Home » Posts tagged 'cults' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: cults
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
God does NOT love everyone? A Hyper-Calvinist Error, part 2 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes!” Scripture says “no!” In part 1 of 3 in this series, I summarized the first portion of my recent composition God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. John 3:16, Mark 10:21, and 1 John 2:2 refute the hyper-Calvinist idea that God loves only the elect. Scripture is plain that God loves the entire world-every single person.
If Hyper-Calvinists Were Right,
Then Christians Should Not Love Their Enemies
Christians should be like God. If God loves every person, then they should love all men. If God has nothing but an everlasting hatred for the non-elect, then they should strive with all their might to purge out any love that they have for lost sinners from their bosoms and have nothing but an eternal and everlasting hatred for them, (allegedly) like God. However, the Lord Jesus taught:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
Christians must love their enemies because God loves His enemies. When they love their wicked, unregenerate, Christ-and-Christian hating enemies, they are being like their Father in heaven. The Sermon on the Mount does not say, “Love your elect enemies and bless the elect when they curse and hate you. If the non-elect do it, though, show eternal hatred to them.” Believers must “increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men” (1 Thessalonians 3:12-13) because God loves all men, not the elect alone.
The Quran Agrees with Hyper-Calvinism,
but the Bible does Not
Hyper-Calvinists need specific passages that teach God does NOT love the majority of the world that rejects Christ and is eternally lost. It would not have been hard for God to include such statements in the Bible. After all, the Quran is filled with them. For example:
Q 2:276 Allah hath blighted usury and made almsgiving fruitful. Allah loveth not the impious and guilty.
Q 3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
Q 3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.
The Quran is full of such statements-when I went through the Quran from cover to cover as part of my preparation for my debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally I found the seemingly constant drum-beat of Allah’s lack of love for this group and that group a sharp contrast with the teaching of God’s Word, the Bible.
While the idea that God does not love unbelievers is all over the Quran, the number of statements in holy Scripture such as “God does not love person X” or “God does not love people like Y” are equal in number to the statements such as “Christ did not die for person X” or “Christ did not die for group Y”–namely, zero. Both limited atonement and the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of God’s lack of love for the vast majority of mankind are completely absent from Scripture.
Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Inaccuracies
As many blog readers are aware, God gave me the privilege of debating Dr. James R. White, author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, orig. pub. 1995) on King James Onlyism a few months ago (if you have not seen the debate, you can watch it here.). Our specific debate topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I believe that the debate went well, to the glory of the God who has perfectly preserved His Word and in answer to the prayers of many of His saints. Since the debate, I have been working on a series of debate review videos, a few of which are now live, and many more of which should go live relatively shortly (I would have some new ones live already, but had some issues with audio quality). I must confess that in reviewing the arguments made by Dr. White I have been impressed with their weakness. During the debate itself I was delighted that he did not bring up anything that I was not expecting or that there were not readily available answers, but post-debate review has revealed even further weaknesses with his case. What kind of weaknesses? Subscribe to my Rumble or YouTube channel (or both) to find out when I discuss them there. (I probably will comment on them here at What is Truth? as well, so you can also just keep your eyes on this blog.)
James White has on numbers of occasions indicated that he wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a handful of months, and, unfortunately, the evidences for his rapid composition are most numerous. One example that we discussed here at What is Truth? before the debate was his astonishing affirmation–backed with no written sources or any evidence of any kind–that some King James Only people think Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets all actually spoke English, not Hebrew. While these people do appear to exist in Dr. White’s imagination, there does not appear to be any documentation of their existence in the real world. Even if one is not King James Only, creating straw-men, inaccurate arguments is not what one would want in a treatment of the issue under discussion.
Another example of the many astonishing and inaccurate claims of nutty radicalism by King James Only advocates appears in Dr. White’s discussion of people who allegedly think various people outside of the original writers of Scripture were inspired. (Biblically speaking, even the original writers were not inspired–their writings, not their persons, were authored by the Holy Spirit without any error; but saying “Peter was inspired” or “Moses was inspired,” while not accurate, is not as nuts as what James White is claiming.) What am I talking about? Consider the following arguments James White employs against King James Onlyism:
Anyone who believes the TR [Textus Receptus] to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow inspired … [y]et none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (pg. 96)
We pause only long enough to note that the KJV Only advocate … has to believe that Theodore Beza … was divinely inspired” (pg. 105)
“The KJV translators were not infallible human beings” (pg. 115)
Yet a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, “Why should I believe Jerome was inspired[?] … Do I have a good reason for believing this?” (pg. 181)
No citation of any King James Only advocate who believes in the inspiration of Jerome, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators, appears. James White does quote Edward F. Hills on page 96–specifically denying that the Textus Receptus was produced under inspiration or through a Divine miracle. Quotations by any prominent (or obscure!) advocate of King James Onlyism, or any KJV Only school, or church, or even a kid in the third grade in a KJV Only Sunday School affirming that Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators were inspired does not appear. They do not seem to exist in the real world, but only in the imaginary world that contains King James Only advocates who think that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets spoke Hebrew.
James White’s The King James Only Controversy, unfortunately, has many such inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It does not fairly and accurately present the positions of the belief system it seeks to refute. Consequently, while it may convince people who do not know anything about the King James Only movement that being KJVO is crazy, it will not be very effective convincing those who believe in the superiority of the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and Authorized, King James Version. Rather than being silenced by the power of James White’s critique, they are likely to be disgusted by the inaccurate straw-manning of their belief system.
–TDR
Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump in 2024 as a Republican
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics below.
I have Always Voted Republican as a Conservative
In 2016, I voted for Donald Trump. In 2020, I voted for Donald Trump. In every presidential election since I have been able to vote, and in every other election, I have consistently voted for Republican candidates. Before the 2020 election, I wrote a blog post about why Christians should vote for Donald Trump because of religious liberty, abortion, and free speech.
In 2016 Donald Trump won 46% of the vote to squeak by in the electoral college a few days after Hillary Clinton was hit with criminal charges. Although I found his personality and character abhorrent, I voted for him in 2016 because of the Supreme Court. In 2020, I also voted for him because of the Supreme Court. I also though that, despite the many self-inflicted wounds he gave himself, with good conservative advisors he did a better job governing than I thought he would do. I was very thankful that, with the help of Mitch McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court–appointments that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was very, very, very good.
Many of the media attacks on Trump were baseless. He never colluded with Russia, for example. Many other attacks were based on taking seriously what he said when, very often, even Trump himself does not pay attention to what he says (not a good idea when you are the most powerful elected figure on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military).
My political views are extremely conservative. Based on Scripture, they support a very limited government and are very socially conservative. I believe the US Constitution is a very good document for running a government in this fallen world and wish that it were followed much more closely than it is.
Donald Trump Will Not Peacefully Cede Power
So why am I not going to vote for Donald Trump again-certainly not in the Republican primary, and also not in the general election, if he wins the primary? It is not because of his horrible character. It is not because there are good reasons to wonder if what is good for Trump is more important to him than what is good for the United States. It is not because he constantly attacks everyone and alienates larger and larger and larger groups of people and even people as loyal as his own vice president. It is not because he has now been convicted of battery and sexual crimes. These are very big problems-definitely far more than enough to make me vote for someone else in the Republican primary, but in the general election I am willing to overlook them. It is not because of some secret sympathy for the socialistic, big-government policies of the Democrat party. I am very concerned about the judges Democrats put on the Supreme Court and other courts and I see “vote for Trump because of the judges” as the single strongest argument to vote for him, if he prevails in the Republican primary (which I fervently hope he does not). I am very concerned about the way the Democrat party is willing to persecute churches, Christian business owners, and Christians in general who stand for what Scripture teaches on morality.
So what was the final straw for me? I think there is a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will not cede power peacefully if he loses an election. I believe in the American republic, not in a dictatorship by a Republican.
I did not think that Donald Trump would do what he did after losing the 2020 election. Pursuing all legal avenues to try to get the most votes you can? Fine. But his refusal-for hours-to call off the rioters on January 6 was despicable, even when it was obvious that things had turned violent. It is also perfectly obvious that the Vice President never has had the power to unilaterally overturn election results. If the Vice President of the party in power can unilaterally reject election results, we do not have a republic, but a dictatorship. It does not even need to be stated that the idea that the VP can do this is absolutely indefensible constitutionally.
Let’s say that it is far more likely that the reason Donald Trump was unwilling to admit that he lost the election by over 7,000,000 votes is that Trump can never admit he was wrong than that the theories he was spouting off in public, but which even his own lawyers would not defend in court, were true. That would be a huge problem, but maybe if he had just made stuff up to support his ego and left it at that, perhaps I would still vote for him again.
However, it is now years later, and Trump is still making the same Constitutionally fatal claims. He still claims that Mike Pence could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election results. That means the end of the republic and the start of a tyranny. What did Trump do in his very first campaign rally? He put up a video and a song made by criminals who were justly put in prison for their crimes on January 6. He showed them violently fighting the police. He tried to put them in a good light as they were breaking and smashing and beating police officers and trying to get in to violently place him in power. He did not put up a video of the (imaginary) people who (in an alternate universe) just happened to wander into the Capitol as tourists or something and then were arrested and imprisoned unjustly. No, his video showed the rioters fighting with the police, and was glorifying the rioters as if they were righteous. Note that the video from the January 6 committee here:
And Trump’s campaign video here, where the singers are imprisoned January 6 criminals:
have some of the same footage of rioters fighting police (see 1:14-1:30 in), although Trump puts the violent criminals up for a shorter period of time. Trump embraces people who wanted Mike Pence executed for treason although he does not (at this point, at least, but you never know what he will do next) himself call for the execution of his own former Vice President for treason.
Trump said that he would accept the 2016 results–if he won. He lost in 2020 and did not accept the results. If he loses in 2024, there could be a lot of bloodshed. If he wins in 2024-something that is very, very unlikely-there is no reason to think that he would voluntarily cede power at the end of his term. He could come up with some reason-any reason-to retain power. The Vice President being able to unilaterally overturn results; the election allegedly having fraud that is worse than any third-world country; Dominion voting machines changing millions of votes; you name it. If Donald Trump can claim (even before results are in!) that the long shot conservative Republican Larry Elder lost in California to the sitting Democrat governer, Gavin Newsom, by fraud, then he can claim any election he wants was lost by fraud.
I have little confidence Trump would voluntarily cede power if he lost an election. Furthermore, anyone that was part of his cabinet in a second Trump term would have to be an almost cultic “yes” man. He would have to be a bobble head agreeing with any Trump claims. Trump claimed (in his January 6 speech) that in 2020 he “won in a landslide” but is not now in office because of “the most corrupt election in … history, maybe of the world,” far worse than “third-world countries,” and “everybody knows it.” The 2020 US election was not worse than elections such as the 1927 Liberian election where the winner gained 243,000 votes from the 15,000 registered voters, the 1964 election in Haiti where the president won 99.9% of the vote, there were no opponents, and all the ballots were pre-marked “yes,” or the elections in Equitorial Guinea between 1990-2020 where the president got 98% of the vote at a minimum, with some areas giving him over 103%. Everyone knows that the 2020 election was worse than such corrupt elections, according to Trump. Instead of having advisors like his courageous and moral Vice President, Mike Pence, Trump would have a cabinet of Kool-Aid drinkers who would actually help him to retain power after an election loss and would parrot whatever nutty claims he made.
I am not going to vote for Trump again because I do not have confidence he would cede power. Do you have confidence he would cede power if he lost?
Why It Does Not Matter That I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
Despite the great danger that Trump would not cede power peacefully if he were reelected, it does not matter very much that I will not vote for him. Why is that?
1.) I am in California, so my vote does not matter in a presidential election. California is almost certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, and if a Republican won the electoral votes of California, he would not need them, for he would already have won other closer states in a landslide. Were I in a swing state, I would have to think harder about not voting for Trump.
2.) However, although it would be a harder call, even if I were in a swing state I would not vote for Trump because of the threat he is to the Constitution. Even in this case, though, my vote would not matter. Why? Because Trump is unelectable. He lost a winnable election in 2020 through self-inflicted wounds, and after January 6 he was no longer a viable candidate for president. He is never going to get the 46% of the vote that he got in 2016 again-much less the higher percentage he would need to win against someone less repulsive than Hillary Clinton a few days after she was indited. Joe Biden, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media will work very hard to make Trump the Republican candidate in 2024 because they know he is not electable. Donald Trump turned what should have been a red wave in 2022 into a red trickle, even though he was not on the ballot. People do not want someone who supports violent riots, injuries to hundreds of Capitol police officers, and the end of the republic for a dictatorship where the Vice President can unilaterally overturn results. Running on a pro-January 6 riot platform is bonkers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if the Democrats were secretly paying off Trump to run on something like that. The electorate does not want a candidate who justifies violent attempts at revolution and whom a jury has found guilty of sexual assault. If Republicans nominate someone creepy enough, they can even lose Senate races in Alabama. (Note that Roy Moore was only credibly accused of sexual crimes–Trump has not only been accused, but been found guilty by a jury of them. Roy Moore lost deep, deep, deep Red Alabama. How badly will Trump lose?) Trump has alienated a large portion of the Republican electorate but he unites the Democrats. He alienates moderates and far, far more than half the voting population. A vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for a united Democrat government that controls the House and Senate–probably with large majorities–and the presidency in 2024. It is a vote for a Democrat president who will do everything he can to get Roe v. Wade back. The question is not whether Trump can get the 46% he got in 2016. The question is whether he would be able to get 40%, or 35%, or a number even lower than that. The question is whether the Democrats would win in a huge landslide that can introduce constitutional amendments or just a big landslide that can abolish the filibuster and appoint radical leftist tyrants to the Supreme Court.
So the fact that I would not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election will not matter–if he is at the top of the Republican ticket, the election will not even be close.
However, in the Republican primary my vote definitely WILL matter. I will be voting to keep Trump away from the Republican nomination, so that limited, Constitutional government, religious liberty, and other incredible blessings here in the United States may continue, by God’s grace. While I think Mike Pence would be even better than Ron DeSantis, I will plan to vote for whoever appears to have the best chance at keeping Donald Trump away from winning the nomination, at least if it is still in play when I have a chance to vote in the primary, Lord willing.
As a postscript, let me say again that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics in this post.
–TDR
Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer
Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.
Why do I say this? I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover. I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped. Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy. James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1] Dr. White argues: “Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow ‘inspired.’”[2] Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).
Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic. I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium. It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.” I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor. I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV. At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately. The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.
As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000). The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.” Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian. Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to get to something substantial. Ruckman can say things such as: “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117). Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University. He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived. He knows that the English language did not yet exist. (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.) Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.
I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:
“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to define than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexandrian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German version (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensacola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “accused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind before the Second Advent. God has graciously preserved its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laodicean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we consider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]
Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles. At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law. That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.
So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part? (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.) I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books). However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.
Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous. On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book. A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460. He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy. The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4). If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy. We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God. That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting. Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist. He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.
So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman? White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right. From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do. I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher. That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God. Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.
I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies. I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous. Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.
–TDR
[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.
[3] Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.
James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Videos
There have been a number of debate reviews of the James White vs. Thomas Ross debate on the topic:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
You can watch the debate itself here on the What is Truth? blog, on my website, on Rumble, or on YouTube. If you did watch it, you can also examine some of the review videos. I intend to produce, Lord willing, a series of videos that carefully examine the entire debate. To this point, I have two debate review videos live (one made before the debate was live, and a second one, just produced, that begins to examine James White’s opening presentation).
Thomas Ross: Debate Review and Analysis part #1:
Pre-debate Review Video of James White & His Claims
Watch the debate review part #1 on Rumble
Watch the debate review part #1 on YouTube
In this initial debate review, I provide my thoughts on how the debate went and respond to James White’s claims about the debate in his Dividing Line program of February 21, 2023, c. minutes 5-18, entitled “Road Trip Dividing Line: Gay Mirage, Mass, Biblicism.”
Debate Review and Analysis part #2: James White & His Opening Presentation, part 1: Would the King James Version Translators have Preferred the Legacy Standard Bible and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text to the KJV and the Textus Receptus?
Watch the debate review part #2 on Rumble
Watch the debate review part #2 on YouTube
I now have twelve of these debate review videos. You can watch them all at faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. At least at this point I have not added the ten after the first two to this post to prevent the post from getting overwhelming. Please think about subscribing to my YouTube and Rumble channels to find out when new video reviews come out, as I intend to record some more debate review videos, Lord willing.
James White (Apologia Church): His Own Debate Comments in the Dividing Line
If you would like to hear what James White said about the debate afterwards, watch minutes 5-18 of his February 21, 2023 Dividing Line program.
Jeff Riddle: Reformed Baptist and Confessional Bibliology Advocate’s Debate Review
Dr. Jeff Riddle has produced some helpful post-debate reviews. You can watch part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on YouTube, or watch them on the embedded links below. I appreciate what Dr. Riddle has written on what he calls Confessional Bibliology. Dr. Riddle rightly wants to distance himself (as do most people who are happy to call themselves King James Only) from extremists like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger while recognizing the difference between the way the original language text is inspired as to its words and translations are God’s Word as to their substance (what he calls the principle of Authoritas Divina Duplex, if you want a little Latin). Whatever you wish to call it, I appreciate his perspective on this issue of Bibliology, although Scripture does not teach TULIP Calvinism (and it also certainly does not teach Arminianism).
Jeff Riddle Debate Review Part 1:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 2:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 3:
Jeff Riddle debate review part 4:
There is a written debate review here on What is Truth? by Dr. Kent Brandenburg: “The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?” as well as some follow-up posts by Dr. Brandenburg (follow-up part 1; part 2; part 3).
There are also some debate reviews by a gentleman named Nick Sayers, who has a website called Textus Receptus. I know less about his doctrinal position than I do about Dr. Riddle. Mr. Sayers belongs to a religious organization called “Revolution Church.” He made seven extremely long debate review videos (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7). A large percentage of what he points out is useful, although I would disagree with him at a minority of points. Everyone should repent and believe the gospel, and then be immersed into a Baptist Church, not a Revolution church.
I am not aware of any of the disciples of James White making any review videos dealing in detail with the substance of the debate. The best I could locate was a five-minute review by one of James White’s disciples named “Polite Leader.” Polite Leader completely ignored the fact that the Nestle-Aland text is a patchwork and many of the other extreme problems with the text White is defending, but I suppose one can only say so much in a video that short, and so putting in what he believed were James’ best points would be important, from his viewpoint.
Thanks again for your prayers for God’s truth and for me during the debate. To Him alone be the glory for the good for His kingdom that was accomplished by it, and to me alone be the blame for what I should have done better.
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version Debate (KJV vs LSB) is Now Live!
I am happy to report that you can now watch the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Bible versions (the King James Version Only debate)! The topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
James White was in the affirmative.
Thomas Ross was in the negative.
The debate can now be viewed on the following sites (click for your choice): FaithSaves Rumble YouTube
It can also be watched using the embedded video below:
Please “like” the video on YouTube and Rumble and share comments about it on those websites as well as on the blog here.
I am thankful for the work put in by the follower of James White who edited the video. I would like to have a somewhat improved version where one can see both the debaters and the slides at the same time, instead of only one or the other, and if that project gets completed, we will definitely plan to inform the blog readership about it.
May the truth of the perfect preservation of His infallible Word be more widely received as a result of this debate. Soli Deo Gloria!
Please also read the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version debate review, part 1, here (with more to come) or watch the video on FaithSaves, Rumble or YouTube. Lord willing, there are more parts to come reviewing the debate and its arguments.
–TDR
King James Only extremists: Abraham & Moses spoke English?
James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009) writes as follows:
There are small groups who go even further, claiming that the KJV was written in eternity and that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English, and when discussing religious topics they will not so much as use a single word not found in the KJV. (pg. 28)
Have you ever seen or heard of someone like this? Dr. White provides no written or other sources that these people exist.
The only individual I have ever met taking this view was when I was preaching in a church in North Dakota shortly after coming back from fighting for the Brits in Waterloo. This KJVO extremist rode into Grand Forks, ND, coming to church in his cowboy hat and boots, his rifle in one hand (to defend himself against the Jesuits) and a slurpee in the other (in case the sermon got long and he became thirsty), across the Golden Gate Bridge (it had recently been extended somewhat through a federal grant) on the back of Big Foot, accompanied by Little Red Riding Hood and Mary Poppins (both first-time visitors to church). This King James Only man not only thought that Abraham and Moses spoke English, but that the Scofield Reference notes in his Bible were written by the Apostle Scofield, one of the men who accompanied the Apostle Paul on his missionary travels.
Other than this King James Only person, I have never once in many years as a KJVO person in KJVO churches met or heard of such people. Have you? Surely James White is not exaggerating or creating a caricature here. I might start to exaggerate or caricature myself if I had to read a lot of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman–their antics might rub off on me as well. In fact, I surely have committed the sin of exaggerating or caricaturing those who disagree with me at various times in my life. But surely that did not take place here. Right?
If you have actually met such people, please let me know about it in the comment section. If you have a shred of evidence for their existence that is in writing, that is much better. I may not be able to answer comments myself, however, until after my debate with Dr. James White this Saturday is over, Lord willing. Also, I am looking for comments that evaluate his claim, not that hurl insults at him (or at anyone else). Thank you.
–TDR (note: I switched this week with Dr. Brandenburg; I am posting today, he should post this Friday, Lord willing.)
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
Recent Comments