Ruckman: Instructions given to a Christian to love someone are speaking of personal dealings on a one-on-one basis

As a visitor to this website, you are likely to be acquainted with Ruckman’s poisonous pen. An example of his treatment of other Christians he disagrees with can be observed in the following statement: “Pray for them, make fun of them, thumb your nose at them, and go about your way.” (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Feb. 2002, p. 16) How does Ruckman attempt to justify this in light of hundreds of admonitions in the Scriptures to love one another, be kind, and demonstrate grace? We partly addressed this in an article entitled Ruckman’s attempt to vindicate his name-calling with Scripture.

Since writing the above article, we came across another two of his feeble attempts to continue to justify his rants against the brethren in spite of Biblical instruction to the contrary. They are worded as follows:

When you are talking one on one with a person, your speech should be good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers (Eph. 4:29). Ruckman, Peter. Soulwinning, 2018, p. 56

The Scriptural answer to this peculiar enigma lies in the simple fact that instructions given to a Christian to love someone or to be meek in dealing with someone or to be gentle in deportment are speaking of personal dealings with individuals in a one-on-one basis. Go back and check the references; (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Oct. 1997, p. 9)

By arbitrarily restricting these commandments to “one on one” personal interactions, Ruckman excuses his public writings and recordings from Biblical scrutiny. Since Ruckman instructed his readers to “go back and check the references,” we did. The only one that came remotely close to what Ruckman is claiming was 2 Cor. 10:1:

“Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:”

Ruckman did not quote the verse or attempt to expound on it. Apparently, Ruckman sees this as a case in which Paul was humble when present in person, but was bold or rough when directing himself to them in his epistles. Considering the context, which includes the next verse, it seems that Paul was making reference to an accusation or making a passing reference as to how he was perceived. Regardless, it is at most an anecdote and not a commandment. It also does not invalidate the hundreds of admonitions elsewhere in the Scriptures to love one another, be kind, tenderhearted, and demonstrate grace (with no exceptions for public situations).

There are numerous verses that make it clear that we are to love all the brethren, not just the ones we have dealings with, and the commandment is not restricted to one-on-one private interactions. 1 Thes. 3:12 “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.” This verse makes it clear that we are not only to abound in our love toward one another, but also toward “all men.” Col. 4:6 “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” The key words “always” and “every” in this verse makes it clear that it is not restricted to personal interactions. Eph 5:2 “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.” Ephesians 5:2 makes it clear that loving one another is part of our daily walk. It also instructs us to walk in love as Christ also loved us. How we treat others in public settings directly affect our Christian testimony. Rom. 12:9 instructs us “Let love be without dissimulation.” In 1 Pet. 1:22 it emphasizes having an “unfeigned love of the brethren.” Acting lovingly towards a brother in private, yet making fun of them and ridiculing them in public would not be a case of following the Biblical admonition of loving “without dissimulation” or having “unfeigned love of the brethren.”

All this does not mean we cannot speak the truth about someone. The Bible still admonishes us to “reprove and rebuke” (2 Tim. 4:2). This is sometimes necessary to be done publicly when it involves a person of influence who does not correct his public unbiblical actions. However, the Bible makes it plain that we must be “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

There are several references in the Bible of how our love is an outward sign for others, therefore it should be practiced both in private and in public. Take Jn. 13:35, for instance. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

How has Ruckman fared in his interaction with others? Observe a few examples from his own writings:

When he offered me his hand I told him “Run on, Ross. YOU ITCH!” (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. May 1992, p. 4)

The above was in a personal interaction, howbeit in a public setting (a debate).

In a personal letter written on his church letterhead (which he made public), Ruckman addressed the person as follows: “Dear Scumbucket,” (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Oct. 1992, p. 11)

Here are a few more examples of Ruckman not applying his own teaching in regard to personal interactions, or attacking the person more than their position:

Here is this poor, “non compus mentus” reject, with no one inviting him in for meetings, no church to pastor, not enough money to publish a weekly newspaper, no converts to train for the ministry, and no class to teach the Bible to… (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Nov. 1991, p. 6)

God hasn't used Sumner for anything but a garbage can for twenty years. I figure if you enjoy reading a dung sheet like his it must be because you have a heart and a mind full of manure…Some day we will know why Bobbie Scumner split a church, a school, and a family, to increase subscriptions to a gossip sheet that I wouldn’t use to wrap light bulbs in. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Jan. 1990, pp. 10, 15)

Being about forty pounds overweight, the author of the tract … has evidently confused “antinomianism” with dieting. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. July 1980, p. 1)

Claiming that Biblical instructions to love others and be meek and gentle are for personal dealings one-on-one is not validated by the Scriptures. Ruckman’s conduct and claim in this area is in direct disobedience to the plain teaching of the Word of God. Hardly a pamphlet, sermon, article, or chapter of his books exists in which he does not violate the Biblical teaching regarding treating others. This is only one of many reasons why no child of God should read, listen or follow the teachings of this man who openly refuses to submit to and obey basic Biblical rules of conduct.

We will close with a case of Ruckman claiming to be a victim in this very area:

…they complain about my “bitterness" and “vicious tirades” and “acidic” remarks, but really I have been very gentle and tolerant in dealing with them… (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. June 1989, p. 2)

Do you agree? Comment below:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Ruckman: Instructions given to a Christian to love someone are speaking of personal dealings on a one-on-one basis

  1. Anonymous says:

    Keep up the good work! Anyone involved in or reading Ruckman literature should take serious heed to the warnings and admonitions. Ruckman is not loving or biblical in the least.

  2. Will Becker says:

    This article is absurd. The author of this article is confusing loving other Christians with telling the truth about them. While I am critical of the way Dr. Ruckman handled SOME of these things, most of the time I have found that what he said about the people he wrote about was actually true.

    If a Christian is a liar, then you have every scriptural right to identify them as such, without breaking the commandment to love one another.

    The Webmaster of this site is a poor Bible student.

    • Webmaster says:

      You have not proven that my article was absurd. You did not even address the premise of the article, which was Ruckman’s false claims that Biblical commandments to love one another are for personal one-on-one encounters. I refuted this with Scripture.

      As for Ruckman publically calling people liars, many cases are built on a manufactured lie, such as when he calls people he disagrees with “liars” for something as simple as using a phrase such as “I read the Bible,” “the Greek text,” “the Word of God is…” “turn in the Scriptures to..” etc. Here’s an example:

      “You just lied. You lied because you are a liar. You rotten lying punk, there isn’t any Greek text on this earth which is ‘THE Greek text.'” (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian Liar’s Library. 1997, p. 144)

      There are multiple Greek texts, but failing to identify one by referring to “the Greek text” is not a lie. Ask me, and I can provide quotes of Ruckman referring to “the Greek text” at times himself.

      The way Ruckman manufactures lies are as absurd as calling anyone who refers to a “sunset” or a “sunrise” a liar, on the technicality that the sun does not literally rise nor set. But it is a term that is generally understood, so there is absolutely no deception involved.

      You stated that most of the time what Ruckman said about people was true. By using the term “most of the time,” you are admitting that sometimes what he said about people wasn’t true. Yet you still defend him?!

    • Anonymous says:

      It is one thing to tell the truth about someone when the need arises, but it is quite another thing to engage in trash talking and name calling especially to another brother in Christ. This Ruckman does on a consistent basis and in nearly every page of anything he ever wrote. And have read plenty of his material to know.

      The article portrays Ruckman exactly the way that he is and interacts with people: completely over the top and not one ounce of humility or mercy.

      His communication is constantly corrupt and his material should soundly rejected.

  3. What a spit in the face of the Baptist forerunners slaughtered all the day long (Psalm 116), yet even when their backs met the smiters, they did neither strive nor cry against their persecutors. When Innocent III sent a crusade against John Wycliff and the Wycliffites or Lollards, those blessed brethren did not call the papists “tin-horned punks”, “stupid”, “red legs” ad nauseum, but blessed them in Jesus’ name. The same is true when the Protestants did likewise.

    I seem to remember John Calvin, despite the good things coming from him, ran Geneva asa theocracy, and using a kangaroo court had Michael Servetus, who denied paedobaptism while embracing Arianism, used the same arguments as Ruckman did to justify his actions. How ungodly!

  4. Chuck says:

    I like Ruckman. He is the axe in a forest of confusion and weeds. Knowledgeable, clear, observant and staunch; A man of God, not above reproach, yet his untiring, ruthless onslaught against sin is unmatched.

    • Webmaster says:

      "He is the axe in a forest of confusion and weeds."

      We don't need a fallible human being in this percieved role when we have the Word of God which is like "a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces" (Jer. 23:29) and "sharper than any twoedged sword" (Heb. 4:12). Not to mention he creates his own confusion by contradicting the Bible's consistent teaching on faith and works, guessing the wrong date of the rapture, etc.

      "A man of God"

      He does not even meet the minimum qualifications of a pastor found in 1 Tim. 3. He doesn't just violate one, but about half of the biblical qualifications:

      A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

      "ruthless onslaught against sin"

      Much of his ruthlessness is not against sin, but against Christians based on mere disagreements with them when they do not fall for his false teachings. Big difference.





  5. Old School Baptist says:

    I wonder what Ruckman would have done if someone applied his standards to his family, especially after the tradgedy involving his two grandchildren. My estranged father is a rapist who beat me repeatedly with the AV as well as his horse whip; my grandfather threw me out of his truck six or eight miles from what was then my house for resisting his cult programming in a malestrom in 2015. Neither ever meaningfully apologized for their years of abuse, but though I have nothing for them personally, I bear them no grudges.

    If we take Ruckman’s standards, we embrace the occult’s version of Unconditional Love, where love is unconditional only to the worthy. It is deeply disturbing to see how much theosophy remained in the alleged Christian Ruckman after his repentance. This does not congeal with Proverbs 8.17 at all; God plainly says he loves those who love him, as well as those who love him are to love as Jesus loved.

  6. Craig says:

    You have failed to show how Dr. Ruckman did not love the brethren whilst at the same time ‘rebuking them sharply’ that they may be sound in the faith. Titus 1:13. Truth is Dr. Ruckman loved his congregation and spent many nights personally training Christians in his own home. You cherry pick your research due to quite possibly your own lack of love of the brethren.

    • Webmaster says:

      I did not fail because on this particular page I didn’t set out to prove what Ruckman did or did not do, but rather point out a specific teaching that has no basis in Scripture.

      • Craig says:

        If he didn’t defend the KJ Bible then he wouldn’t be loving others, nor would he love those who erred on the KJ Bible if he did not rebuke them sharply… Whatever you’ve tried to do with this article, it’s either wrong, or so vague that it does not make sense to me.

        • Webmaster says:

          Twice you have tried to change the subject. As for the article being wrong or so vague, how could this be when I provided Scripture to demonstrate it taught the exact opposite of Ruckman’s statement in the heading, and I even demonstrated that Ruckman wasn’t even holding to his own rules? How much plainer could I get? Your attempt to defend Ruckman is what is wrong and vague!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *