No human being is perfectly consistent, but mere lack of consistency is not the point of contention in this article. We are referring to an inconsistency that is mind-boggling, considering the cultic following Ruckman has. As an example of his cultic following, as we did research for this article, we came across a statement on a forum from one of his followers who stated outright: “I agree with everything Dr Ruckman has ever said.”  Ruckman writes of consistency in such terms as “the consistent Christian’s course of action” as if he were an example. 
In perusing Ruckman’s writings, the man he praises the most seems to be Clarence Larkin (1850-1924). Larkin is well known for having published illustrated theological books from the dispensational point of view. He is best known for his well-illustrated Dispensational Truth, first published in 1918.
In his book The Anti-Intellectual Manifesto, Ruckman described Larkin as “by far the greatest Biblical scholar the world has seen since 1800…”  In one of his many other books, Ruckman describes Larkin as “a real Bible believer.”  In an article in the mid 1990’s, Ruckman named Larkin as one of the “greatest Bible expositors who ever lived.” 
However, Ruckman’s praise for this author is very unusual in light of the fact that Larkin held to numerous beliefs for which Ruckman vilifies others with some of the crudest language imaginable.
Let’s examine various examples of what Larkin believed, which when others expressed it, resulted in them getting “the Ruckman treatment.” For the sake of brevity we will not analyze whether Larkin was right or wrong on a particular view, as that is not the point of this article.
Larkin believed that Old Testament saints were saved by faith, not works
There seems to be a myth among Ruckmanites that Larkin believed in Old Testament salvation by works, perhaps because of Ruckman’s frequent praise of the man. We encountered a Ruckmanite on an internet forum who insisted on the need to read after Larkin as a result of revealing theological inconsistencies of Ruckman’s Old Testament salvation views. When the forum poster was asked to provide references for Larkin’s view on Old Testament salvation, they went ignored. Regardless, we spent several hours reading after Larkin and found no hint of him believing in salvation by works in any dispensation. In fact, the opposite came to light.
In Rightly Dividing the Word, 1921, Larkin has several chapters that shed light on his views, such as the ones entitled “Atonement and Redemption,” “Faith and Works,” as well as “Law and Grace.” There are many remarks in these chapters that make it clear that he believed Old Testament saints were saved by faith, not works. Observe:
Abraham’s works had nothing to do with his salvation, but simply bore witness to his faith, for Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. James 2:21-26. (p. 200)
Let it be understood then in this discussion that by “Law” is meant the “Mosaic Law,” and that there can be no mixing of blending of “Law” and “Grace” in this or any other Dispensation. (p. 193)
From this scripture [Eph. 2:8-9] we see that “Grace” is a GIFT. If a man receives salvation in exchange for his works, then salvation is but another word for “wages.” Or if Salvation is given in exchange for benefits bestowed, then it is simply a “reward.” Now if a man receives Salvation as wages, or as a reward, then Salvation is not a GIFT but something that he was entitled to, and therefore is not of GRACE. Grace is not something given us to help us keep the Law, Grace is UNDESERVED MERCY. (p. 196)
No man is justified by his works, but as a Believer he will be rewarded for his works. We are not to work to the Cross, but from the Cross. (p. 197)
But during those 4000 years, by the shedding of the blood of bullocks, goats, and innocent lambs, whose bodies were laid smoking, and quivering on Hebrew altars, God, in one great “Object Lesson,” kept before the people the fact that without the SHEDDING OF BLOOD there could be no remission for sin. The sprinkling of the blood of every Passover Lamb was a reminder of Him who was to be the “Lamb of God” who should take away the sin of the world. (p. 176)
How has Ruckman characterized the view that Old Testament saints were saved by faith? He has referred to those who hold such historical Biblical views as “gullible, blind, deceived bunch of Bible-rejecting apostates” and “silly a**es.”  As if that language wasn’t strong enough, in another source he refers to them as “a viable heretic,” and “pitiful, Bible-perverting Baptists.”  However, in Ruckman’s highly inconsistent mind, Larkin gets a pass. He gets to be “by far the greatest Biblical scholar the world has seen since 1800…,” “a real Bible believer,” and one of the “greatest Bible expositors who ever lived”!
Larkin sometimes quoted from modern translations rather than the KJV
Although many of the modern translations known today had not been published during Larkin’s lifetime, the Revised Version (translated by Westcott and Hort, among others) was the newest translation on the scene. Throughout Larkin’s writings, there is a sprinkling of quotations or key words from this version (sometimes abbreviated “R. V.”).
Ruckman rarely makes mention of the Revised Version, because during his generation it had already been replaced by other translations. But Ruckman is eager to bash any modern translation that competes with the KJV in his typical exaggerated style. An example of how he goes overboard in trashing translations are these samples from his 1972 book Satan’s Masterpiece the New ASV: “…godless, depraved crap…” (p. 67) “…God-forsaken piece of trash…” (p. 28) “…Devil’s Bible…” (p. x) “…a vile piece of filth…” (p. 32) “…a Christ-dishonouring, mind-insulting, God-defying piece of lying filth…” (p. 41) “…Holy Roman Gentile New Ecumenical Bible of the Antichrist…” (p. 77).
What does Ruckman think of others who dare quote from a modern translation? How does Ruckman describe others who practice what he admits he knows about Larkin (as we will prove shortly)?
…who would even think that a “Bible” translated in the 20th or 21st century would be an improvement over a text in the universal language of the end times …He would have to be a demon-possessed, eschatological evolutionist—A Darwinian “Evangelical.” 
Once I know THAT (that they USE a book they do not believe, and correct it with another, or multiple authorities), I know they are, at heart, PRACTICAL ATHIESTS. This means that they are actually only animals in a jungle, fighting for SURVIVAL and authority, and “in a pinch” (see Job 2:4) for the exact statement) they will do ANYTHING or say ANYTHING, or write ANYTHING about ANYBODY or ANYTHING, TO PRESERVE THEIR NECKS. 
With the above tough talk in mind, does Ruckman label Larkin a practical atheist? No, he calls him “by far the greatest Biblical scholar the world has seen since 1800…”
Ruckman’s inconsistent treatment of Larkin is not because he is unaware of his positions. Back in 1978, Ruckman acknowledged the following in his Job Commentary:
It is true that occasionally Larkin and Scofield (as Spurgeon and Torrey) yielded to the pressure of the “godly brethren,” who always were around to tempt them to sin against the Bible. Once in a while you will find an isolated quotation from an RV (or a reference to the “Greek”) in the writings of these men; this was done in a moment of weakness (“ALL HAVE SINNED!”) when they wanted to be “accepted” as Bible scholars. But these men got their revelations from the same place that Carey, Goforth, Livingstone, Brainerd, Edwards, Wesley, Tennant, Finney, Same Jones, Bob Jones, Sr., Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, and Peter Cartwright got theirs: A King James 1611, Authorized Version. 
Larkin sometimes states that the KJV had mistranslations or should have been translated differently
The word translated "Beasts" should be translated "LIVING CREATURES," as in the Revised Version. 
The words – “his belly and thighs of brass,” are a mistranslation. The word translated “thighs” is singular, and should be translated the “Thigh-part.” 
How has Ruckman characterized others who dared say something to the effect that there was a mistranslation in the KJV? Note:
…criticism of the AV text by ANY Conservative, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist is SATANIC. 
…who would even think that a “Bible” translated in the 20th or 21st century would be an improvement over a text in the universal language of the end times …He would have to be a demon-possessed, eschatological evolutionist—A Darwinian “Evangelical.” 
Their sins [saying they are for the KJV, but it is not a perfect translation] are exactly like the sins of rapists, bootleggers, bank robbers, adulterers, drunks, drug addicts, sex perverts, and “double agents”; except they do eight times as much damage (see Musselman’s list) since they affect the religious and spiritual leaders of America. I hold them accountable for the moral condition America is now in. 
Does Ruckman call Larkin satanic or demon-possessed for what he does? No, he calls him “a real Bible believer!” We do not endorse modern English translations, however we believe Ruckman’s rhetoric is out of line regarding them.
Larkin makes references to “the original,” “the original parchments,” and “the original Greek”
See pages 3, 12, and 101 of Larkin's Dispensational Truth.
What does Ruckman think of those who use such phrases?
If he was talking about the “originals” he lied, for the originals were never in any Bible on this earth! 
[referring to Scripture as the originals is] cult terminology. 
…pretend they’re talking about the “originals.” They can’t quote their own absolute source of authority because they don’t have any. They use the King James and then deny that it’s the absolute authority simply because they have no absolute authority to quote. You never met a more carnal, fleshly, rotten bunch of people in all your life. I’d prefer some of the “Dons” in the Mafia over them. There isn’t a bigger pack of liars on the face of this earth unless you were dealing with the news media or the Catholic hierarchy. 
Larkin taught that the Authorized Version was less clear than “the original Greek” for not using the term demon
… The authorized English version of the New Testament is less clear in its presentation of "Demonology" than is the original Greek, because it translates "diabolus," "daimonion," and "daimon," by the same word–"Devil." The word "diabolus" (Devil), meaning "slanderer" or "false accuser," is only used in the New Testament in the singular, and appears 35 times. The words "daimonion" and "daimon" are used in the New Testament both in the singular and plural, but never interchangeably with "diabolus," and should be translated "demon," or "evil" or "unclean spirit." The word "daimonion" occurs 56 times, and "daimon" 5 times. 
Notice what Ruckman thinks of this:
…In every Christian school in America you are taught there is only one devil, but many demons. This is part of the superstitious heritage passed down from one campfire to another by the Alexandrian Cult… 
When Dobson hit John 6:70 he split his blue jeans— or his “tights,” I don’t know which. All apostate Fundamentalists teach that there is only one “devil” but many “demons.” So when Judas showed up as “A DEVIL” (Jesus Christ speaking in John 6:70) something had to be done to cover up for 10,000 lying faculty members who had been teaching at Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Moody, Fuller, Louisville, Wheaton, Piedmont, Princeton, Maranatha, Cedarville, BBC, BJU, PCC, Tennessee Temple, etc. for about 100 years. 
Note “devils” in the AV, which has been altered by various devil-possessed scribes to “demons” which is NOT a translation. 
Larkin believed in a BC Septuagint
Notice what Larkin believed:
There is no question but that the Book of Daniel existed long before the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175-165. How did it get into the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures, that was completed in B. C. 285, or over 100 years before it is claimed that a pious Jew wrote it? 
Now observe what Ruckman had to say about those who believed in a Septuagint at or before the time of Christ:
There is just as much proof behind this “fact” [a BC Septuagint] as there is that Mary strangled Joseph to get his insurance money… 
Meegle is simply aping his predecessors in the Cult who have mouthed off this fairy tale about a B.C. Septuagint for so long that it has infected every font [sic?] of Christian Education. All Christian educators accept the myth by word of mouth on the basis of scholastic reputations, and not one of them has ever produced an atom of evidence since 100 A.D. that such an “entire Bible” ever existed except in the depraved imaginations of Bible rejecting sinners who professed to be “Christians.” 
If Ruckman would be consistent, he would have described Larkin with the following adjectives:
Demon-possessed, eschatological evolutionist
Although we are not in agreement with all of Larkin’s views, we do not believe he is worthy of any of the above invectives if Ruckman’s rhetoric were to be applied. But the point is Ruckman’s consistency, or lack of it. Remember how Ruckman portrayed Larkin?
“By far the greatest Biblical scholar the world has seen since 1800”
“A real Bible believer”
One of the “greatest Bible expositors who ever lived”
The documentation provided in this article should be sufficient to demonstrate to a thinking Christian that Ruckman’s teachings and his applications are incoherent, unbalanced, illogical, and horribly inconsistent.
James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Many other disturbing Ruckman inconsistencies are documented on this website. For further reading we suggest Dr. Ruckman against himself or Do as I say, not as I do!
 Ruckman, Peter. The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. 1970, p. 158
 Ruckman, Peter. The Anti-Intellectual Manifesto. p. 104
 Ruckman, Peter. Bible Babel, 1994, p. 132
 Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin Reprint #7 (Strictly Personal). 2004, Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, p. 67
 Bible Believers' Bulletin Nov. 2001, p. 13
 Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin Reprint Vol. 3 "Doctrinal Studies." 2000, p. 269
 Ruckman, Peter. General Epistles Commentary Vol. 2. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2004, p. 132
 Ruckman, Peter. The Last Grenade, p. 160
 Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Job. p. 622
 Larkin, Clarence, The Book of Revelation, 1919, p. 41
 Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. 1929, p. 34 of PDF version gracebbc.dyndns.org:81/FTP_Root/Larkin/The-Book-of-Daniel-by-Clarence-Larkin.pdf
 Ruckman, Peter. The “Errors” in the King James Bible. p. xx
 Ruckman, Peter. General Epistles Commentary Vol. 2. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2004, p. 132
 Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. June 2007, p. 18
 Ruckman, Peter. Pastoral Epistles: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, p. 269
 Ruckman, Peter. Pastoral Epistles: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, p. 266
 Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 2010, p. 11
 Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth. 1920, p. 101
 Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies, Vol. 18, p. 36
 Bible Believers' Bulletin. Feb. 2004, p. 8
 Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 165
 Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. 1929, p. 11 of PDF version gracebbc.dyndns.org:81/FTP_Root/Larkin/The-Book-of-Daniel-by-Clarence-Larkin.pdf
Ruckman, Peter. The Mythological Septuagint. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1999 reprint, p. 19
 Ruckman, Peter. The Pastoral Epistles. 1989, p. 441
You do realize the same man who called them those names also sold there books (John Rice, Curtis Hudson) and complimented them on there soul winning efforts and clean living.
He also scolds Larkin and Scofield when they correct the book.
Your statements actually helps make my point. To accuse someone like John R. Rice of having murderous hatred toward the KJV, that he’s being used of Satan to set up the new world order, that he was deaf, dumb, and blind, a heretic, an ole’ liar, etc (see https://www.ruckmanism.org/deterioratinglanguage) and then turn around and compliment Rice and sell his books as you admit, shows that Ruckman is terribly inconsistent with others, not just Clarence Larkin.
He attacked those that attacked the book. Regardless of they were scolars, soul winners, church builders etc… it that Avenue he was consistent.
Larkin was not exempt.
If Larkin wasn’t exempt, please prove it by providing quotes of Ruckman trashing Larkin with the same vigor as others who are guilty of the same thing. In the quote I provided in which he recognized that Larkin sometimes quoted from the RV, Ruckman kind of excused it and didn’t unload filthy talk on him like he does with others.
Page 16 theological studies on demons.
“One must never forget the Authorized Version is the great advanced revelation over anything written by Pember, Scofield, Larkin, Darby, or especially by Robinson, Weiss, Zodhiates, or any other apostate fundementalist training Christian students these days in the apostate fundementalist schools”
Only quote I found off the cuff.
So now that it was discovered that Ruckman implied that Larkin was an apostate, as well as a “real Bible believer” we can now say Ruckman is consistent, right?
Dr. Ruckman was consistent in criticizing those that critiqued the book. He was also consistent in praising those that won souls and lived clean lives. Sometimes that praise and criticism went to the same person.
You ever praised Ruckman where he is right?
He preached salvation by grace through faith, eternal security, consecrated living, pretribulation rapture, and soul winning.
Your response reminds me of the old adage “no one is blinder than the one who refuses to see.” You were shown how Ruckman has referred to the same person as an apostate and a true Bible believer, and yet you still consider Ruckman to be consistent! An apostate cannot be a true Bible believer, and a true Bible believer cannot be an apostate.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that Ruckmanites will go to defend the one they follow. Common sense, consistency, and Biblical admonition is forsaken to defend their beloved leader. May others read this and open their eyes and take heed to the warning in Acts 20:29-31: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember…”
John is right on because I know a pastor in Toledo ohio that went to ppi. and he stated one time on the radio that he sat right in Dr.Ruckmans office listing to him cry to God and praying for his enemies that God would show them the truth
That’s not the only thing Ruckman does regarding his enemies. Here it is in his own words, no 3rd party unsubstantiated claim needed:
“I goad them. I irritate them. I throw rocks at them. I upset and antagonize them. I ridicule them, and then I fill their hides with buckshot.” (Ruckman, Peter. The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 325)
Dear webmaster as you probably know that Peter S. Ruckman has recently passed away. And I just learned about your website today but I can tell that’s it’s been up way before he was dead so here is my one question. If you dislike the teachings of Dr.Ruckman so much then why didn’t you ever take him up on his long standing offer for anybody that would like to debate him. Here was his offer, he offered anybody who wanted to debate him on his teachings to do it he even stated that he would fly them to Pensacola and even pay for their stay at a hotel. You could have accepted that offer at anytime up until his death. You never did! Yet you cowardly sit behind a computer screen without sharing your real name and you try to prove his teachings wrong behind his back! If you were any kind of man you would have called ruckman accepted his offer and debated him on what you believe to be true! But your not a man your a woman like Caitlyn Jenner! YOU COWARD! YOU PANSY!
Can you document Ruckman making this offer to “anybody” as you claim? I know Ruckman debated some people with some notoriety or name recognition (such as an NIV translator) but I am not a person of notoriety. When I wrote to Ruckman personally a number of years ago enclosing some of my writings, in his response he did not offer to bring me to his church for a debate.
Wow, Jared. I live in Pensacola. I am 32 yrs old, and have been married for 14 years now. I am IFB (have been all my life) and traveled a lot with my family, and had no idea who “Peter Ruckman” was, before I moved down here 8 years ago, and started seeing all these people standing around yelling at cars, with their signs held up. The signs always had fire all over them and the people always looked unfriendly, and were just robotically yelling verses at the cars with no eye contact. They also had bumper stickers plastered on every square inch of the back end of their vehicles, and if they were long time members, their property was full of the yard sign verses from the book store.. I got to meet some face to face when we joined a church there and had some families in there that were once a part of his flock, they were very confrontational, just like you! The name calling, the mean spirit.. Staunchly defending Peter Ruckman, all of his “claims,” and the views taught by the man.. They were so puffed up… It’s almost like they all studied their bibles, just so they could sit around and fight with other believers. Like Peter Ruckman raised his own crop of prideful, arrogant, name-calling, bible- defenders.. The thing is, the word of God doesn’t need ruckmanites to go around vehemently defending it.. It stands on it’s own, and is to be used by us to bear record, to grow and teach us about our creator, for furtherance of the gospel, and for The glory of Christ, not ours.. Ruckmanites (just like all of us) need to just actually apply the word of God.. You can have all the knowledge that the whole Bible contains, but if you don’t apply it, it does you no good. There are so many times that I see ZERO love for fellow brethren, in the way of outside churches, and I’m not talking about non-denominational, penecostal, or southern baptist, even, I’m talking fundamental, independent baptist churches, just as well. You all were always at odds with one church or another, and for the most self-righteous, hypocritical reasons too. Seeing your name calling to the admin above, whether you feel like you’re doing something “honorable” by defending Ruckman (who doesn’t care about what’s been said, or ESPECIALLY NOW what’s being said about him) Just reminds me why I steer far away from that church, and cringe when I see the signs and the yelling, and all the useless debating about silly “Ruckamnisms”, like the Gap theory, and “sons of God sons of Men.” All the reading between the lines of God’s word, just so they can boast about a new Biblical truth. It’s called P-R-I-D-E. I pray that no more people are hurt from that church, or it’s leaders. Ruckman may be gone, but from what I’ve heard about Donovan, he was the perfect prickly replacement for the man.. There’s been plenty of kids that leave there as adults that NEVER wants to step another foot in that, or any kind of church again.. It’s almost Westboro Baptist like in Nature. A friend of mine told me about a ruckmanite yelling on a street corner with his sign, standing right next to a homeless man, who was laying down, curled up in the grass facing the other way.. The Ruckmanite was just ignoring the man at his feet, yelling away at the driving cars of course.. Her husband eventually stopped and brought the homeless man some food and supplies, and gave him our church tract, for which he was very grateful. It reminded me of the story of the Good Samaritan and what true Christian charity is. Maybe the Ruckmanite affected someone with his sign, maybe someone had their windo down, but there was a man who needed everything right at his feet, and he just stood there, mindlessly going about his “street preaching” task, ignoring the need right in front of him.. I have seen many marriages end out of that church, and many a teenager make a complete and total mess of their life. Some even claiming atheism, citing hypocrisy, emotionalism, and lack of Christian charity. Reminds me of the verses,
1 John 4:20 (KJV)
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Proverbs 25:26-28 (KJV)
25 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring. 27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.28 He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.
2 Corinthians 8 (KJV)
1. Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
I know why this brother made this site, you may not like it or agree with it, but I think it’s good to look at things with some perspective. We are not supposed to idolize . Ruckman’s teachings lead many people into a life of self righteousness and also “man worship”. I see it in all the ones that still quote him and defend him tooth and nail. I also see that they are mocked around Pensacola. They wear it as a “badge of honor”. Like they are being persecuted like Christ was, but that is bogus. Yelling at car windows, while they go buzzing by, and arguing amongst the brethren about who built the pyramids, does not make you a soldier for Christ, and I hope more Ruckmanites come across this website.
You have put great effort into proving that Ruckman was a seriously flawed individual and sinner. What are we supposed to do with this information? Are you suggesting that none of his books are worth reading?
Some justify reading after Ruckman with the “when you eat chicken you throw out the bones” analogy, meaning that they read for what they can find of value and throw out the rest. However, it’s not wise to wade through so much name calling garbage and bitter criticism (as has been proven and documented on this website) in an attempt to find something of perceived value when there are Spirit-filled writers out there, and we can go to the Bible itself.
It's hard to justify reading through so many lies on this website to find a handful of valid criticisms against Dr. Ruckman!
Webmaster, you stink!
If there are so many lies, why didn’t you mention even one just now? If you are even going to try, make sure it fits the definition of a lie, and not a mere disagreement or wording something differently than you would.
As I've posted already, my fine enemy. Everytime I write a rebuttal proving a lie it never gets posted! You make me laugh Webmaster lol.
For example, you claimed during your last post that Dr. Ruckman's claim that people will inhabit outerspace is a fairytale. For example, you claim this with 2 Peter 3:13 staring you right in the face. If righteousness (which proceeds from the righteous) is going to DWELL, ie. LIVE in the new heavens and new earth, then it stands to reason that the HEAVENS aka "outerspace", will be inhabited. So, NOT a fairytale, as you claim! Where I get put out with you is you ignore the implications of some of the very scriptures you quote in your seemingly rabid attempt to discredit everything a certain man, ie. Ruckman, has ever written! Your valid claims (which there are many good ones) against some of the man's opinions about the Bible are clouded by this foolishness. Furthermore, there are many other popular Christian leaders who also believe in some of the things you don't like, such as the Gap Theory and others. Finis Dake and Clarence Larkin belived some weird things too, but yhet you seem to have one favorite target: Ruckman. "A false balance is abomination to the LORD.." Proverbs 11:1. Ah well here's another post that will never get posted, but that's ok. I know how you are and the Lord knows how you are, and let's see how long He lets you continue carrying that false balance! Smile, God loves you.
2 Pe. 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The verse does not say that the righteous will dwell in the new heavens.
The key word is righteousness, which is a condition. Grammatically speaking, here we have a case of personification, in which an abstract notion (righteousness) is given attributes of human nature (dwelleth). Righteousness will be a permanent characteristic of the new earth and all its surroundings.
The old world and everything around it had been polluted by unrighteousness due to unrighteous people with their sinful natures. Now in the scene in 2 Pet. 3:13 everything the righteous can see or everywhere they can go will be uncontaminated by sin.
Ruckman’s space travel and reproduction in heaven continues to be a fairy tale.
Thank God there's another verse that proves you wrong! This dwelling in outerspace or the heavens thing is also found in Revelation 12:12! Well, well, well! There will be rejoicing in the HEAVENS FROM THOSE WHO DWELL IN THEM!
Of course this one probably WON'T get posted because Revelation 12:12 definitely proves you wrong. In that verse there is no so called "personification" of righteousness as in 2 Peter 3:13, but actual inhabitants of the HEAVENS being told to rejoice!
See reply at Ruckman’s fairy tale of space travel and reproduction in heaven. Discussion has been redirected there to stay on topic.
The fact of the matter is that Clarence Larkin was wrong to use New Versions and to go back to the “Greek” was totally unnecessary. He lived during a time when the Satanic nature of the New Versions was not widely known, certainly there weren’t as many New Versions back during his day as there is now. This doesn’t mean that God didn’t use Larkin for an important purpose, to bring dispensational truth to the world through his books and excellent bible charts.
Likewise, as the new bible perversions started to increase in number, God raised up a man, Peter S Ruckman, to fight against them and defend his inerrant perfect word in English, the King James Bible.
No one is infallible, only the word of God is infallible. Both Larkin and Ruckman were wrong on certain things, but God used them both for very important purposes.
Broward, thank you very much for the post above. What an encouragement to read!
I myself was steeped with Ruckmanism and had the same spirit you spoke about and have seen coming from his church. I am very embarrassed and ashamed of my self righteousness and the silly things that I once actually argued about as a Ruckmanite.
That whole movement is nothing but unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ and I am thankful for this website exposing the spirit that is Ruckmanism.
It is definitely a cult and I would urge anyone to search out what this site says and come out of Ruckmanism!
We have all been/do get puffed up with pride, from time to time, but we know what the Bible says about it. God hates it. He repeatedly mentions it throughout His word. We must recognize that our righteousness will always be as filthy rags, and keep ourselves in check daily. We are nothing without Christ.. I am nothing.. Like I said, we can know our whole Bible, but what is that knowledge, if it is never applied?? If the world and our fellow Christians can never see the Fruit of the Spirit in us?? I’ve always been puzzled to see how one could think God would be happy about us using His word to sit around and vehemently debate/fight bible doctrines. Why would God be happy about us using our bibles to fight with other Christians? Or worse, a man’s theory of what’s written between the verses! 😉
Our Bible is our “Sword” to fight the enemy, not each other, and that’s something you can remind that brand new “PBI” student, who is learning to be a new “Ruckman soldier”, or even the seasoned fighter.. Heck, there’s non-Ruckman Christians that do the same. I can’t only pick on them for that.. And I’m not talking about “civil Bible discussions” about doctrine, amongst our fellow brethren, to become sharper in our knowledge of His Word, or addressing someone (after prayer, asking for wisdom and God’s guidance) who isn’t rightly dividing the Word..
You know exactly the fighting I’m talking about.. 🙂
It is so refreshing to hear a former Ruckmanite come out of that church “unharmed”.. Not to say you don’t have any lingering “scars” from your experience there. Since I do not know you, I do not know your history with them, but believe me, I’ve seen the emotional toll they have left on more than a few former members.. Sadly, some of those members have not been able to get over the hurt and bitterness after what they endured there.. It’s sad because I pray that they can realize that that they don’t need to separate themselves from the one that loves them more than anyone in this whole wide world ever could..
That isn’t Christ-centered church.. That’s what happens when pride took over a leader’s heart and it turned into a man-centered church.. It’s just dressed up as Christ centered church, and it seems soooo convincing because of “how much Bible Peter S Ruckman knows.” Not to say that Ruckman doesn’t teach God’s Word (which I don’t believe any of Ruckman’s theories) but he became too puffed up along the way, and never took care of that pride or turned away the praise.. He turned into an idol for the people there, and you can hear the same lines from many.. “The man’s a genius.” “Do you know how high his IQ is?” “He’s written so many books.” “I’m proud to be a Ruckmanite.”.. They are a type of cult to many, and if you look up the definition of the word “cult” you will be hard-pressed to find a difference between that church and that definition.. You “don’t question their authority”, it’s a combative atmosphere, it’s prideful, it’s arrogant, it’s hypocritical, there’s very little “charity”, or love for the “outside” (and sometimes inside) brethren, and it’s very exclusive..
You still have your whole life to serve him. I’m happy to see that’s not your story.
Praying for you.
Webmaster how can u make a statement like that when that pastor from Toledo Ohio went to his school and heard ruckman himself pray for these men that ridicule him and even heard crying for these men now that's what I call a humble man.
Even after you’ve been shown that Ruckman has written about his enemies “I goad them. I irritate them. I throw rocks at them. I upset and antagonize them. I ridicule them, and then I fill their hides with buckshot” you insist that Ruckman is a humble man. What lunacy! Following a man blindly has caused you to lose common sense. Look to Christ, not man.
Also I made a statement webmaster yesterday that debate anybody on this subject that the o.t saints where saved differently than we are today