Overview of what Ruckmanism is all about

You asked where I got this information. At the end of every statement, there is a footnote that points to an exact page in Ruckman's writings where he teaches or says what was stated. No, I am not going by what other people say, but by what Ruckman says himself as evidenced by the footnotes. I read after Ruckman myself, and did not depend on anyone else's research. Telling someone (in the case I documented it was directed at an ordained Baptist preacher who has been in the ministry for many years) to go suck on their bottle is childish and disrespectful. Most unsaved people will have better manners in treating people with whom they disagree. Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. Nowhere have I stated whether Ruckman is saved or not, although we have a right to an opinion on that matter.

"I may disagree with some of his 'teachings', but who really cares and what's the big deal with #'s 2,4,5,6,8,and 9."It doesn't matter if you or I disagree, but it matters if the Bible disagrees. It is a big deal when something is not taught in the Scriptures or contradicts it."As for number 1, you telling me that Adam, Eve, Noah, Hezekiah, Samuel, Samson, Lot, etc.... were all saved the same way we are????? Ruckman could give you maybe 300 verses that says they aren't...which one's say they are again?"He will "use" the Bible to try to prove his point, but by the time it's all over his strange interpretations end up with 6 plans of salvation (Bible Believers' Bulletin Jan 2007, p. 16) and has to come up with exceptions (such as David) who "was a chosen exception to the Law" (Bible Believer's Bulletin reprint vol. 3, p. 324)."you are quoting the verse wrong"Please demonstrate this.

My response to your typical defense of Ruckman is right here: Ruckman, his defenders, and the issue of accountability

Many of Ruckman's bizarre theories are self-refuting simply because they are not found in the Bible. The responsibility is on him to prove a given theory, not us to refute it if he hasn't presented a case. 1) Where in the Bible does it say that every person is saved in the exact same way from Adam to the Great White Throne Judgement? And where does it say that Noah (or Elijah, or David) was saved by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior? It doesn't say it in those exact terms, just as it doesn't say it in the exact terms Ruckman uses. How were Old Testament saints saved? The Bible does answer the question for us, invalidating any contrary speculation. The clearest passage is the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. A single verse that sums it up nicely is found in Acts 10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. The following passage also answers the question: Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:10-12 2) Have you ever considered that maybe some of Peter Ruckman's statements are sort of tongue-in-cheek? That is possible, but with his wierdness it can be hard to figure whether he means something to be taken literally or not. You even expressed uncertainty by using the term "sort of" before "tongue-in-cheek." Don't tell me that I should ask Ruckman himself whether he meant something to be taken seriously or not, because the time I dared to write him with questions he replied with one of the most unkind letters I have ever received. If he is unclear about something in his writing, he should be humble about it and even be willing to apologize if something wasn't clear, and be willing to change it in the next printing. Theological writers generally don't have the practice of using "tongue-in-cheek," because of the issue of respectability and to avoid misunderstandings. If Ruckman feels he is often misunderstood, I belive it is often a problem of his own making. 3) Did Dr. Ruckman state that the rapture would happen on exactly those aforementioned dates, or did he say that he thought that it would happen at that time based on a few assumptions? The title of my article called it "guessing the approximate date." I quoted him word-for-word several times in my article Peter Ruckman's failed attempts at guessing the approximate date of the rapture. Read for yourself and see what he said. 4) Did you ever read all of the references he uses to back up his "dogmatic" teachings? I haven't done it every single time without fail because of how many times I found his references to be bogus. For example, in his book Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 198, he states "There is no blood in Adam’s original body or Christ’s resurrection body." He gives the following references for this: Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 15:49-50, and the heading above the paragraph had Luke 24:39. His own references are self-refuting, because in those references there was nothing that established a foundation for his theory. More examples could easily be given.

...people simply refuse to submit to God's authority on earth--the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Dispensational System of Interpretation as taught by Peter S. Ruckman. You said it. You included Ruckman's interpretation as one of two things consisting of God's authority on earth. Don't act surprised if people say you are cultic.