68 thoughts on “Preacher Boys”

  1. WOW! HAHAHAHA! Uriah was indirectly executed by his King who had slept with wife and gotten her pregnant.

    He used the word faggot correctly.

    Oh goodness this is only part 4. There is just too much to comment on.

    Ok mixing war/history-talk with preaching

    Rambling idiot ! πŸ‘Ώ 😈

    1. RobM, When did he use faggots for gays derogitorally? At 3:08-3:12 he uses faggots as a burning pile of sticks which is the proper definition. He just differentiates from the slang use of faggot and says “not gays”.

      1. I assume my bad. I have difficult time paying any attention to screeds of any sort. He did seem awfully comfortable/natural with that word, and I doubt he’s using it archaically (sp?) In his day to day life. There aren’t that many bundles of sticks laying around.

  2. What’s his point? His message is like a hand-grenade– trying to hit everything with just one shot. Ok, I take that back…the hand-grenade is at least effective.

      1. No, I was given about 15 minutes and I used it all. The best comment I got that night was from our church’s oldest member; she said, “You’re gonna make a good preacher some day.” 😳

    1. Yeah, mine was about five minutes long! I got roped into preaching my first message at a “preacher’s fellowship.” Never heard such taring down of holy living and standards by a group of “preachers,” in my life! I told the LORD, that, if He’d get me out of there, I’d never go back to one of those thangs, again!

  3. I must say, I just feel for the guy.

    He comes across as someone that is filled with good intentions, but is trying to be something he’s not.

    Why is it that fundamentalist preachers are hostile to the crowd? I guess the crowd wants them to be hostile…
    so being nice would actually be an act of defiance

    1. I think that’s the case with many preacher boys. They try to be something they’re not, and as such they put on this tough guy routine. Even at the beginning of his sermon he’s not reading the scripture in a normal voice, he’s yelling the scripture.

  4. I canÒ€ℒt do this. Making fun of this guy is like beating a sick dog.

    This dose unfortunately remind me of almost every youth group sermon I have ever heard. πŸ™

  5. Uriah died for his country and died for his king? Goodness, if Uriah had taken that letter that treacherously ordered his own death, and run David through then and there for sleeping with his wife and plotting his death, Uriah would have been justified. The whole court knew what was going on except for poor Uriah. He was a brave and decent man, but his death was a travesty of justice. I admire Uriah, but I *don’t* want to be like him or end like he ended.

  6. Why all this negativism and reprimand in this sermon? The negatives on the Bible are design to prove our total depravity and lead us to Christ. I believe his focus about the Christian life is completely wrong.

  7. Unfortunately this guy’s sermon reminds me of some that I preached back in my Fundy days. I recently came across one that I preached about ten years ago. It made me cringe so I took it out back and burnt it. That seemed the most fitting end to it. 😳

    1. I didn’t watch the whole video (got bored after about a minute), but yes, Dr. Peter Ruckman is a pastor of Bible Baptist Church down in Pensacola, Florida, and he still teaches at Pensacola Bible Institute (aka PBI) which is a ministry of his church.

      Funny thing is, Dr. Ruckman is rejected as a heretic by many IFBs because he teaches that people were saved differently in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, and will be saved differently in the Tribulation. I agree with him on this. He also goes a little further than most IFBs in his KJB-only stand, he believes the KJB to be inspired, while most IFBs will only say it’s a perfectly preserved version of the “inspired originals.” So most IFBs will tell you that Dr. Ruckman believes in “double inspiration.” Oh, and let’s not forget the divorce issue… (he’s been married 3 times, both of his first two wives left him, but his current wife has been with him for many years).

      I should stop talking here before I get called a Ruckmanite… haha. I do agree with him on many things, but I also disagree with him on several things (mainly his more “fringe” beliefs, which he doesn’t even teach from the pulpit).

  8. people were saved differently in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, and will be saved differently in the Tribulation.

    How does salvation change? What was different in the OT and what will be different in the Tribulation?

    Scripture specifically tells us Salvation is by Grace. In Hebrews 11 we see the results of grace, and that is faith in what God had revealed to them.
    If Salvation is by any other means than “Grace,” then was Christ’s work on the Cross not sufficient?
    I really am interested in hearing about this “difference.”

    1. The Scripture is even more specific than that. The Bible says that Abraham had the Gospel preached to him and that the Rock that Moses and his people drank from was Christ.

    2. It has to do with the seal of the Holy Spirit, which Old Testament believers did not have, as well as the once for all sacrifice of Christ, which was a not yet done event in times past. Salvation is only by grace through faith, but the content of faith has changed (ie, OT saints had faith in the blood atonement made by the High Priest for their sins, and based this blood atonement upon the writtenn promises of God). For a time, I believed in Old Testament works salvation, but I can’t see that in scripture anymore. And then you get into the whole “where did OT saints go because Jesus had not yet died, so they were still in sin, despite being covered, but the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin”. It’s long. Essentially, everyone ever saved will only be ultimately saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, but in different dispensations of God (not time periods, but the way God dispenses His grace upon people), people exercise faith in what God has said during that dispensation. For example – Abraham believed God. But what did God say? The good news to Abraham was that He was to be the father of many nations and the whole world would be blessed through his seed. If you or I were to believe exactly that today, it would not result in imputed righteousness. Rather, our good news today is that the promised seed has come, sins are put away, and Jesus has paid the penalty for our sins and they are totally forgiven by blood sacrifice! Hallelujah!

      1. Just to clarify, I no longer believe what Kat believes, but I also do not see how OT saints were saved by faith in the cross of calvary and the blood of Christ when there was no cross or blood of Christ shed. And there isn’t a single verse to say they “looked forward to the cross” or “looked forward to the blood of Christ”. So I believe salvation always by grace through faith, but faith in what God had revealed to man at that point in time.

    3. I have a problem with the OT difference being based on where they exist in time. If God actually did choose His elect before the foundation of the world, then the issue of Salvation was settled outside of time as we know it.

      God exists outside of “time” as we know it and is not subject to the linear progression of time as we are. He is the “I AM” and no matter where we exist in time, God is the same. In the same vein, Salvation is not subject to linear progression of time. So OT saints were not dependent on where/when they were in time, in relation to the Cross because in God’s existence it (the Cross) was already finished and efficacious before the first day of creation.

        1. The Delorean wouldn’t do us any good, it would only go back to the point of time creation.(according to the “Back to the Future” theory of time travel)
          It’s a paradox about created things being unable to transcend their plane of existence. There are some that would posit nothing could travel farther than it’s own existence as well. According to that theory I could not travel back any farther than 1963 or late 1962 whenever my conception took place. Either way we are still bound within the framework of Time as God designed it for our existence.

      1. God exists outside of Ò€œtimeÒ€ as we know it and is not subject to the linear progression of time as we are.

        I’m not sure this is supported by biblical study.

        There are plenty of times in the bible where God is spoken of as being relational to time. He speaks himself as being relational to time.

        1. Yes, he does interact with time as we know it. What I have posited does not prevent that.
          But if God is subject to linear time (as we are) then God is subject to something other than himself. If that is so then God is not God. When He speaks of Himself he declares “I AM.” Not I was, not I ell be but I AM. He is self existing and needs nothing outside of Himself, requires nothing outside Himself, and is subject to nothing other than himself.

          We are subject to time. We live in the moment, the now. Even the Transcendentalists acknowledge that. We cannot go back in time, and we cannot skip ahead in time. God is not subject to that same handicap. In our human thinking we tend to bring God to our level and explain God according to our experience. We experience the progression of time so or perception of God is framed accordingly. We build our views and mature according to our experiences so we tend to see God according to those experiences not according to who He as revealed Himself to be both in Creation and by special revelation in Scripture. In short we tend to create God according to our imagination of of Him based on our experiences.

        2. @Maybe Gray
          I Know. I was on a roll, especially when I started thinking about “BttF”.
          You should have said to me, “H-e-l-l-o! McF-l-y!”
          πŸ™‚

        3. In short we tend to create God according to our imagination of of Him based on our experiences

          I would agree with this. People stretch and shrink God to fit their interpretation of the bible.

      2. I guess a fundamental (doh) difference between us is that I’m not reformed in theology, and I believe Ephesians 1:3 refers to God’s election of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation and vessel of spiritual blessings to all who would trust and believe (Eph 1:12-14), showing that all who were in Christ by faith would receive the manifold blessings of Ephesians 1:4-12 and be assured of being conformed to His image. In other words, once we are in Christ, God had already determined that we would be conformed to His image and adopted. He decided this before the foundation of the world, however, I was not in Christ before the foundation of the world, and when I came into existence I was in Adam. I understand the reformed position (being calvinist myself at one stage) but I never really saw Ephesians 1:3 as a proof text for it, mainly because it does not say “chosen us to be in him” (which would imply God was going to place me into Christ in the future, from His point of view before time began), but rather “chosen us in him” (which to me says that God chose us in him before the foundation of the world, foreseeing who would be in Christ, but noone was in Christ before the foundation of the world, because noone existed). That’s my take anyway.

        in summary – I believe God said before the foundation of the world “Son, anyone in you is going to be the beneficiary of everything you have and will accomplish”.

        1. I think I got a few verses mixed up there, but forgive me πŸ™‚ You know where I mean. For some reason, I thought predestined to be conformed to His image was in Ephesians, but I think it’s in Romans. And by Eph 1:3 I obviously mean 1:4.

          Sitting at work doing work but taking a quick break because I haven’t had lunch.

        2. Also, Don, I am sure we have much more in common than we have difference, and the calvinism/noncalvinist (I don’t see the debate as being between arminianism and calvinism. It’s much wider than that. Everyone is debating everyone, but many of the Calvinists I know seem to lump everything that isn’t calvinistic into the arminian melting pot, so it’s no wonder that whatever Arminianism is, it gets a bad rap πŸ˜› ) debate doesn’t particularly interest me anymore. I’m more interested in the revelation of Grace that God’s spirit is showing me πŸ™‚

    1. So how do you explain this:

      John October 2, 2010 at 2:23 am Maybe sheÒ€ℒll shower with you

      BTW, there was a recent survey of the readers of this site. 60% identified themselves as saved, 20% said “other” (I can’t remember exactly what this choice was), but 20% flat out said they were not saved. Not everyone commenting here identifies as a believer although many of us do.

    2. Why do I smell self-righteous around here? Sniff sniff..

      Please do not try to tell people how to behave on a website such as this..

      The hell with fundy rules!! :mrgreen:

  9. man is this kid going to regret this 10 years from now. I remember preaching like this. I thought I was being bold. I listened to the whole thing while I was doing dishes (helped the time go by faster!). He calls the people in his audiences dogs, then tells them your no better than a dog, your worth less than a dog, you’re not even worth a 5 cent battery, you’re a worm…and this is supposed to inspire everyone to be soldier of God. WTF?!?!?!? I can only hope that there was not a “spiritual babe” in the audience whose self esteem was demolished by this. How many sermons I preached where I left people empty, depleted, depressed. I never understood why, because I was so encouraged by them. I thought I was being bold, but like this this preacher boy, I was being a bully.

        1. That’s so sad to hear this kind of preaching, especially to saints, which God loves, has made accepted, has raised up, has made righteous, has delighted in, has shown the mystery of His will to, has given forgiveness of sins. These kind of preachers are robbing saints of their rightful inheritance in Christ Jesus! And it’s a vicious cycle that will continue, because no doubt, this guy has been robbed of his inheritance, and the man who taught him was as well. I don’t even think many fundies are saved to be honest. I know I wasn’t. It’s kind of a shock, but no big surprise. Years of self condemnation are awful, but mine lead to realising that self is the dead end way. The law, standards, self righteousness, and espousing morals never did ANYTHING to help me overcome the power of sin in my life. It is only recently, now that I have seen all my sins forgiven in Christ, that I am beginning to see the victory already won by grace.

        2. Oh, and I used to preach this way too. I remember once calling the entire congregation “wicked” (this was when I was big into Ray Comfort and Paul Washer and I thought it was my duty to bring the church into a lifestyle of lawkeeping to prove salvation. Didn’t even work for myself. My doubts were never greater than when I was under those men’s “ministries”. I thought I was the big man o gid. I was just a spoilt brat with a new play toy (a pulpit and some amens).

        3. @exIFB, I love that list about the saints in your first comment! It’s wonderful to reflect on what we have in Christ. I spent so much time in my past focusing on what I had done (and I’d feel self-righteous) or hadn’t done (so I felt guilty) and I think my eyes weren’t really on Christ. I can’t believe that when I heard a song saying God sings over me, I thought it was emotional hyperbole! No WAY would God sing over us. Then I found the verse that said that in the Bible! I was so embarrassed that I’d discounted it, but then again, that’s how I’d been taught!

          That’s a powerful image you use about the spoilt brat with a new play toy. It’s sad, but it’s a fitting image for a lot of pastors. They’re just not the gentle, easy to be entreated elder described in Titus and Timothy. God wants HUMILITY! I’m so glad he opened our eyes!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.