Wednesday, June 30, 2010

James White . . . de ja vue

James White Repeats His Misrepresentation
of Peter Ruckman on the King Jame Bible

It's sad enough that a self-proclaimed apologist is so appalling that he misrepresents the views of others whom he ostensibly is refuting in a book; but when he announces that he is going to "revise" the erroneous book, yet repeats the same misrepresentation, the latter is worse than the first.

This is the case with James White and his book, The King James Only Controversy -- Can You Trust Modern Translations? We discovered from the first edition (1995) of the book that James can't be trusted to represent the peculiar views of Peter Ruckman, and the "revised" edition of 2009 reveals that James is still in the same darkness about Ruckman as he was fifteen years ago.

On pages 27, 28 of the latest edition, James repeats the misrepresentation that Ruckman advocates a view of the KJB which holds that "God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611, rendering it in the English language," and in a footnote (#7) he identifies Peter Ruckman as "a prime example of this perspective" (pages 27, 28).

The only prime example here is James, who gives a prime example of his ignorance of Ruckman's view about the King James Bible. We have covered this matter in time past, as follows:

A few years ago, when James set out to "take on" Peter Ruckman, James was quite unprepared for doing so. He failed to realize that the very first thing one needs to understand is the stated position of the person whom he endeavors to refute. James, unfortunately, had not studied Ruckman very carefully, and evidently simply assumed what Ruckman believed about the KJV and "inspiration."

When James' book, The King James Only Controversy, made its first appearance in the distant past [1995], we erroneously thought that it was worthy of commendation, and we promoted it. But after carefully examining what James said about Ruckman's view, we discovered that he was very seriously deficient in regard to what Ruckman teaches about the KJV, and we had to withdraw our endorsement of the book. Since we had been critical of Ruckman's views long before James made the mistake of trying to deal with Ruckman, we did not want Ruckman to associate us in any way with James White's misrepresentation.

James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).

It is no marvel that Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed James' book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman actually believes.

Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet entitled, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God, plainly states:

"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).

See the following link for quotations in the "Comments" section on Sunday, April 02, 2006 as to what Ruckman actually teaches: HERE
[Or, see Ruckman's view below].

James should have had no problem correcting his blunder made in the first edtion of his book where he misrepresented Ruckman's view, if he had simply read Ruckman's comment or even our comments about James' error. He really had no justifiable excuse for his error in the first edition (1995), and now he has failed to make a correction in his revised edition (2009).

Perhaps someone should send for the "paddy-wagon."

We know it does not appear to be in James' persona to acknowledge errors of this type, but if he doesn't do so after he has been guilty of twice misrepresenting Ruckman, it will only serve to justify Ruckman's categorizing James as a "fool," and it will further demonstrate why we say that as an "apologist" James is better described as an "appallingist."

Ruckman's view

For years, I have offered a financial reward for any one who can find where Ruckman has ever affirmed that he believed the KJV -- or any version of the Bible -- was INSPIRED.

Ruckman does not believe that any WRITER or WRITING was inspired, but he believes that it was the ORIGINAL "SPEAKING" that was "given by inspiration."

Ruckman has NEVER affirmed that any "writing" was inspired. How could a great appallingist like James White miss this fact?

Here are a few remarks from Ruckman which demonstrate the fact that Ruckman does not believe in what the "ordinary Bible believer" believes about an "inspired" Bible:

"The holy men of God who 'spake' -- NOT 'WROTE'" (Bible Believers Bulletin, 1/96, p. 12).

His view of "inspiration" is that what the prophets and apostles "spake" was "given by inspiration." Actually, Ruckman denies the "plenary, inerrant" inspiration of writing. Here is his comment:

"Such terms as 'plenary' and 'inerrancy' and the like are manufactured terms, and they were invented by the Cult" (BBB, 4/89, page 2).

In his book, Pastoral Epistles (page 270), he says:
"We do NOT refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God."

"Verbal' inspiration is connnected with speaking, NOT WRITING, because 'breath' is involved" (BBB, 6/92, p. 19).

As for the "inspiration" of the KJV or any other version, he says:

"Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired" (BBB, 11/91, page 10)."

"And I never told anybody on the face of this earth that the King James is a word for-word translation of Greek or Hebrew" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).

On "italics," Ruckman says:
"I never told anybody on the face of this earth the italics in a King James Bible were inspired" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).

Now, if any one in this reading audience can find anywhere that Ruckman himself ever said or wrote that ANY Bible, KJV or otherwise, is the "INSPIRED Word of God," please send me the quote. I have been asking for it for several years and thus far, no one -- including Ruckman and his disciples, the so-called "Ruckman Knights" -- has sent it to me.

I will give $100 for any quotation from Ruckman himself where he ever said the Bible is "inspired."

Putting confidence in James White as an apologist is obviously the type of thing referred to in Proverbs 25:19 -- "like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint."

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Garrett's Hardshell Research

Stephen Garrett Reveals More on Hardshell History

Stephen Garrett at BaptistGadfly continues to impress with his research and writings about "Hardshell Baptists" [aka "Primitive Baptists"]. Here is the introduction to his ongoing Hardshell material, based on what he found at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Jun 15, 2010

The Seceder Hardshells
Last November, when I had a debate with John Gentry, Campbellite, we held the debate on the campus of SBTS in Louisville. During this two day stay in Louisville, I was able to visit the campus library and look up some old books and records relative to the early 19th century "split" between the "anti mission" or Hardshell Baptists and those who supported missions. I found an old book on the history of the Liberty Baptist Association and on the "split" between the Hardshells and the general body of Baptists. I copied some pages at that time but did not get to copy as much as I had liked. Recently, I was able to find this history on the internet! I was so glad to have found it as it is an able defense against the Hardshell claims and pretenstions. Below are some notes taken from this work with some comments of mine. When I get back to writing and editing my on-going book on the Hardshells, I hope to make use of these notes. All highlighting and emphasis is mine - SG.

The front page of this work reads as follows:

"OF THE LIBERTY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION FROM ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1832 TO 1906 Containing Much History Incidentally Connected with this Body ALSO There is presented quite an extended account of the "Split" in Baptist ranks, showing who are the "Primitive Baptists," together with Side-Lights on the "Split."

It was written by Elder Henry Sheets on behalf of the Liberty Association.

Sheets wrote:

For the rest of the article, click here: Seceder Hardshells

Thursday, June 10, 2010

"Founders" announce another "plant"


Brother Ian Elsasser has called my attention to a new web site planted by the Founders Ministries ["Flounders"]. He says:

"Isn't this the same Timmy Brister that announced Grace Baptist Church was planning to plant a church which, to my knowledge, has never seen the light of day? The last post on the church plant website is dated December 20, 2008 ( Yet having never planted a church or been involved with planting a church, he presumes to be an instructor to others. This strikes me as a little hollow -- if they are this eager about church planting, should they not be engaged in the activity? This seems to be the case of those who can't tell others how to do it."

We have called attention to the pretensions of the Flounders as to "church planting" several times on the Flyswatter, but thus far we have yet to see any evidence that any alleged "plant" has taken root and produced anything worthy of notice. They are very adept at "planting" blogs, web sites, conferences, and propaganda, but "where's the beef?"

Their latest "plant" is called PLNTD, and is a web site which comes on with a lot of flourish, promising great things in "church planting." Past forecasts about church planting by the Flounders have failed to live up to the hype, so we wonder what results will come of this new "plant."

The Founders Ministries' original founding "purpose" was allegedly to"recover the gospel" and promote the "doctrines of grace" according to the Founders' theology, ostensibly labled as "Calvinism," but more aptly categorized as Hybrid Calvinism:

"The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness. This is to be accomplished through a variety of means focusing on conferences and including publication, education, pastoral training and other opportunities consistent with the purpose. Each of the ministries will be developed with special attention to achieve a healthy integration of doctrine and devotion."

Since their founding in 1982, they have had some success in proselytism and influencing divisions and splits in churches, but we have seen no evidence of churches being planted due to evangelism and soul winning. In fact, evangelism of the unsaved was never a part of the Founders Ministries' purpose, so far as we can discern.

In more recent years, the Founders Ministries has made some pretensions of having an interest in missions and church planting, evidently to at least put on a "face" that they are interested in more than propagating Hybrid Calvinism. But what this amounts to is simply what one reads on their blogs and web sites. We will be watching to see if the new web site amounts to anything more than similar floundering promises.

Comments: All comments for the Flyswatter should be sent to this email address: The combox on this blog is not currently operable.

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Founders continue to flounder


I notice that the "Flounders" (aka "Founders Ministries") wants you to pay $20 to attend their annual pre-Southern Baptist Convention breakfast this year in Orlando on June 15, 2010. You get breakfast plus a message from a leading Hybrid Calvinist speaker.

The guest speaker, who makes a good living off of conferences and speaking engagements, is R. C. SPROUL -- one of the "chief rabbis" of the Pedobaptist Hybrid Calvinist camp of "Reformed" theology.

Sproul not only advocates sprinkling babies and adding them to the church roll, he believes they can be "born again" in infancy (Reformation Study Bible, per the insert article on "Regeneration" at John 3).

Not only so, Sproul believes that an elect infant might even be born again before his physical birth. He says, "It is possible that God gave me new life within the womb, and over time I came into a deeper understanding of the faith He gave me."

So Sproul thinks it is "possible" he was born again in his mother's womb? Sproul has said he learned this type of phantasmagorical Hybrid Calvinism in a seminary of the pedobaptists (baby sprinklers):

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters:
REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH" (Chosen of God, page 72).

Ever since learning that biblical and theological error from his pedobaptist professor, Sproul has been an ardent advocate of the "born again before faith" heterodoxy. The Flounders are committed to the same error, hence their infatuation with Sproul and others who spawn this teaching. This teaching is one of the primary reasons why we see little to no evangelism by the Hybrid Calvinists. While the Flounders have from time-to-time professed to be interested in "church planting," so far as we can learn they have little if anything to show in that category.

If you have $20 to waste in Orlando, you might find a better meal at Disney World than at the Flounders' breakfast.

COMMENTS: Comments for this blog may be sent to Do not enter comments on this blog.