View Single Post
  #25  
Old 06-22-2009, 12:57 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: " Don't tell me what it “means” just tell me what it “says”"

Winman,

Once again you MISQUOTE me! WHY is it that you can NOT just quote MY “WORDS”, instead of “READING INTO” them whatever you want?

Winman said:
Quote:
Once again you imply that only those who rightly divide the word of truth understand the Bible.
Your “problem” is you just can’t accept what is plainly written - you MUST put your personalspin” on it in order for you to understand it. I did NOTimply” anything! You are doing the “twisting” and “wresting” of my words, in an attempt to MAKE them “say” something other than what I said!

Now, what I want you to do is CITE the Post Number where I said what you are “IMPLYINGI said! And if you can’t – why aren’t you embarrassed?

I am going to repeat a litany of “CLAIMS” you have made lately which I have disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and for which you have NOT acknowledged your error, and for which you have not yet apologized:

In my Post #65 > On the Thread > “Rightly dividing the Book of Acts” I said:
Quote:
If you try to say that the gospel of the kingdom; and the everlasting gospel and the gospel of the grace of God - i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”, are ALL the SAME; you run into the “problem” of when you read about them (in context) they are clearly NOT spoken of as being the SAME!

{The first “problem” with your statement is you fail to identify - WHICH “GOSPEL”? If there is ONLY ONE “Gospel”, then you are correct. IF there is MORE THAN ONE “GOSPEL”, then you are assuming that the “Gospel” that you accepted when you got saved (Paul’s Gospel – i.e. the “Gospel of the Grace of God”) is the SAME “GOSPEL” as the “Gospel” of the Kingdom of God.}

Did the Lord Jesus Christ “preach” the SAME “GOSPEL” as the Apostle Paul? You couldn’t PROVE it (in a "court of law") if your life depended on it! And the fact that - it was just before the Lord was taken by the nation of Israel’s leaders (to be killed) that He “forewarned” ONLY His disciples about His upcoming betrayal, death, and crucifixion [Matthew 20:17-19, 26:1-2] – does NOTPROVE” that He “preached” His death burial and resurrection to the rest of the nation of Israel, or anyone else for that matter. {He came to the nation of Israel as their Messiah and King; (NOT their CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR!) and He presented Himself as such (He DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel!). It wasn’t until He was about to be crucified that He revealed His betrayal, death, and crucifixion to His disciples – who refused to believe Him, even after He told them!}
My “CLAIM” throughout Post #65 is that there has been more than just ONE “GOSPEL”

Part of Winman’s Post #66 “reply”:
Quote:
We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection.” {This was yourCLAIM”.}
WHAT did I just say previously? “And the fact that - it was just before the Lord was taken by the nation of Israel’s leaders (to be killed) that He “forewarned” ONLY His disciples about His upcoming betrayal, death, and crucifixion [Matthew 20:17-19, 26:1-2] – does NOTPROVE” that He “preached” His death, burial, and resurrection to the rest of the nation of Israel, or anyone else for that matter.” {My wording was “precise”.}

In your Post #66 you pointed to
John 3:13-21; John 12:32-34; and John 8:28 as “proof texts” for your “CLAIM” (the rest of the verses that you cited had nothing to do with your “CLAIM”). The bigPROBLEM” with your “proof texts” is that NONE of them had the “RESURRECTION” in them!

You said:
Quote:
We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection.” {This was yourCLAIM”.}
You said:I do see” -and that is your bigPROBLEM”! You “SEEthings (“words”) that are NOT THERE! It’s called “reading into” written statements {the Bible’s or other people’s} “words” that are NOT THERE! ((You do this – all the time, and with NO shame or remorse.)

If you don’t have the “resurrection” in your message – you obviously DO NOT have the “Gospel”! And IF the “RESURRECTION” was not IN your “proof texts”, then your “CLAIM” has been PROVEN to be “FALSE”; and, in this instance, you have been PROVEN to be an UNRELIABLE source for Biblical “TRUTH”.

Did you ever “own up” to this ERROR? Did you ever admit that, in this case, you were WRONG? I TROW NOT! {My Post #69 clearly demonstrated your ERROR.}

Again your Post #13 on the Thread > “Dispensationalism”
Quote:
Bro Parrish

I also enjoyed those links. Now I understand some of the viewpoints of those I have been wrestling with here lately much better. I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”


(Ruckman’s) Quote:

Quote:
“FALSE TEACHINGS OF HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISTS”

”PETER AND PAUL PREACHED "DIFFERENT" GOSPELS. If they did then Peter was cursed (Gal. 1:8-9). God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43, which he publicly acknowledges in Acts 15:11, while ALL ARE PRACTICING WATER BAPTISM.”
I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.
To which I replied in my Post #27:
Quote:
Aloha brother Winman,

IF brother Peter Ruckman is correct, (you seem to agree with him - at least in this case) and IF it is true that: "God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43"; then the QUESTION arises - WHAT was Peter "preaching" between
Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10, IF he did NOT "know" the "Gospel" UNTIL Acts 10:43?”
To which Winman replied in his Post #32:
Quote:
Bro George asked

(George’s) Quote:
Quote:
Aloha brother Winman,

”IF brother Peter Ruckman is correct, (you seem to agree with him - at least in this case) and IF it is true that: "God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43"; then the QUESTION arises - WHAT was Peter "preaching" between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10, IF he did NOT "know" the "Gospel" UNTIL Acts 10:43?”
Some of these threads are overlapping. First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.” {You did say: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman" didn’t you?” You see: you are not very “careful” with your "words" – are you?}
To which I replied with my Post #35:
Quote:
Aloha brother Winman,

I do not refer to brother Peter Ruckman as an “authority” for anything, but since you introduced his “testimony” as being in support of your position of there being ONLY ONE “Gospel” - I must set the record straight.
Quote:
Winman’s Post #13 > Dispensationalism

Bro Parrish

I also enjoyed those links. Now I understand some of the viewpoints of those I have been wrestling with here lately much better. I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”


Quote:
(Ruckman’s) Quote:

“FALSE TEACHINGS OF HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISTS”

”PETER AND PAUL PREACHED "DIFFERENT" GOSPELS. If they did then Peter was cursed (Gal. 1:8-9). God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43, which he publicly acknowledges in Acts 15:11, while ALL ARE PRACTICING WATER BAPTISM.”
I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.
First off your “conclusions” are faulty.

Peter Ruckman has NEVER taught that there has been ONLY ONE “Gospel”. Ruckman clearly says in the quote that you cited that: “God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43”, which clearly indicates that BEFORE Acts 10:43 Peter did NOT know the “Gospel” (“the Gospel of the Grace of God” – i.e. “Paul’s Gospel”).

Ruckman NEVER said “there is only one gospel”, as you “claim” (READ HIS “WORDS”). You are “reading into” what he clearly said - what you “think” he “meant”. Ruckman was pointing out the “False Teachings” of some Hyper-Dispensationalists which say that Peter and Paul “preached different Gospels” - AFTER Acts 10:43. It wasn’t until Acts 10:43 that Peter “learned” of the “Gospel of the Grace of God”, so HOW could he have possibly been preaching “the Gospel of the Grace of God BEFORE Acts 10:43 – IF he didn’t know it?
I gave away almost all of Ruckman’s Commentaries and books (that I owned) four years ago. If I still had his Commentaries on Matthew and Acts, and his book “the Sure Word of Prophecy” (formerly known as “The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of heaven) I could point out to you where brother Peter Ruckman clearly taught that there is MORE than just ONE “Gospel”.

However, fortunately I still have his book “Bible Study Charts & Outlines” and I shall quote from page 55 of that book:

(Ruckman’s) Quote:
Quote:
In this age the only “GOOD NEWS” (GOSPEL) is the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20:24). Every FALSE TEACHING in this age comes from diluting this Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) with works of some kind (see Romans 4:1-8). Paul says a man is “ACCURSED” (Galatians 1:8-9) if he teaches Acts 2:38 or the “Sermon on the Mount” as a “PLAN OF SALVATION” (see Romans 10:1-14).

“EVERY “HERESY IN THIS AGE COMES FROM FAILURE TO PUT A VERSE INTO ITS PROPER TIME PLACEMENT!”

In speaking about the “Tribulation” Ruckman said:

Since this is not the time of the church’s trouble, but “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7), The LAW COMES BACK INTO EFFECT (see Revelation 12:17 and 14:12) FOR ISRAEL (see Matthew 24:15, 20).

A man must “ENDURE UNTO THE END” (Matthew 24:13) and NOT TAKE “THE MARK” (Revelation 13:1-8, 12:10-12).

In this period, “The Gospel of the Grace of God” is NOT PREACHED. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL” IS PREACHED to Gentiles (Revelation 14:6) and THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN” IS PREACHED to Israel (see Matthew 24:13-15, 3:2, 4:17, 5:10, 19, 6:10, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 13:11, 24).” {Underlines are mine – G.A.}
Now, by my count – Peter Ruckman cited THREE (3 )“GOSPELS”:

#1. “The Gospel of the Grace of God”.

#2. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL”.

#3. THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”.

You said: “I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.” Obviously “RUCKMAN DOES NOTAGREE”! (You misread and misinterpreted what he actually said.)

You Said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” Obviously you DID NOT! IF you had truly “reached the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”, as you said, you would have had to “conclude” that there are MORE than ONE “Gospel”!


This is what comes of someone desperately searching for “something” – i.e. ANYTHING (or ANYONE) to support their “position” on a Biblical issue. If you had read Peter Ruckman’s words more carefully you would have seen that he did NOT SAY: “there is only one gospel”. If you had carefully researched some of Ruckman’s other books (articles, etc.) and done your “homework” on brother Ruckman’s position on this issue, you would NOT have enlisted him as being in “agreement” with you. Sadly, all I can say is that, this careless approach extends to many of your Posts regarding this issue.

Winman’s Post #32 > Dispensationalism
Quote:
First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.”
In your Post #13 you said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” After I pointed out WHAT Peter Ruckman actually said (and its implications) - you suddenly back away from your statement, and indicate that you did NOT reach ALL of “the same conclusions as Ruckman”. But that’s NOT what you said in your Post #13.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3)Gospels”.

I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

I am growing weary of disproving what you say. You are determined not to believe what I have presented here in this Thread. I have NO power over you, and I seek NO power over you. You are “free” to believe whatever you want to believe, but I would think at some point you might get tired of repeating the same arguments - taking the Scriptures out of “context” to prove your point; making the Scriptures “MEAN” something other than what they “SAY”; and now doing the same with what brother Peter Ruckman has said also.

I am going to proceed with the rest of my comments on the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, and, if I find the time (or have the inclination) I may deal with some of your other Posts on this Thread; but it is pretty clear to me that we are never going to come to an agreement on this issue.

The question you should be asking yourself at this point is - WHY is it that you misquoted brother Ruckman. WHY did you take his words out of context? WHY did you twist his words around to “mean” something other than what they said? And WHY have you ignored most of the questions that I have posed to you on this Thread?

There is a distinct DIFFERENCE between the ways that the two of us approach the study of God’s Holy word.

You seek to “HARMONIZE” the Scriptures and MAKE them “MEAN” whatever you have predetermined you think they “MEAN”.

I seek to “RIGHTLY DIVIDE” the Scriptures and try to SEE where they FIT. I want to know WHAT God’s words SAY NOT WHAT THEY “MEAN”.

No where’s in the Holy Bible are we instructed to “HARMONIZE” the word of truth; on the contrary we are clearly told that we should be “rightly DIVIDING” the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
You said in your Post #13 > “Dispensationalism”:
Quote:
I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”
And: “I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.{Which “statement” you “MODIFIED” in your Post #32}
I PROVED (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that:

Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3)Gospels”.

And I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

Have you ever ADMITTED that you were WRONG in these instances? Will you ever ADMIT that you are WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING – even after you are PROVEN WRONG with indisputable facts?


I have cited these two exchanges between us to demonstrate to the rest of the members on this Forum your pernicious handling of people’s words and the Holy words of God. At first I mistakenly contributed your hardheadedness to ignorance, but after dealing with you these last few weeks, I have come to realize there is a much deeper “PROBLEM” than just ignorance.

You said in your Post #4 > on premio53’s Thread > “Don't tell me what it “means” just tell me what it “says”

Winman’s Quote:
Quote:
You know, there were folks that used this same tactic on Jesus, the prophets and apostles.”

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Matt
12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

Calling people names like "false teacher" is very reminicient of the Pharisees, not Jesus.”
And yet in your Post #19 you say these things about me:
Quote:
I know these self-righteous types, nothing you can say or do will get through to them. They are so full of themselves, so arrogant and sure of themselves, that even the scriptures will not convince them of their errors.”

I don't even know why I am writing this, I know that absolutely nothing I or anyone else can say or do will reach these pompous self-righteous people. They are so incredibly self-deceived and do not realize it.”
Now let’s see, you did say - ”Calling people names like "false teacher" is very reminicient of the Pharisees, not Jesus.” - DIDN’T YOU? I guess you are EXEMPT from your own condemnation? Hmmm? If I recall, there is a “word” in the Bible for people who SAY ONE THING – BUT DO ANOTHER, you wouldn’t happen to know it, would you?

Please notice the DIFFERENCE between your Posts and mine: You Post what you "think" I "IMPLIED" and NOT my exact "words" - while I quote you "VERBATIM".

And here are some of the things you “implied” I said in your reply to Brandon in your Post #19 > on premio53’s Thread > “Don't tell me what it “means” just tell me what it “says”

Winman said:
Quote:
To say a person does not need to understand scripture is so ridiculous as to be absolutely absurd. I cannot believe any intelligent person would say such a thing.”

And to say we have no need to listen to teachers is also absurd.”
Now – what I want you to do is – CITE the THREAD and the POST NUMBER and point out PRECISELY WHERE I SAID THOSE EXACTWORDS”! And IF YOU CAN NOT – then “forever hold your piece”, because you will have been PROVEN (once again) to be DISHONEST when it comes to “handling” people’s “words”, just as you have been PROVEN to be DISHONEST in “handling” the Holy “words” of God!