 

[Ransom]

Scott, the more I read your responses to my posts, the more I believe you are a reprobate concerning the truth.

Bless your pointy head!

Do you really not understand the importance of the Bible Doctrine of Eternal Security???

I didn't say it wasn't important. I said that Ruck-moron's formulation of it is the equivalent of loose fecal matter.

And if you think that the Subject and Doctrine of the Inspiration of the word of God is not of the highest importance, well then you need to repent and get right with God.

I didn't say it wasn't of the utmost importance. I said that Ruck-tard's (and your) equating of the inspiration of Scripture and the inspiration of the Blessed Super Duper King Jimmy Holy Moly Bible is a smelly deuce of the highest order.

Perhaps you could actually tell the difference between turds and treasure if you didn't have your nose so firmly wedged inside Rucky's posterior.

 

[Ransom]

And another thing . . .

Scott, the more I read your responses to my posts, the more I believe you are a reprobate concerning the truth.

Yeah yeah yeah. I've heard it all before. You KJV clowns are always really good (and not too careful) at throwing around terms like "reprobate," "heretick" (always spelled with the magic King Jimmy-approved Letter K, of course), apostate, and so forth, but when it comes to presenting actual facts about my beliefs that would prove said reprobation/heresy/apostasy/etc., you always come up dry.

That's because those words don't actually mean anything.

But maybe you're the one exception in 20+ years of laughing at KJV clowns.  Care to prove me wrong? Choose a reputable, historic Christian creed or confession, and show the forum where my own theology is damnably at odds with it.

By "reputable, historic Christian" I don't mean the statement of faith copied from the Web site of Rootin Tootin King Jimmy Believin Baptist Church of Armpit, Oklahoma, either. I mean one of the good old ones.

Put up or shut up, Bibleburner. Let's see if your accusations actually carry any weight. I think you're blowing smoke.

 

[Biblebeliever]

...but let's suppose it happened the way you said, then where Scripturally is this "great" Bible teacher allowed to remarry, not just once but twice.  Go ahead Mr KJVO, spin again.

TB, Where does it say in the Scriptures that he cannot remarry twice??

As long as both divorces happened on Scriptural grounds, then he would by default have biblical grounds to remarry. It is that simple.

 

[Biblebeliever]

BB, I am a KJV guy, but not a proponent of Ruckman. I understand the position regarding divorce and remarriage that you are proposing.

Here is part of what you refereed to.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

What you are alluding to is here:
1 Corinthians 7:12-15  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

You would have to make the case that they were both unbelievers.

Not necessarily IP, you see, desertion is desertion whether the one who departs is a believer or not. Therefore it would only seem logical and reasonable that verse 15 would also apply in a marital relationship where both parties are believers.

Same thing would go with a wife committing fornication against her husband. Whether she is saved or not, fornication is still fornication. And because she committed fornication, her spouse would have Biblical grounds for divorce.

Then, you would have to make the case that Peter Ruckman had not disqualified himself from the Pastorate.

Here is where he did, even according to your position on divorce and remarriage.

1 Timothy 3:1-7  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So, even if you can make allowance for his divorces and remarriages, (which I can't, especially based upon 1 Corinthians 7), he disqualified himself here:
1. No longer the husband of one wife

Let me ask you IP, does the phrase: "husband of one wife" somehow mean: "married only once."???

2. He is not of good behaviour, as evidenced by the letter "hey buzzard puke"

IP, do you know of any pastor or minister out there who fulfills ALL the qualifications of a Bishop ALL the time?

3. He is not patient, a requirement of the pastorate as evidenced by his caustic mannerisms.
Here is the big one:

Again IP, what Pastor or Bishop do you know who honestly fulfils every requirement and every qualification at all times?

4. He is incapable of ruling his own house. Two divorces means you are not in control of the house at all.

IP, both of his former wives left him. He did not want those former marriages to end, but what can one do? A person saved or not, simply cannot force his spouse to stay with him against her free will. And as much as a man may want to work tings out in their marriage, if the heart of the wife is not in it, again, what can the man do?

I know of a situation right now where a brother in the Lord whom I have known for a while, had his wife leave him. He did not want her to leave. He wanted to work things out. But she had already made up her mind. He tol dme himself that he cannot force her to stay with him if her heart is just not in it.

5. He no longer has a good report of them without. Not because of doctrine, but because of the two divorces and remarriages.

I love the old book BB, but I'm trying to follow it, not just hang onto it like a magic talisman. I don't care how smart the man is, disqualified is disqualified.

IP, there are a lot of pastors out there who are not "apt to teach" and who are not "blameless" but God still allows them to continue in ministry because of His grace. God searches the hearts. And I believe that if God sees that a man is genuinely trying to grow and get better at his Christian walk, then I beleive the Lord will have grace on that Christian man who is serving in the ministry.

If more pastors and ministers were honest with themselves, then they too would admit that there have been times in their lives where they also have failed to maintain some of the qualifications for bishops and deacons themselves.

 

[T-Bone]

...but let's suppose it happened the way you said, then where Scripturally is this "great" Bible teacher allowed to remarry, not just once but twice.  Go ahead Mr KJVO, spin again.

TB, Where does it say in the Scriptures that he cannot remarry twice??



As long as both divorces happened on Scriptural grounds, then he would by default have biblical grounds to remarry. It is that simple.

You make this too easy...even Ruckman won't say his wives committed adultery

Matthew 19:9
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Even if you read that this verse allowed remarriage if your spouse committed adultery, which it doesn't , but let's say it does, are you saying that Ruckman's first two wives committed adultery? Your hero worship leads you astray, you have no integrity, because your mangwad's has disobeyed Scripture and you try to justify it. You clearly love Ruckman more than you do the Word.

 

[T-Bone]

BB, I am a KJV guy, but not a proponent of Ruckman. I understand the position regarding divorce and remarriage that you are proposing.

Here is part of what you refereed to.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

What you are alluding to is here:
1 Corinthians 7:12-15  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

You would have to make the case that they were both unbelievers.

Not necessarily IP, you see, desertion is desertion whether the one who departs is a believer or not. Therefore it would only seem logical and reasonable that verse 15 would also apply in a marital relationship where both parties are believers.

Same thing would go with a wife committing fornication against her husband. Whether she is saved or not, fornication is still fornication. And because she committed fornication, her spouse would have Biblical grounds for divorce.

Then, you would have to make the case that Peter Ruckman had not disqualified himself from the Pastorate.

Here is where he did, even according to your position on divorce and remarriage.

1 Timothy 3:1-7  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So, even if you can make allowance for his divorces and remarriages, (which I can't, especially based upon 1 Corinthians 7), he disqualified himself here:
1. No longer the husband of one wife

Let me ask you IP, does the phrase: "husband of one wife" somehow mean: "married only once."???

2. He is not of good behaviour, as evidenced by the letter "hey buzzard puke"

IP, do you know of any pastor or minister out there who fulfills ALL the qualifications of a Bishop ALL the time?

3. He is not patient, a requirement of the pastorate as evidenced by his caustic mannerisms.
Here is the big one:

Again IP, what Pastor or Bishop do you know who honestly fulfils every requirement and every qualification at all times?

4. He is incapable of ruling his own house. Two divorces means you are not in control of the house at all.

IP, both of his former wives left him. He did not want those former marriages to end, but what can one do? A person saved or not, simply cannot force his spouse to stay with him against her free will. And as much as a man may want to work tings out in their marriage, if the heart of the wife is not in it, again, what can the man do?

I know of a situation right now where a brother in the Lord whom I have known for a while, had his wife leave him. He did not want her to leave. He wanted to work things out. But she had already made up her mind. He tol dme himself that he cannot force her to stay with him if her heart is just not in it.

5. He no longer has a good report of them without. Not because of doctrine, but because of the two divorces and remarriages.

I love the old book BB, but I'm trying to follow it, not just hang onto it like a magic talisman. I don't care how smart the man is, disqualified is disqualified.

IP, there are a lot of pastors out there who are not "apt to teach" and who are not "blameless" but God still allows them to continue in ministry because of His grace. God searches the hearts. And I believe that if God sees that a man is genuinely trying to grow and get better at his Christian walk, then I beleive the Lord will have grace on that Christian man who is serving in the ministry.

If more pastors and ministers were honest with themselves, then they too would admit that there have been times in their lives where they also have failed to maintain some of the qualifications for bishops and deacons themselves.

Wow this whole post filled with  Scripture  twisting and rationalization for sin.  Is Ruckman so much your idol that you excuse his blatant disqualification of Scripture?  You are worse than the unbelievers, you have disregarded Jesus' words and condoned adultery in the pulpit.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Scott,

Peter Ruckman is one of the best Bible teachers out there today.

Brother Ruckman's teachings have helped to ground saved young men and women's faith in the blessed Book.

And if there is anyone out there today who knows the Doctrine of Eternal Security and how to teach it correctly, then it is definitely Brother Ruckman.

And his teachings on the Inspiration and preservation of the word of God are also excellent.



http://youtu.be/sYq5c8hLVjk

 

[T-Bone]

Scott,

Peter Ruckman is one of the best Bible teachers out there today.

Brother Ruckman's teachings have helped to ground saved young men and women's faith in the blessed Book.

And if there is anyone out there today who knows the Doctrine of Eternal Security and how to teach it correctly, then it is definitely Brother Ruckman.

And his teachings on the Inspiration and preservation of the word of God are also excellent.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYq5c8hLVjk

You really need to change your screen name, you are nota Bible believer at all , at best you are a Ruckman apologist and at worst you are a Ruckman worshiper!

 

[PR6771]

Scott,

Peter Ruckman is one of the best Bible teachers out there today.

Brother Ruckman's teachings have helped to ground saved young men and women's faith in the blessed Book.

And if there is anyone out there today who knows the Doctrine of Eternal Security and how to teach it correctly, then it is definitely Brother Ruckman.

And his teachings on the Inspiration and preservation of the word of God are also excellent.



http://youtu.be/sYq5c8hLVjk

You must be Peter Ruckman. So do you really ascribe to Kabbalistic teachings, but only for English, not for the original tongues?

 

[.tim]

Scott,

Peter Ruckman is one of the best Bible teachers out there today.

Brother Ruckman's teachings have helped to ground saved young men and women's faith in the blessed Book.

And if there is anyone out there today who knows the Doctrine of Eternal Security and how to teach it correctly, then it is definitely Brother Ruckman.

And his teachings on the Inspiration and preservation of the word of God are also excellent.



http://youtu.be/sYq5c8hLVjk

I am not so certain the "KJV Only" stand he promotes is healthy. Naturally, you will defend your conviction - as you should - but, I am not so easily convinced. For one, the Bible is not a member of the trinity - yet people in your line of conviction seem to create a tetralogy line of thinking. This seems dangerous and not found in the Bible. His teachings on inspiration and preservation of the word are narrowly focused on a single translation of God's written word - a promise never made in scripture. I don't believe preservation is dependent on a single translation. Specially when that translation is the language of the ones promoting such a conviction. Maybe God preserved his word in Polish. What then?

 

[Ransom]

Peter Ruckman is one of the best Bible teachers out there today.

Dr. Petey is a big fish in a very small pond, and no one cares about him or his idiotic opinions outside the pond.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Dr. Petey is a big fish in a very small pond, and no one cares about him or his idiotic opinions outside the pond.

Brother Peter S. Ruckman is a King James Bible believing preacher and teacher who has helped many young men and women in strengthening their faith in the word of God (King James Bible).

Brother Peter S. Ruckman also walks the walk. He has done street preaching, one on one witnessing, tracting, and so forth. As a matter of fact, he still does street preaching!

What a great example this man of God has set for the brethren.

 

[.tim]

Dr. Petey is a big fish in a very small pond, and no one cares about him or his idiotic opinions outside the pond.

Brother Peter S. Ruckman is a King James Bible believing preacher and teacher who has helped many young men and women in strengthening their faith in the word of God (King James Bible).

Brother Peter S. Ruckman also walks the walk. He has done street preaching, one on one witnessing, tracting, and so forth. As a matter of fact, he still does street preaching!

What a great example this man of God has set for the brethren.

http://youtu.be/k9lyT8UUw_I

 

[Biblebeliever]

You really need to change your screen name, you are nota Bible believer at all , at best you are a Ruckman apologist and at worst you are a Ruckman worshiper!

I am a Bible believer. I believe the BOOK. I do not worship brother Ruckman. I simply respect and admire him because of his bold stand for the word of God.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I am not so certain the "KJV Only" stand he promotes is healthy. Naturally, you will defend your conviction - as you should - but, I am not so easily convinced. For one, the Bible is not a member of the trinity - yet people in your line of conviction seem to create a tetralogy line of thinking. This seems dangerous and not found in the Bible. His teachings on inspiration and preservation of the word are narrowly focused on a single translation of God's written word - a promise never made in scripture. I don't believe preservation is dependent on a single translation. Specially when that translation is the language of the ones promoting such a conviction. Maybe God preserved his word in Polish. What then?

Can God's preserved word be found in the Polish language today, or the Latin langauge? Or the French language? Sure it can.


God saw fit to mkae His word available in many languages on the Earth. But His perfect and inerrant word is found in the English language. And it is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

 

[Biblebeliever]

You must be Peter Ruckman. So do you really ascribe to Kabbalistic teachings, but only for English, not for the original tongues?

Kabbalistic teachings???


Could you please elaborate?