Jump to content


Member Since 31 Dec 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:18 PM

#394093 A Lot Of Talk About The End And The Rapture . . . . How Near?

Posted by LindaR on 19 November 2014 - 08:02 PM

The Rapture of the Church is imminent...it can come at anytime.  Nothing needs to precede it and nothing will "make it happen".  It will happen in God's perfect timing.  I believe it is closer than we think.  So, get right or get left (behind)!

#394048 David Cloud

Posted by Kitagrl on 19 November 2014 - 12:04 PM

I don't totally agree with the secondary separation, either.  And I agree that a para-church organization would not be the same as a church. But, still - the trumpet needs to be sounded so folks understand the background of said para-church organization and its founder(s).


Who is David Cloud's primary audience?  Is it pastors, or laypeople?


If pastors, the pastors should be able to figure out what organizations are okay based on doctrine alone.


If laypeople, then it isn't David Cloud's job to name names...it's their pastor's job to name what names God would have him name.

#393915 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 16 November 2014 - 04:40 PM

Mark 13
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Not to mention the myriad of prophecies in that chapter that have not been fulfilled as yet.

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

(I note that while I quoted the verse in its entirety, you conveniently left out the verses that cause you trouble - and then you call me a liar.......)

Of course this was fulfilled in 1099 when Jerusalem was compassed with armies wasn't it.....

Jerusalem has been besieged many times - but none of them have been accompanied by the signs of vs 25.

But of course you falsely accuse me (yet again) so that you can ignore the plain English point of the verse, and introduce a variety of other arguments to save yourself from having explain your false position.
Just like a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Standard methodology as I already said.

And then you wonder why I won't discuss it, but simply point out that you are a false teacher. Maybe if you actually discussed the points properly it would be worthwhile, but not with your twisting side tracking ways.

#393917 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 16 November 2014 - 05:38 PM

Zechariah 14:2 (KJV) 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zechariah 14:3 (KJV) 3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV) 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Sorry Covenanter, but the Bible proves your Preterism to be wrong.

All nations did not gather in battle against Jerusalem in AD 70,... only General Titus and his Army.

You are covenanted with a false doctrine.

#393895 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 15 November 2014 - 08:30 PM

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says taht they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.


These two passages combined indicate to me that what the Bible is actually teaching here is not in fact nonsense.


The only reason to take the Matthew passage as meaning the people listening right then is to force it to fit with your false claim that everything was fulfilled in AD 70.

Without that presupposition there is no need to change what the structure of the language says, nor to ignore the passage in Luke.

#393849 Join Our Worship Services

Posted by Salyan on 14 November 2014 - 04:33 PM


#393771 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 13 November 2014 - 05:00 PM

DaveW is unwilling to constantly repeat points with someone who refuses to discuss things properly and who refuses to take obvious Biblical meaning.
All the subjects I listed previously have been ignored by you as soon you are pressed on any of them.
At that point you ignore, sidestep, or change the subject.

It is pointless to engage proper debate with you, because you, as is the norm for people of your persuasion and belief, are not I retested in debate - you are interested only pushing your false teaching in any way you can.
Introducing secondary arguments to avoid answering hard questions, challenging points not even made in the hopes to sidetrack discussion, and changing the subject when you have no answer.

Exactly the same way a Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist does at your door.

#393759 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 13 November 2014 - 12:20 PM


Where do you read about the "kingdom age" in Scripture?


Matthew 13:40-43 (et al.) 

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.


There are too many references to Christ's kingdom to list; however, it is clear in the above verses (which you also referenced) that there will be a kingdom with Christ as King. His kingdom will be on "this world" and will span "this world".


As a partial-preterist, I assume that you interpret this differently than I do. I see no evidence of a Christ-ruled kingdom today in this world...whether spiritual or physical. In scripture, I see a future-literal-physical kingdom with Christ literally and physically ruling from Jerusalem one day in the future. As you said, scripture is for us today, yet future events are also for us. Even as a partial-preterist, you see a "future" resurrection and judgment; therefore, you also see future events in scripture given for us real, living people today.

#393750 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by No Nicolaitans on 13 November 2014 - 10:02 AM



That parable has nothing to do with, nor does it refute a pre-trib rapture. It is relaying the fact that the lost will be cast into the lake of fire.


At the end of the kingdom age, the lost will be gathered, they will be judged, and they will be cast alive into the lake of fire.


The only reference in that group of parables in relation to "gathering" the saved is in a completely different parable than the one you quoted. I would posit that the gathering of the saved mentioned in the other parable has nothing to do with the rapture anyway. Christ will tell the reapers to gather the tares FIRST, then gather the saved "into my barn". This all happens on earth; there is no rapture mentioned in those parables; therefore, the one you quoted, nor any of the others from Matthew 13 can be said to refute the pre-trib rapture or any rapture view.

#393580 Why King James Only?

Posted by Jim_Alaska on 11 November 2014 - 11:45 AM

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.


But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.


This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is obscure.


I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?


Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.


Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?


2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!


I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?


Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.


God bless you as you serve Him.

#393539 Why King James Only?

Posted by Steve Schwenke on 10 November 2014 - 10:00 PM

I have very obviously not done a good job of communicating my point here.  I take responsibility for that.


I am not "rabid" nor am I Machiavellian.


I am calling for a more careful approach to these subjects.  If we are all KJV Believers, then our authority rests on the Scripture itself, not on man.  Man can help us see certain truths through their preaching, teaching, and writing.  However, all of this must be filtered through the Bible itself. 


I am no stranger to this debate.  I have been reading things from as many different perspectives as I can get my hands on for the last 24 years.  I have read Dr. Ruckman's materials, and I have read the materials of his detractors as well.  I have read all of the criticisms of Riplinger.  There is nothing here that has been presented that I have not read or heard before. 


The criticism against Riplinger is that she does a poor job of accurately presenting the views of the people she quotes.  Examples are given in each instance. 


The problem is that I have no way to check her quotes, nor do I have any way to check the quotes of her critics.  Where does that leave us?


In my view, if I were to write a critical response to somebody's book, I would address the SUBJECT MATTER, not their use of quotations.  I would deal ONLY with the main thesis, the arguments presented, the conclusions, and how these correspond to Scriptural Truth.  Period.


Her detractors do not do that.

In my mind, this casts doubt as to their motives and the validity of their criticisms. 


In fact, the quote I provided above from Br. Cloud admits that he cannot find fault with the OVERALL idea, just her methods. 


In my view Cloud's critique is very subjective, because now I am being asked to take his word on the matter. 


I don't trust people when their argument against somebody else's work is nothing more than a smear campaign on their personal character.  I am sure if we looked hard enough, we could find plenty of "dirt" on the critics as well.  I don't think that approach is Biblical. 


I simply cannot take somebody else's word that she has "lied" or misrepresented others.  I am being asked to believe one person, and dismiss another based on.....wait for it....what that one person said.  No dice.  Can't do it.  Won't do it. 


"Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar...." Romans 3:4. 


Let's just stick to the Scriptures, use it as our guide, follow its example, and judge all things by the KJV, not by man's opinion of another man.


In Christ,

#393529 Why King James Only?

Posted by MatthewDiscipleOfGod on 10 November 2014 - 07:27 PM

I see a lot of criticism of Ruckman and Gail on here but no one giving first hand evidence as Steve mentioned. I don't care for Gail acting as a pastor at times and Ruckman's name calling but as for accusations of misquotes first hand examples should be given. Steve is correct, all men are liars. I have yet to meet someone have has never lied in their lifetime. Fundamentalism's biggest weakness is everyone flocking to their own leaders. For some it is David Cloud, for others it is Ruckman. For others still it may be Sword of the Lord leaders or some school they attended. We need to go back to the Bible. The Bible alone needs to be our sole authority.

#393299 Come Say, "hi"

Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 07 November 2014 - 09:00 PM

Hi Ocean, Welcome to OB.

Like Old Fashioned, I too have a question. Were you baptized into the Church? Or into Christ?

Please don't take our questions wrong. We truly are concerned and ask these questions for a reason. Many people submit to Baptism thinking they receive Salvation through submersion in water. Many are taught that they must be baptized in a specific denomination and a certain Church or they cannot be saved.

The truth is, we get Baptized in water as an outward profession of an inner faith. One should already be immersed in the saving Grace of Jesus Christ, or they are still just as lost coming out of the Baptismal basin as they were when they entered the water.

#393264 They Don't Want Equality

Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 07 November 2014 - 11:38 AM

Saw this clip in a news article concerning a family in Ireland protecting their religious liberty:

“If supporting same-sex marriage is a protected political opinion, so is supporting traditional marriage."

This is a profound statement. Our government needs to grasp this truth and put an end to the sodomites ungodly attacks on bridal boutiques, bakeries, marriage chapels, and yes, sadly, even our pulpits. This nation has gotten so far from its standards and morals because of left-wing liberals, that it is sickening.

Sodomites need to repent, turning from their sinful lusts and fall on their knees before God. If they have no heart to repent, they need to push their agenda amongst their own and stay out of the Christian businesses. They cry for equality, but equality is not what they want. Equality is merely a subtil tactical diversion. Their agenda demands acceptance of sin, something no true child of Almighty God should ever agree with.

#393102 Why King James Only?

Posted by Calvary on 05 November 2014 - 04:46 PM

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:


1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 


2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.


Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.


As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.


The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.


That's a start for now.


Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.


Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....


MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500