Ruckman videos

Included in divorce is not just the separation of a man and a woman. It is a vioaltion of God principles. James called his readers adulteresses.

There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

 

Anyone read Ruckie's Mark of the Beast? In that book he introduces us to his 10-ft. tall alien black-lipped Antichrist who lands in a mile-wide spaceship & implants the "mark" with his huge black lips. Guess he's gomma be one busy AC as there will be several billion proselytes to kiss. Chap-Stick, anyone?

 

Yes, especially if they made their teaching compatible to their own situation. In other words, we are talking about credibility here. If you can't trust him to be true to Scripture in this matter, then you can't trust him to be sound in other areas either. As I understand the situation, Ruckman morphed his teaching on divorce and remarriage to justify what he did. If he did it once, how do you know he won’t do it again in another area?

The JW's, for example, do have some right doctrine such as inspiration of Scripture or creationism. It's their damnable heresy that makes them unreliable and untrustworthy in all areas. Who wants to dig through the filthy garbage can to find a morsel of good meat?

 

Nonsense! Just exactly what is the point? What Scripture specifically states that Paul was a murderer? Or, is this a conclusion, an inference, based on Paul's persecution of the church, securing decrees against the Christians, consenting to Stephen's death, etc.? Even so, what does this have to do with the qualifications of a pastor? As I stipulated previously, it is not about forgiveness, rather it is about being qualified.

 

It would appear that your whole argument hinges on comparing man with man rather than accepting what God has clearly said. Your reasoning is spurious.

Have you read the other posts on this thread? I specifically stated that it is not a matter of sinning and being forgiven. We’ve all sinned and been forgiven. However, the matter is a qualification that God has established for a pastor—the husband of one wife (literally—a one woman man). Ruckman doesn’t meet this qualification. A man may be forgiven for being a bigamist or polygamist as well but he is disqualified to be a pastor. Marriage is given as a picture of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5:22-32. A divorced pastor gives a distorted view of Christ and the church.

The point is precisely that his past mistakes have disqualified him. Why don’t you address the point rather than appealing to sentiment and emotion? Yes, those in leadership and reputation do have higher expectations placed on them—they are role models and influence others. “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. (Ecclesiastes 10:1)”

 

Read the passages on divorce in the gospels. It's right there in red and white. Condemnation falls on the remarriage part. I'm not excusing divorce, it's a sin too, but exegete the passage. What do the sentences say?

But overall, methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

 

How many here carry a Scofield Bible? He was divorced and remarried three times. 1rst Tim doesn't give any specifications about remarriage. It says the husband of one wife. If that means no remarriage then a man whose wife has died can't remarry. It means being faithfull to the one wife you've got.

 

1. The Gospels say nothing about divorce and remarriage as qualifications for the pastorate.
2. You did not support your assertion that Paul was a murderer.
3. You failed to make any logical connection between your statement about Paul and the question of divorce and remarriage disqualifying a man for the pastorate.

Furthermore, since you're trying to make a point from the Gospels, why don't you exegete the passage and tell me what the sentences say? You're not my teacher assigning homework to me.

Are you a Ruckmanite? Your manner and methods smell of that crowd.

 

Do you know this? How so? Document it. For all I know, this could be an urban legend.

No, you must have skipped something in your reading. When a spouse is dead, the other is freed from the covenant. Search the Scriptures, I think you will find something. (Hint: Romans 7:2)

This is part of it but not all. What does it mean to be faithful? Explain what it means.

 

The Way Some Interpret Scripture


The ignorance displayed is stunning. What can you learn about people by selectively taking passages from their writings and putting a strange spin on them? Not much, but let's try it: according to one religion, a true adherent must speak in tongues and take up serpents (1). Unruly or rebellious children must be put to death (2), as must Jews (3) and anyone who does simple chores on the Sabbath (4). Further, followers of this faith must hate their families and abandon them (5), and you must follow all orders from the government, since rulers are placed over you by this religion's god (6). Slavery is permitted (7). If you have enemies, you are ordered to love them, kill them, accommodate them, and send them to hell to burn for all eternity (8). This religion's god sent a savior -- to cause humanity strife and grief (9). Followers should not pray in public, such as in school (10), and abortion is OK since a fetus is not a living human until it takes its first breath (11). After death, you may not retain your spirit -- sorry (12).

Did you guess the religion? You probably did -- it's Mitch in Kentucky's religion: Christianity, and all of these things are from the Bible. (Remember, I said this is what someone who
selectively takes passages and puts a "strange spin on them" could conclude. Clear?) The
references:

1. Mark 16:16-18
2. Deuteronomy 21:20-21
3. Luke 19:27
4. Exodus 35:2
5. Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:35-36 and Matthew 19:29
6. Romans 13:1-7, 2 Peter 2:10, Matthew 22:17-21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25
7. Eph 6:5, Col 3:22
8. Matthew 5:44, Luke 19:27, Matthew 5:39-45, Mark 9:43-48, Mark 11:13-14, 20
9. Luke 12:51-53, Matthew 10:34
10. Matthew 6:5-6
11. Geneses 2:7
12. Eccles 8:8

Taken from http://www.thisistrue.com/antichrist.html

 

Even after maggots destroy her flesh?

 

Do you know this? How so? Document it. For all I know, this could be an urban legend.

No, you must have skipped something in your reading. When a spouse is dead, the other is freed from the covenant. Search the Scriptures, I think you will find something. (Hint: Romans 7:2)

This is part of it but not all. What does it mean to be faithful? Explain what it means. </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you read Romans 7 yourself you white washed pharisee. He speaks to them that know the law. Why don't you read what the law had to say about putting away your wife. Hint: Deut. 24

 

Even after maggots destroy her flesh? </font>[/QUOTE]I not sure what you mean by that. You are free to remarry if she is dead, or deserted you in adultery, or she was an unbeliever who left you.

 

My apologies for accusing bro. Scofield of being divorced and remarried three times. It is Ruckman who has done that. Scofield was only remarried once.

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

Notes on C. I. Scofield and the Scofield Bible


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE SCOFIELD BIBLE and C. I. SCOFIELD

By Glenn R. Goss, Th. D.
Professor of Bible Philadelphia College of Bible

The year 1909 (almost 90 years ago!) was quite a year. Louis Bleroit of France piloted a small monoplane across the English Channel; homesteaders began to arrive in Montana; the NAACP was founded; Al Capp, creator of Li'l Abner, was born; Einstein became a leading scientific thinker in Europe; Grand Prairie, Texas, was incorporated; the first Siberian huskies were introduced to Alaska; George Sargent won the U. S. Open in Golf; Pittsburgh beat Detroit 4-3 to take the World Series; and, of great importance but little noted, Oxford University Press published The Scofield Reference Bible. It was released to the public in January, 1909, and revised by Scofield and his team of consultants as the New and Improved Edition in 1917. Now, almost 90 years later, the 1917 edition is still being printed by Oxford University Press, and the 1967 edition, the Scofield Study Bible (the title today) is offered in four versions: the King James, the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New King James Version. The first million copies were printed by 1930. Since then the number published has escalated, and so has the diversity in versions and languages. The Scofield is now printed in at least seven languages other than English.

But who is C. I. Scofield? Many know there is a Scofield Memorial Church in Dallas. What is the connection between the church and Scofield himself? How did the Scofield Reference Bible come to be? And why is the Scofield Study Bible so loved by some and so disliked by others?

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield was born in Michigan in 1843. When the Civil war began, he was in Tennessee with his sisters. While there, he enlisted in the Confederate army. Military records show he fought in the Confederate Army for over a year in 1861-1862, then was discharged by reason of not being a citizen of the Confederate States, but an alien friend. Scofield told his biographer Charles Trumbull that he served through the war, and that he was awarded the Confederate Cross of Honor. After the war, Scofield located in St. Louis, married, and had a family of two daughters and a son. His wife was from a French Catholic family, and she and her daughters remained in that church till their deaths. His son died as a young boy. He joined a law firm, read and studied to be admitted to the bar. In 1869 he and his family moved to Kansas, where he was admitted to the bar to practice law. He was elected twice to the Kansas legislature, in 1871 and in 1872. President Grant appointed him as the United States District Attorney of Kansas June 9, 1873. He affirmed, in the oath of office, that he had never voluntarily born arms against the United States . . . He evidently had no problem with that claim, even though he had fought in the Confederate Army. He resigned December 20, 1873, amid charges and counter-charges of political corruption. That ended Scofield's political career.

Scofield probably moved his family back to St. Louis, for his son Guy died in December, 1874, and was buried in St. Louis. But by 1879 his life had deteriorated to the extent that he drank heavily and was involved in several questionable court cases. For most of this time, his wife and daughters were back to Atchison, Kansas. Mrs. Scofield filed for divorce in 1881, but that case was dismissed. A second filing of the case resulted in a divorce decree in 1883. These and other legal actions involving Scofield, and several notations in city directories, provide some of the only evidence about him during the time from 1873 to 1879.

A published account of Scofield's life in can be found in The Life Story of C. I. Scofield by Charles Gallaudet Trumbull, published by Oxford University Press in 1920. An unpublished Master Thesis, "A Biographical Sketch of C. I. Scofield" was written by William A. BeVier at Southern Methodist University in 1960. Both of these are complimentary of Scofield. Joseph M. Canfield wrote and published, The Incredible Scofield in 1988. This book is very critical of Scofield's theology and personal life. Due to the lack of existing records, and the lack of information in records that do exist, both BeVier and Canfield make much use of terms such as "it seems," "probably," and "evidently." Trumbull, on the other hand, writes factually, since much of his information came directly from Scofield himself. But even Trumbull passes over the period of 1873 to 1879 with nothing more than a reference to Scofield's habit of drinking. Though not much is certain about this period, one thing is clear. A change was needed in Scofield's life. Both Canfield and BeVier agree with Trumbull that a conversion did take place. Canfield questions if it was real, at least at first, and he does not agree on the time. But all recognized that Scofield needed a change in his life. And, God had prepared a man to meet that need.

 

Are you a Ruckmanite? Your manner and methods smell of that crowd. </font>[/QUOTE]I retract the preceding statement. It was in poor taste and beneath my standards. Humblesmith, please forgive me of implying that you are a Ruckmanite. That's a put down.

 

I'm not a Ruckmanite. My only exposure to him is from James White's book about KJV. At least I think that's the same guy, I'd have to pull it out and check.

Paid, I'm sure you're correct about most of your assertions. You are correct that I didn't take the time to carefully present a view. The reason I dropped in with so brief of comments is that I don't have the time this week to get into a detailed discussion on divorce. So you're correct that my comments weren't very careful.

However, to me, here's my basic position: Divorce is a sin. Jesus fairly clearly describes remarriage as adultery, which is a point that is almost totally ignored in the church today. That said, in my opinion a much larger problem than divorce in conservative churches is the rampant legalism. Divorce is an issue that for some reason touches a raw nerve with many people. And even though they correctly condemn divorce, too many people get very agitated and angry about this topic, and do so at the drop of a hat. Whenever people get into one of these "raw nerve" topics, rarely do we have a calm, well-reasoned discussion. For example, you never see people get nearly as angry over, say, gossip, which can be hugely damaging in a church.

If we'd focus as much energy into stamping out legalism in the pastorate as we do divorce, we'd be better off.

 

So, what is your definition of legalism?

 

The man is extremely caustic in his opinions. So much to the fact I think he hurts the Christian cause. As far as his divorce and being a Pastor none of us really know what happened. But is it okay for a convicted murderer to repent and become a Pastor, but not a divorced man? What about a reformed alcoholic? Drug addict? Are they any better qualified than a divorced person? Are they less in the eyes of God?

82

 

Whether you agree with Ruckman or not let me ask this of all those that choose only the "husband of one wife" clause of the "qualifications" of a pastor, to DISqualify a man from the position (last time I checked, being the husband of one wife was not the only qualification required):

1.) Is this the ONLY qualification mentioned in 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus?

2.) If this ONE requirement (i.e. the husbamd of one wife) is a cause for disqualification, if a man is divorced and remarried, then is not a man disqualified if he does not meet any one of the rest of them?

Example: A pastor has NEVER been the divorced and remarried, but does not "ruleth well his own house", and fails at "having his children in subjection with all gravity;"; is this man not just as disqualified as a divoreced and remarried man?

3.)Where in the SCRIPTURE does it put one qualification above the another?

4.) Look at Jeremiah 3:6-8, and see who gave a "bill of divorce" to Israel...does this disqualify Him?

Please answer the questions before you "chasten" me with a Pharisical whip.

 

Indeed, I know of a situation in which this happened (unruly children). I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it happens.

HankD