During rare moments of introspection, Ruckman sometimes admits what could not be denied. We provide these quotes here because many Ruckman defenders will adamantly deny what Ruckman has actually admitted to in print.
Ruckman admits that he is one of the crudest people you will ever meet and that he is no example
I know I am no example. I’m one of the crudest fellows you ever met in your life. They have been trying to refine me for forty years, and I am worse now than I was ten years ago.
Ruckman, Peter. The White Throne Judgment. 1980 (1999 reprint), Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, p. 18
Ruckman admits that he is sometimes too vulgar
If I have had one fault, it has been in being too much to the point, too direct, too thorough, too concentrated, too vulgar, and too specific in making charges.
Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin. Jan. 2010, p. 12
Ruckman admits that at times his language is downright crude and vicious
To do this I used the simplest, plainest language possible (downright crude and vicious at times) in the “street Koine” of the late twentieth century.
Ruckman, Peter. The Full Cup, 1998, p. 266
Ruckman admits to using harsh and sarcastic language
If I have used harsh and sarcastic language in dealing with them on these matters (and I certainly have), I make no apology to anyone, and I will continue to turn a deaf ear toward every suggestion from every corner [including the Bible?!] to “reform” my ways.
Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin Vol. 8 Essays on Bible Topics. 2010, p. 187
Ruckman admits to having a streak of meanness
…I have a sort of ingrained streak of meanness which eventually the Lord will purge out.
Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin Vol. 8 Essays on Bible Topics. 2010, p. 64
Ruckman admits to an incident that would likely be considered domestic violence
Concerning the accusations of physical abuse alleged by his first wife, he admits to leaving bruises during what he described as "a violent argument" in which he grabbed her by the wrists, and pushed her against a table and a sink (Ruckman, Peter. The Full Cup, 1998, p. 225)
Ruckman admits that his second wife (out of three) had been the young wife of one of his former students
See details in Ruckman's auto-biography The Full Cup, 1998, p. 273
Ruckman admits he doesn't know where the Word of God was before 1611
See our article Ruckman admitting he doesn't know where the Word of God was before 1611
Ruckman admits to abnormal behaviors
I used to live with some of the students who went to PBI. When we got home from one of those fellowships, I would go over to the cabinet below the sink and say, "And now a testimony from Bro. So-and-so!" and then I would kick all the pots and pans out of the cabinet and send them clanging and banging to the floor. That is just the way his crying struck me.
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of First and Second Corinthians. 2002, p. 268
One photo has me, barefooted, lying on a pile of dead mullet (about 300 of them) in my backyard with one dead mullet between my teeth like Black Beard would carry a dagger. Another one shows me barefooted, seated at a piano, playing the piano with my toes, while wearing a woman's wig. I get a kick out of sending that kind of stuff to self-conceited, deceived, lying apostates like…
Ruckman, Peter. Battlefield Notes, p. 159
[Attitude when he attended a Fundamentalist conference] I would make a contribution occasionally by opening my upper shirt pocket with my fingers and then pretend it was a “barf bag” on a plane. After simulating a good “puke” I would “pat” the shirt pocket shut.
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 2004, p. 251
My buddies and I used to drive through the country in North and South Carolina at 11:00 at night and get on that megaphone and say, “Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matt. 24:44). The lights popped on in all those farmhouses off the road. That was a lot of fun. (Bible Believers' Bulletin. March 2021, p. 8)
Ruckman admits to having some involvement in hundreds of church splits
Those four messages [by Ruckman] were enough to split three national fellowships, more than fifty colleges and universities, and several hundred local churches.
Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes. p. 45
At one time, I had a list of fourteen Baptist churches in the Pensacola area that had split off the Brent Baptist Church where I used to pastor.
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of the General Epistles. Vol. 1. 2005, p. 170
Ruckman admits he has a bad reputation with many
Many suppose that my calling was writing hate literature, attacking the brethren, “calling them names,” and “downing everyone” who “disagreed with me.”
Ruckman, Peter. How to teach the Bible. 2000 reprint, p. vi
There are Christians in this country who don’t even think I am saved because of the way I talk. (Bible Believers' Bulletin. April 2021, p. 5)
Ruckman's admissions lead to a logical Biblical conclusion
According to 1 Pet. 5:3, pastors are to be "ensamples to the flock." Ruckman's caustic writings and unscriptural beliefs reveal that he does not meet the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. Among the Scriptural qualifications for a pastor are the following:
- A bishop must be blameless (1 Tim. 3:2)
- No striker (1 Tim. 3:3)
- Not a brawler (1 Tim. 3:3)
- He must have a good report of them which are without (1 Tim. 3:7)
- Not soon angry (Titus 1:7)
May God help us to keep our eyes on the Lord (Heb. 12:2), as He will never fail us.
Dr. Ruckman is by far the most qualified pastor I have ever met or read about. I graduated in 1994 from PBI it was by far best experience of my life.The Bible was opened up for me as it was for many others because of Dr. Ruckman. God help us when he passes off the scene.
Whether he is qualified by your feelings or experience is not the norm. The Bible is the norm for a pastor’s qualifications. Using the Bible as a norm and Ruckman’s own admissions (as properly documented in this article), he fails miserably in qualifying for this sacred office. Those who choose to look the other way are following a man. Repent and follow Christ, who will never have to admit wrong and will never let you down.
Listen dummy, no pastor meets all of the requirements of 1Timothy 3, if you can find me a better man than DR. Ruckman to follow I would like to meet him. Other wise shut your trap and listen, you might learn something, see you in the funny paper.
“no pastor meets all of the requirements of 1Timothy 3”
Another example of a Ruckmanite making a mockery of God’s Biblical qualifications for a pastor in hopes people will overlook them and not apply them to Ruckman.
You are a fraud and your ruckmanism.org site is a petty, ridiculous attempt to smear the memory of great soldier for Christ!
I seriously doubt you have garnered even one follower to your cult!
Every heard of facts and evidence? That is what is required to support your statement. We back up our accusations about Ruckman down to the source and page number.
Ruckman did most sermons from the flesh not the Holy Spirit , whenever I want to feed the flesh and have a laugh, I watch a Ruckman video ,if I wan't truth I go to the word of God, the KJV bible. He was arogant and like Hyles , it was his way or the highway. Pastor as a authoritative figure over a group of people in a church building practicing the traditions of men , found nowhere in the KJV, we are all Pastors for God when we truly get saved. What other term do these special men like to take on , oh yeah, the "man of God". Great to be in the house of God this morning isn't it , how many times have you heard that lie. Who and who has the final authority, them of course, go ahead put it to the test if you have the nerve!
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
I grew up in Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola Fl. Some of the pictures and behavior you are putting out I have seen and know very much about, I went to school there and graduated in 1996 and now am a pastor myself in Enid, Oklahoma. God has used Dr. Ruckman in my life to get me right, keep my family together, train my Father who also went to school there; Dr Ruckman was a friend to me when my daughter was in the hospital for a week with Spinal taps every 12 hours just after she was born. What you don’t mention is all the children that come to him after the services to get gummy bears because they love him and I could give you a life time of stories of others that are serving the Lord today and have had an influence on the world for Christ because of Dr. Ruckman despite his “qualifications”. But instead of trying to examine Dr. Ruckman’s qualifications as you have why not try to get out there and accomplish half of what he has done? God has used all kinds of people that the “Brethren” didn’t think were qualified. What has amazed me over the years is that you guys that are so worried about pointing out Dr. Ruckman’s inadequacies and “qualifications” to try to get him disqualified is that God hasn’t disqualified him. You can be all up in the air about this matter but only God himself will be able to straighten it all out and I guarantee that the love and compassion of this “crazy man” has influenced more souls to come to Christ than your post. If we are going to go according to the lists in I Tim 3 and Titus there isn’t one pastor on the planet that is “Blameless”, a lot have the problem of being hospitable, and many of them are adulterers by their thoughts. If you don’t want anything to do with Dr. Ruckman that is fine but it sure is funny that you guys who have these “problems” with his “qualifications” sure do seem to talk an awful lot about him. Go do something for God unless that would be to much like Dr Ruckman.
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; – 1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: – 1 Corinthians 1:28 KJV
That no flesh should glory in his presence. – 1 Corinthians 1:29 KJV
Whether a pastor is nice to people in need (it is expected of anybody in that position) or hands out candy to kids is not what I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is about overall. If one does not meet the Biblical qualifications for a pastor, there is no trial period in which those qualifications can be overlooked until the candidate can prove he can be nice to people in need. You place qualifications in quotes multiple times as if they were made up to disqualify Ruckman or should not be taken seriously, but they come straight from the Bible. It almost seems that you are trying to say the Biblical qualifications in I Tim. 3 and Titus 1 as worthless when you state such things as “…there isn’t one pastor on the planet that is ‘Blameless’…” I would agree that some qualifications on their own could seem a little vague, but all the Biblical qualifications taken together paint a picture that is the opposite of Ruckman, based on his own admissions. You stated about Ruckman that “God hasn’t disqualified him.” If Titus 1 and I Tim. 3 are God’s qualifications, and this article accurately documents Ruckman’s own admissions, then God has indeed disqualified him from the pastorate, and not myself or anyone else.
I just wonder how many wives some of the so called Brethren have had before they had a Ceremoney! Marriage is flesh joining flesh and I believe you are judging where you have no right to judge!
It’s interesting that you would ask this about others and not apply it to Ruckman, who’s the one claiming that flesh joining flesh constitutes marriage. Ruckman in his writings refers to three wives (matching the number of his ceremonies). Yet, in his own words in his autobiography he just has to tell the world the following about his past:
“…fornicating, blaspheming, the whole works. He was what the Bible would call a ‘fornicating whoremonger’—like Elvis Presley or JFK.”
“A string of violated virgins and adulteresses whose homes were now gone.”
Ruckman, Peter. The Full Cup, p. 99, 200.
By his own definition, he had far more than three wives. He doesn’t even apply his own teachings to himself!
Ruckman should not be a Pastor at all. He is NOT the husband of one wife and he himself describes a horror of violence in his home.
His verbal assaults upon other fundamentalist Pastors are shameful and not in keeping with the speech of a Christian, let alone a Pastor.
James 3:13-17King James Version (KJV)
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
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.
I understand that people lose their tempers from time-to-time, but Ruckman engages in a steady stream of invective. He belittles, tells untruths and in general brings discredit upon the WORD.
Then there is his racism, aliens and the black helicopters, approval of abortion.
He is not a Pastor, he’s a man that surely needs our prayers because he is bordering on lunacy.
I would also like to point out that all you Pastors or whoever you are have a sinful nature and I bet each one of you lust if you see a good looking woman. All of you are every bit as guilty of sin as the next person.
A good observation, but exactly how does that justify Ruckman?
listen punk ,dr ruckamns read his bible more than 400 times ,lead thousands of souls to christ, bible say that by your fruits you shall know them, dr ruckmans fruits are manly bible beleiving,soul winning ,jesus christ loving men not little egotistical ,efimaninte women . and you cant give me one story of dr ruckman being rude or crude to any fod fearing bible beleiver , the only time hes crude is when idioys like you try and correct gods word.
just because a person reads a book 400 times doesn’t mean they have an accurate understanding of all of it. he has salvation correct for this dispensation, but he is in error in the other dispensations.
As for how many times Ruckman read the Bible through, we only have his word on it. It is impossible to prove. Reminding people of how many times they’ve read the Bible does not come across as a sign of humility. Ruckman has a tendency to portray himself as super-human in the eyes of his followers. This can easily be demonstrated by his other claims of having read an average of one book a day since he was 10 years old, jogging a mile a day, fishing after midnight, hockey two hours a week, personally answering 20 letters a day, handling a curriculum of 22 subjects by himself, weekly radio broadcasts while pastoring 600 people, writing over 100 books, raising 10 kids, etc. Some things in the list are true and can be proven, but if you don’t question any of it whatsoever, I have a bridge I would like to sell you…
As for winning souls, there is no doubt that God can use human instruments, regardless of how fallible they are. However, the Holy Spirit is the one who ultimately convicts a sinner. The number of people saved under someone’s ministry is not a gauge of their spirituality or how Biblical their teachings are. For example, an evangelist might have 100 saved after one sermon in one part of the world, and yet preach for a whole month in a Muslim country and not see anyone saved. There were 12 saved during the invitation when I preached to a people group undergoing revival a few years ago, but I have also preached dozens of times before and since without decisions. The fact that Ruckman claims hundreds or thousands saved under his ministry is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of whether his teachings are Biblical or if his conduct is Christ-like. Bringing up personal statistics that Ruckman claims for himself is a diversionary tactic in a vain attempt to avoid dealing with his documented misconduct in the light of God’s Word.
Ruckman himself trying to correct Gods word to cover his own. God forbid.
I read the Bible in 40-day cycles nine times a year at 30 chapters daily. God has been gracious to assist in this labor of memorizing the Bible that the build-up to that by the year’s end will make some seven or eight times in two years. Thank God for it- what a sure cure to leave Pentecostalism and Ruckmanism (Esa. 8.19-22)! The strange thing about Ruckmanites is they fabricate the facts to prop up their cult later. In a 2014 sermon, one of the last rock been made, he admitted to reading the AV about 150 times. I do not find this very impressive considering his lack of Christian character and grace. Especially, it is an imperative considering that God helping me, I’ll do that in the next 16 years or so. Like your cult leader, you have not read Paul very well, much less any of the other apostles. Here are two quotes on Christian living and speech for you, seeing that they seem to be a difficult area.
Do you ever bother to read your Bible for yourself, or do you always read it in light of his teachings? If so, you are literally no different than a Catholic who reads the Bible with a Catholic lens ingrained on him from birth, or a Russellite (JW) or an occultic Mormon.
Hmmm… This is an oddity in this Ruckmanite's comment. In 2014 treaching his interpolations on Bullengerism, Ruckman claimed to have read the Bible 150 or so times in his life, and his preaching ended approcimately two years later. He would have to read around 750 chapters per day of the 1189 in the Bible to accomplish these missing 250 times this Ruckmanite alleges within one year and about 250 to accomplish the same in this alloted time frame. I read the Bible 30 chapters a day; that requires one to three hours of reading dependantnpn the material. It is an impossibility Ruckman or anyone else in two years could approach reading this rate! Lying and embellishment are a sin!
Here is the said sermon where Ruckman claims the 150 figure.
the bible says that paul himself was rude in speech,so you cant measure a mans spirituallity by how rude he is ,and ill give 1000000 dollars to anyone who can show me where dr ruckman corrected gods word
And i dont portray dr ruckman as a super human ,he himself doesnt profess to be a scholar,im simply saying that with an i q of 150 and 400 times through the bible im sure he studied every doctrine twice as long as you have ,but as far as me taking his word for it ,dr ruckman never told me to take his word for it a day in his life ,he always gives at least two sxriptures not taken out of context to prove his point,when he doesnt have scriptures ,hell tell you not to take his word for it,no one can truly know dr ruckmans heart, but id be surprised if you can show me one time dr ruckman professed to be better than anyone else
“The bible says that paul himself was rude in speech,so you cant measure a mans spirituallity by how rude he is…”
I documented how Ruckman has admitted to practices and behaviors that disqualify him from the pastorate according to the qualification in the very Bible he claims to read but doesn’t practice.
Because Paul said he was rude in speech does not give anyone a right to do likewise for the same reason that if Peter denied Christ three times it doesn’t give us a right to do likewise. Also the term “rude” is old English for unlearned. Just look it up in the Greek. I know Ruckman says “don’t go to the Greek,” but he does it a lot when it suits him. In other words, he wants you to do as he says not as he does. We have no right to interpret the Bible with the alternate modern meaning of a KJV word if it originally had a different meaning when translated which in turn is considerably different than the meaning in the original languages.
“i dont portray dr ruckman as a super human…”
You don’t have to, because Ruckman has already done it for you repeatedly in his writings.
“he himself doesnt profess to be a scholar”
Let’s see what Ruckman says:
“Five earned degrees, with 120 books authored, and handling a curriculum of 22 subjects (by myself)”
(The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 275)
“I may be the only man alive on the American continent who has taught twenty-five different subjects in one curriculum AT ONE TIME with three of the subjects being on a graduate level.”
(How to teach the Bible, p. 1)
“id be surprised if you can show me one time dr ruckman professed to be better than anyone else”
Let’s see what Ruckman says:
Many students whose capacities exceeded “Ruckman’s”? For example?
(The Last Grenade, p. 141)
…You found someone that knew more about the Bible than “Ruckman,” did you? Who?
(The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. 1988, p. 35)
“he always gives at least two sxriptures not taken out of context to prove his point…”
Like when Ruckman teaches that Adam was born with a water circulatory system instead of air, or claiming that life does not begin at conception, or his ten foot-tall Antichrist with a bad right arm and a bad right eye that will land in St. Peter’s square in a 600 feet in diameter by 60 feet thick flying saucer, who will implant the mark with his huge black lips, etc? It is not necessary to read the Bible 400 times to be able to test the spirits, whether they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1)
If you continue to insist that the man you follow practices or believes something different than he even admits to, your subsequent comments will not be allowed. I should not be wasting such time with those who follow a man instead of following Christ and His Word.
Two scriptures come to my mind as I read your accusations and opinions. The first is in Proverbs which speaks about how God hates those who sow discord among the brethren. The second has to do with how you are causing the discord. By being an “accuser of the brethren” like someone else that is mentioned in the Bible. You have also quoted scripture that you says disqualified him from being a pastor. Several people have asked and I would ask also for you to name someone who is qualified in your opinion.
I have presented evidence that Ruckman has been the one spreading discord among the brethren, and he himself admits–or should I say brags about it:
Those four messages [by Ruckman] were enough to split three national fellowships, more than fifty colleges and universities, and several hundred local churches.
Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes. p. 4
I am simply warning others that Ruckman is spreading discord. And I use his own writings to prove it, not relying on hearsay or rumors. How could that make me the one spreading discord?
As for me being an “accuser of the brethren,” I don’t even use the term for Ruckman himself, because the only time it shows up in the Bible it refers to Satan.
A qualified pastor doesn’t have to be perfect, but he must meet all the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. I will not mention any pastor’s name specifically, because I do not trust you to be fair. Why do I say that? You treated me as the one spreading discord, when the man you defend is on record bragging about doing that very thing (to the extent of splitting several hundred local churches!)
Friend, The meaning of words change over the centuries. And consider, no two words in the English language mean exactly the same thing because there is often a wide range of subtle meaning that may apply to one and not a similar word. I grew up in the 1940s and watched with interest and some concern how the more computer literate we become the more illiterate we also become in spoken and written English
Now, as for your Paul comment, it was one time common to call an uneducated or uncultured person rude because he/she lacked refinement. I doubt Paul would have fitted that category because of his background and education. Perhaps he was considered rude in that he was very direct in his speech and didn’t pussyfoot around the sensitivities of those that opposed him. That does not necessarily make him crude or vulgar or nasty. Once upon a time the state of lethargy was called stupidity, but feeling stupid after overindulging and being stupid on an empty stomach are not the same thing! Food for thought, don’t you agree : ) Blessings. B.
Keep on keeping on! Gipp, Chandler, Stockard, Andrew’s, McGaughey…..yourself.
You know you’re in His Will because of Dr Ruckman. Stay by the stuff.
You’re a mess.
your an idiot webmaster and your no better than dr ruckman is if you started this website and
cause another brother to stumble or talk them out of the word of god then your full of the devil and dr ruckman is much more loving and gracefull than you
Typical Ruckmanite rhetoric with no substance.
The same Dr. Ruckman who holds to bigotry and racism? Yeah, what a guy.
hey this is ruckmanite,id just like to say that my comments were blocked because i brought the truth out,and proved webmaster wrong very politely…
Very politely? Here is just a sample of your “politeness” from your comment, which for obvious reasons was not approved:
“your name shouldnt be webmaster it should be satan or judas,or mabye even the whore of babylon.that enough substance for you moron”
That would only be politeness by Ruckman’s twisted definition!
I believe that King James Bible A.V. 1611 is a perfect words of God, and as far as i know , Dr. Ruckman stand in that final authority, so what ever you said bad against him…. does not matter , i thank THE LORD he used him as an instrument for me to recognize that book and used it in my daily life.. even I’m to far from America still the words reached me because of dok..thank you!
“so what ever you said bad against him…. does not matter”
Doesn’t matter? Really? Think about what you just said. It sounds like you are so thankful to Ruckman that it doesn’t matter what anybody says against him, even if they can prove serious Scriptural error in his beliefs. “Does not matter.” A very cultic statement. I plead with you to reconsider, and choose to follow Christ, not a fallible man.
Reading this thread of comments is completely laughable! Calling a brother in Christ names over disagreements is unbiblical and un-Christlike to say the least. Why not just examine the facts and face the truth head on?
Dr. Ruckman needs no protection. He never cared about judgements from people who judged him. He is with CHRIST right now right, wrong or anything else. It never was in anyone’s hands. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR CHRIST TODAY?
HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!!!
full cup page 273 does not say any thing about 2nd wife . webmaster need to correct that or do a little more busyboding in other mens matters 1 peter 4 :15,
I double-checked, and page 273 does indeed mention circumstances of marriage to his second wife. I have since added that it was from the 1998 edition of his book, in case it has been revised.
man mine is 1992 so checked a few pages before and after, could only find she divorced him to marry police officer . never new she was x wife of student couldent find that statement. but she is the sister of megaheys wife. who was his assistant pastor. gossip makes my head hurt.
"gossip makes my head hurt." Normally gossip refers to passing along personal information that is questionable, second-hand, or unverified. However, everything that was pointed out in this article came straight from Ruckman's own writings, and the source was given. Calling this gossip is unreasonable, especially when Ruckman himself chose to make the details public.
If you think dr ruckman is crude then what about j frank norris who cussed at his congregation and called a man a suck egg hound,and what about billy sunday who would make people faint during his sermons because he was so crude,what about john and peter asking the lord to kill those people with lightning,what about peter cutting off a mans ear,what about jesus christ himself getting angry at the pharisees(practicing the verse”be angry and sin not”) .the only person in the bible who gets mad at rudeness and crudeness are the pharisees and they crucified jesus christ. Im not saying that any of what they did was right but even a suck egg houng like you would have to admit that they were godly men.and dr ruckman was certanly at liberty to be the way he is because of the souls hes led to christ and the hundreds of churches hes responsible for starting and the time he spends in gods word and how he defends it.he has as much liberty as any one of the previous men i mentioned.if youd get down out of your ivory tower and see that almost everyone that went to his school consider him a incredibly gracious man i can give you more than ten accounts of dr ruckman being more gracious than he should have been
If J Frank Norris and Billy Sunday did what you said and worse, it doesn't make it right. The Bible is the Christian's guide for how to live, not fallible man. What other Bible characters did wrong does not justify sin.
"dr ruckman was certanly at liberty to be the way he is because of the souls hes led to christ and the hundreds of churches hes responsible for starting and the time he spends in gods word and how he defends it."
Any accomplishments in life or ministry does not entitle anyone to extra liberty. We are all to follow The Book. No one is entitled to exceptions or entitlements.
"he has as much liberty as any one of the previous men i mentioned."
Absolutely not. Anyone who claims to be a believer is to conform his conduct to the Word of God, not the example of fallible men.
Do you realize how cultic you come across? According to http://www.familiesagainstcultteachings.org/Cult-Education/Cult-Warning-Signs/ one of the marks of a cult is "Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful."
S Godfrey’s statement was quite a while back, but I can’t let it go. A Christian knows he’s in the word of God because of the Holy Spirit and because of “line upon line, precept upon precept”, NEVER because of any man, regardless of WHO that is; Ruckman, Schofield, Larkin,, Gipp, your favorite TV or radio personality, college “professor”, or producer of books, tapes, CD’s or DVD’s. Do not get God’s word “filtered” through anyone else. You are commanded to study so YOU can be a workman. Ruckman is gone. YOU read and STUDY your Bible for YOURSELF. It is not anyone elses opinions or study notes you will be judged by one day, but GOD’s Word. If yo can’t understand it, ASK Him, (GOD, not some man, who is flesh), and He will show you. He has for me, dozens of times, and He wants to do the same for you. And when God reveals truth to you, it is a hundred times more of a blessing than when a man does.
Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. We should all leave one by one and drop it.
Any one God used to the extent of Dr. Ruckman would draw fire from many sides. Only God doesn't have any improper alterior motives.
Typical Ruckmanite, applying Scripture to others, while letting Ruckman off the hook. Typical cultic approach.
Ruckman taught us to use scriptures and our authority is the Bible my friend,"don't mess around with my book"
Bcz it has all the authority from God
I guess thats why you hate Ruckman,cuz He uses scripture
You know reading all this is funny. God used men all throughout the bible that you egotistical self righteous biggets would not use. You wouldent let them step foot behind your pulpit. I think of David a man that commited adultery and then seen that her husband was killed aka murder which in old testament was punishable by death and God said that man is a man after mine own heart. I cant say i understand that myself. God did not ask me to understand why or who he was using. I guarentee alot not all but alot of youns would not let David stand behind your pulpit. Thank God that he has and always will use sinners saved by the grace of God. Thsts what seperated David from others. Why who else was willing to fight goliath. And i say who else was God going to use to defend his Holy infallable in errant word KJV besides a few men like Ruckman. You see God sees not as man. But God looketh on the heart. God uses willing men not the best men.
Does what you say to me not apply to Ruckman? You speculate that I wouldn’t allow certain imperfect men in a pulpit, yet the man you defend is on record bragging about refusing to even shake a Baptist preacher’s hand! “When he offered me his hand I told him ‘Run on, Ross. YOU ITCH!’” (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. May 1992, p. 4)
I've just finished reading your article and most of the comments under it, and my question is this – what Scripture qualification are you saying he doesn't meet?
hes not a striker, by all accounts.
not a brawler even by accusation.
he is married to only one wife – an acceptable interpretation of a never-ending debate topic.
not soon angry. By his and your accounts I don't read anything where he got angry with anyone suddenly. It doesn't say never gets angry, just not soon angry.
Of good report of them that are without. I've heard bad and good about him, but most unsaved people that knew him or of him give a good report of his testimony and character.
he is an example to the flock, one way or another.
So the only thing I see is that he isn't blameless so he should be disqualified from the ministry? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Unless you have something other than this Im afraid you cannot disqualify him from anything. Otherwise any pastor who could be blamed for anything should not be allowed to pastor.
Im sorry but I hope you have something more to base your claims on, and if you do please put it in your article.
No one is blinder than the man who refuses to see.
The word translated striker in the AV in I Timothy 3.3 as well as Titus 1.7 from the Byzantine text is πλήκτης meaning a quarrelsome bruiser. See in Strong's Concordance of the Bible G4131. It derives from G4141 πλήσσω meaning to strike or smite. That this is Ruckman to the minutest degree is only obscure to the spiritually blind. What is more, the word for brawler is G269 ἄμαχος, distinguishing someone who is "not contentious". The root word μάχη interestingly enough is used in three of the best verses describing Ruckman EVER: II Timothy 2.23, Titus 3.9 as well as James 4.1.
I looked at Ruckman’s commentary to see what he had to say about the term “striker” in the context of pastoral qualifications. For 1 Tim. 3:3, all he has is half a sentence: “…he is not to go around beating his adversaries up…” Under Titus 1:7, not much more: “The ‘striker’ is the ‘brawler’ of 1 Timothy 3:3…” That’s all he has to say. For the term “brawler,” which is virtually synonymous, Ruckman has absolutely nothing to say under 1 Tim. 3:3. Very shallow treatment of these terms for a commentary. In what little he says, it seems that he tries to leave the impression that “striker” refers exclusively to a physical act of violence, but as it has been pointed out here, the meaning in the Greek is not limited to a physical act.
Is not that interesting? Ruckman expediently omitted that he was unqualified to pastor in his commentary!
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.
Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil.
II Peter 3.16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Ruckman was indeed a product of his time. One of those who in the last days would seek worship for himself and not for Christ. There will always be some who prefer to believe foolishness than truth, the Devil is powerful in this world and he knows his targets. Ruckman's doctrinal cancer has resulted in the ruination of many men, women and churches, yet scripture tells us he will recieve his reward, the only compassion I feel for him is sadness when he stands before the Christ of God, and answers not for his sins which are many, but for the fact that he knew better, and still chose to serve himself and not Christ.
I love Bro Ruchman
I have never meet anyone as knowledgeable or wise to the scriptures as bro Ruchman God has given him insight that other have failed to see, He's Opened the scripture to hundreds of Bible students and things i use to stumble over i now enjoy Thank you so much Dr. Peter S Ruchman.
If you just read what Ruckman admits to and you left a comment like that, it sounds like a classic case of blindly and foolishly following a man in a cultic fashion.
The pastoral epistles mandate an absolute moderation that was altogether absent in Ruckman's life. Interestingly, that is yet another link between himself and Rome. We Waldensians and our counterparts the Wycliffites decried this in the Noble Lesson as well as the Twelve Conclusions as the preistcraft kept the Messias from the people with their mendicance and absurdity. It makes one wonder who had the bright idea to let this braggart in the ministry who had the same spirit as the papacy….
Peter Ruckman is admitting humility!!!
Were all sinners saved by grace,if you admit that your a good preacher,shame on you,if you admit that your a darn right person towards God,shame on you
I don't know about you but I'm a sinner saved by grace and so is ruckman
Let's say all his marriages, resurrection date-setting, deep dive into Oriental occultism, endless railing so forth were cast aside. Ruckman dsbelieved salvation is identical in both covenants. He makes the identical argumentation of Rome's Trent Council, Canon IX, that salvation is not by faith through grace in Christ by all of scripture to God's blessed glory alone for the former covenant. Thus, if those saints were not redeemed by hoping for the Apocalypse 14.6 everlasting gospel (note "euangelion" here is singular as well as the term employed by Paul as it is in English) Christians are, they are as lost as the Jews who cried for the Amen's death. Salvation is founded in the former covenant which states it is the salvation of the new (Deut. 30.6; Cant. 1.4; Isa. 55.1-7; Hos. 11.4; Jer. 30-2; Ezek. 11, 19, 36-8; Joel 1-3; Zach. 4.6-7), so to reject this casts serious aspersions on Ruckman's record that Christ is true. It's like Ford launching a new line of vehicles then renouncing all their other current or former lineup as fraudulent. If a papist is lost without God's grace on an elect, bleating, drawn sheep, why would Ruckman have an exemption?
My estranged father at one time memorized the entire Authorized Version from Genesis to the Apocalypse; he quoted in addition to defended like few ever did. He was then some 25 years ago engaging in down-low homosexual encounters with other men in church; he is now an open buggerer who not only abandoned me for a life of crime and sodomy, but has married a homosexual man he has now divorced, as if it were a betrothement. Memorization of the sacred scripture does not mean that one knows the God thereof; he could be a veritable enemy of the cross. Why does His Highness Ruckman get a pass? Says Gadsby's Catechism —
You know what they say "haters gonna hate"
No matter what you try to convince
They still gonna hate ruckman bcz maybe He offended them with his foul language
Cmon he is getting real into reality,anyway life ain't that sweet,he just telling you that,ruckman has been a big blessing,through a student He had taught,his name is Gene Kim,a fellow like Gene Kim actually helped me alot in my Bible knowledge and I've got know the grace of God,and I rest my case,I'm going to heaven. 100%
Face the fact
Don't hide it
Are you truly going to justify a man who in 1976 admitted he was DEMON POSESSED from his years in Oriental theosophy (Proverbs 17.15-20)? He could not have been a Pentecostal because 99 percent of the movement would expel him; they rightly deny a believer could be demon posessed. Furthermore, you should only follow Jesus as well as his apostles (Ps. 37.37; Mt. 4.20; Mark 8.34, 9.38-9; Luke 5.11; John 1.43; I Cor. 1.11, 4.6-10; Eph. 5.1) as they folloed Christ, for in following Ruckman, you demonstrate an ungodly penchant like Isræl (Ro. 9.31). You also betray your semi-ultra-dispensationalism (Ro. 14.19).
This "ruckmanite" character can't spell or speak in sentences too well, & does a poor imitation of his late guru. And I can guarantee he doesn't bother with the FACT that the KJVO myth is not found in Scripture & is therefore false.
Dr. Ruckman's 'advanced revelation' stuff is just plain goofy. The KJV nor any other bible translation can correct its SOURCES! That'd be equivalent to a daughter giving birth to her own mom!
(Not to mention his belief in space aliens & that the antichrist will be a 10-ft. tall alien who will impart the marka the beast with a kiss from his huge black lips!)
I believe you meant "mark of the beast" and not "marka the beast" lol. Don't criticize others for not spelling correctly when you can't either lol.
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
The criteria you quote in Timothy refers to being the pastoral leader of a physical, actual church. Even if there is a chance you are right that Dr. Ruckman was disqualified from holding the office ( a point I am not fully convinced of), his real position and what he is remembered for in the world outside his small Pensacola congregation is being a Bible TEACHER. And for teaching Scripture, the Lord has not forbidden any man to speak of Him, to teach His truths to the people, not even women , outside of the church/gathering setting).
It is slanderous of you to assert that Dr Ruckman taught such concepts as the water circulatory system in Adam and the ten foot tall Antichrist, et cetera, as though it were absolute doctrine… a personal revelation of his which all Christians must believe and obey, a la Joseph Smith. Whatever Dr. Ruckman was teaching, his rallying cry was "DON"T BELIEVE ME. READ THE BOOK".
The mark of a false teacher or cult leader is that he DEMANDS that the follower receive his words and teaching without question. Nothing could be further from the case with Dr. Ruckman, who took meticulous pains to ensure that he pointed people to the AV 1611 for their authority and DID NOT rely on him. For me and many other Christians who heard some of his more unusual assertions, this simply got our attention and spurred us on to study the relevant Scripture to see what the BOOK said, not Ruckman. And for me, some I may agree on, some I believe there is insufficient evidence, and some I disagree. Regardless, this was his life's work and what he wanted: for the Christian to reverence that Book above any other authority, even if meant absolutely disagreeing with him on some of the "lesser" concepts he taught !
The frank and honest admissions he made about the sins in his life and personal relationships were all part of his attempt to prevent any sort of "cult leader" or "hero worship" status from happening. By doing so, Ruckman left himself wide, wide open to attacks from critics. But in doing so he also trumpeted the truth that he wanted everyone to know. "I am nothing. God and His Word are everything."
“The criteria you quote in Timothy refers to being the pastoral leader of a physical, actual church.”
And that’s exactly what he was for decades! The fact that he taught some or a lot outside his pastoral role does not excuse outright disobedience to the Word of God in holding to his pastoral position!
“It is slanderous of you to assert that Dr Ruckman taught such concepts as the water circulatory system in Adam and the ten foot tall Antichrist, et cetera, as though it were absolute doctrine…”
I didn’t simply accuse him of teaching such things, I demonstrated it by quoting him directly. That is the opposite of slander. You in turn do not quote him to prove me wrong.
As for the “ten foot tall Antichrist,” that comes from his book Mark of the Beast. In the last page Ruckman boasted: “In the final analysis the mathematical probability of this book ‘panning out’ in history is about 10 to the 91st power.” See how his bookstore promoted the book repeatedly in the Bible Believers’ Bulletin. From an actual ad June 1978 p. 8, and in many more issues: “…[this book] still stands as the final and exhaustive treatment and of the person and work of the Anti-Christ…The book states the Anti-Christ’s name, mark, number, letter, religion, size, shape, height, weight, physical characteristics, church, music, and mannerisms…” Here’s a quote from Ruckman for good measure:
…Mark of the Beast in which we give you the Antichrist’s name, his race, his religion, his number, his sign, his mark, his height, his shape, his letter, his favorite color and his favorite ‘bible.” The Antichrist is more clearly marked in the scripture than any other character outside of Jesus Christ. The modern Christian books that you find about the Antichrist do not even really touch the subject. The Antichrist is connected with the letter X. He is connected with the color that you find so prominent in Africa. He is connected with the Vatican manuscript. He has a name, a sign, a number, a mark, a letter, a place, a bible, a church, a race, and a nationality; and the Bible tells you the whole thing without any guess work being involved at all. (Theological Studies, Vol. 9, p. 23)
As for Ruckman’s teaching on Adam having a water circulatory system, he mocks others who don’t agree with vocabulary that includes “nonsense” and “Biblical illiterates.” (August 2001 Bible Believers’ Bulletin. p. 19)
“a personal revelation of his which all Christians must believe and obey, a la Joseph Smith.”
You know he often ridiculed others unmercifully who didn’t reach the same conclusions on controversial matters. If you want to take that as if he didn’t mean others should believe it, you can continue to believe in your make-believe world.
“Whatever Dr. Ruckman was teaching, his rallying cry was “DON’T BELIEVE ME. READ THE BOOK”
He would occasionally say something along the lines of “don’t take my word for it, look up the verses.” That may work for some people who will assume he’s got to be right if he lists a verse reference or two after making a statement. The reason many have rejected Ruckmanism after being exposed to it, is that they did indeed look up some verses regardless of whether Ruckman encouraged them to or not. For example, I have looked up the verses Ruckman uses when he makes questionable claims such as him knowing the day Christ was born, certain physical characteristics of the Antichrist, where Eden was located, the original language spoken before Babel, the language that will be spoken in heaven, the main ingredient in Esau’s pottage, etc. Since the passages he provided did not say what he said they did, I have no qualms in affirming outright that he is a false teacher. If he isn’t a false teacher, then nobody is.
“The mark of a false teacher or cult leader is that he DEMANDS that the follower receive his words and teaching without question.”
As for the mark of a false teacher, it is simply that he teaches what can be demonstrated to be false. As for whether Ruckman was a cult leader heading up an actual cult, it depends partly on one’s definition. When some people think cult, they visualize a tight-knit group living in a compound in isolation where everyone and everything is bound to the dictates of the cult leader. That is not Ruckmanism. But Ruckmanism is at the very least a “personality cult.” It does manifest some cultic characteristics as documented throughout ruckmanism.org.
Some cultic leaders are more subtle and know better than to publicly demand he be followed without question. Ruckman more commonly uses the tactic of name calling and ridicule when others he targets (often those who question him publicly) do not agree with his strange teachings.
“some I believe there is insufficient evidence”
Why not be more specific? Which teachings of Ruckman? I hear this all the time from Ruckmanites, that they “don’t agree with him on everything,” but they don’t dare specify. In such cases it is obvious where their loyalty lies.
“…his attempt to prevent any sort of "cult leader" or "hero worship" status from happening.” I disagree. He would not dare refer to it in such terms, but that he relished it is obvious in some of his admissions such as “I have always had enough Bible believers to respect me to keep me happy and satisfied.” Ruckman, Peter. BBB reprint #7 (Strictly Personal). 2004, Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, p. 131
Our satisfaction should come from pleasing God and conforming to his Word. Could it be that by following Ruckman, his followers were feeding his ego and encouraging his behavior and odd teaching? His followers apparently created an environment in which the more exotic, novel and bizarre his teachings, the more they loved him.
I notice the whiners defensive of their cults are usually ignorant of terminology; libel refers to what is in print, not slander. I have to deal with this with one Free Grace Movement proponent whom says all monergists are Gnostic despite being wholly apathetic about the actual definition of Gnosticism. It is basically one giant circular argument from respecters of persons.
In all my apologetics, I nearly always document exactly what some sectarian leader a la Ruckman says. Suffice it to be so invariably the cries echo or unloving, railer, slanderer, back-biter so on. It takes a truly warped mind to fall into such man worship if the apostles placed themselves under pain of being an anathema for heresy. What do you think they will do if they knew Ruckman said Christians go into the God hood in his Reference Bible on I Corinthians 15.28? I fully expect a full pardon, but we are chopped liver for crying aloud against heresy.
On the popular Ruckmanite Andrew Sluder's YouTube page, he has referenced Ruckman had an obscure teaching that one might be redeemed if he somehow lost the mark of the beast by the lopping off his hand or some other means. Could you verify the veracity of this claim?
I think the Pastor qualifications are a bit more in depth. Someone being 'blameless', is it blameless to knowingly shirk from the truth? I don't think so. Let's not confuse PC with biblical qualifications, such matters as a Pastors qualifications have to be investigated deeply. As another for instance, could it be said that Moses was a stricker? Possibly
Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
Proverbs 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.
“The reason a comment may not be approved could range from provocativeness, going off topic, lack of substance, lacking Christian grace, baseless accusations, etc.” Hypocritical to say the least. Nothing to see hear just some more fluff from someone suffering from Ruckmanitis.
Ruckman was just removed from our local Christian radio station. Praise God. The devil takes many forms to lead people astray. He had not a shred of the love of Christ in his heart. His show was replaces by R.C. Sproul, a true theologian.
Good luck getting good plain doctrinal correct preaching and teaching now Gordon. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" Ruckman telling you the truth is the greatest showcase of Love you will get from a preacher. Not like old webmaster here who thinks hes Gods gift to you blind sheep (with NO due respect) for (God is not a respecter of persons).. so I guess I'm ok to say that? Right?. … im not God so that might not apply to me but (being a sinner saved by grace) Weather or not you agree with the bible or Ruckman himself… well that's irrelevant. I sapose being nice to you by lieing to you… you know to keep you listening…is a substitute for who God really is, and what God would have you to understand about Himself. "let the ignorant be ignorant still".
The old testament has been likened to a faithful mirror which has no flattery in it's portraits. The old testament saints are portrayed faults and all. It is can be embarrasing the wrong those that had FAITH and were USED by of God did. That doesn't make the wrong right, yet they were still USED by God.I have had in my posession for years only one of Peter Ruckmans books, namely,the ' Christians Handbook to the Bible". Peter's PASSION and Faith for God's word and his hatred and contemt for those that play around with it and even deny that we can have it is obvious in every chapter. We see only a pale glimmer of the the hatred and wrath GOD has for those that deny, take away or add to his word's in the writings of Peter. I am doubtful that Peter was continually battering his wife(wives?) and his honest confession publically about an incident that got out of hand and other faults should not be used to assasinate his character publically.That is not christian. The scripture exhorts to think on those things that are lovely,true honerable, worthy of good report,etc. The critisisms of Peter on this site do not meet this requirement. I am grateful that God has used someone to write a book that has been and will continue to be my guide through the minefield of modern textual criticisim in this apostate church age.
“The scripture exhorts to think on those things that are lovely,true honerable, worthy of good report,etc. The critisisms of Peter on this site do not meet this requirement.”
Does this Peter you defend get a pass on this requirement you impose on me?
Dont have alot of time now but briefly will comment…next more time. He critized Curtis Hutson, John R. Rice and many other godly Independent Baptist Pastors who God used to win many many, more in my opinion to Christ. Curtis hutson would get a 5 gallon can of gas and head out to I-285 Interstate Atlanta and help people out of gas after mid-night and witness to them. Ruckman critized eveyone and dividsions not mention he had three wives.
For all you Ruckmanites, Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
So why would God allow such a horrible incident to take place to such a God fearing KJV bible toting man. Now if you people beleive Gods word, then what will you do with that incident , did his son see a lot of Hypocrisy in his fathers teachings. I don't see God wanting to tarnish a mans lifetime of wonderful ministry, in that way. Why does a God fearing mans son kill his own sons and himself , wow God allowed quite a legacy to be left behind, sorry to burst your bubble but something isn't adding up and nobody want's to talk about it. God took a stand on the Great Dr. Peter Ruckman whether you like it or not be very careful who your putting on that pedistal, God,Jesus Christ is the only one who deserves to be there! God was not caught of gaurd by what Ruckmans son did! You do beleive that God is in control right?
Psalm 46:1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Isaiah 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
The above statement regarding Peter Ruckman Jr.'s killing of himself and his family "why would God allow such a horrible incident to take place?"- is a stupid comment,as God allows horrible incidents to take place every single day.
The fact that Ruckman Jr. took the life of his sons and then shot himself is not God's fault or God's doing, and you Christians who are making that incident out to be some form of God's punishment on Peter Ruckman are irresponsible idiots.
I just happened to find Dr Peter Ruckman's teachings and preaching just lately, and already I am convinced of all his teachings, and very much convicted about it. I learned about Dr. Ruckman through Pastor Gene Kim who I adored. Dr Peter Ruckmans preachings convicted me more that I am truly in the true God worship, changed the Bible to KJV and truly Dr Ruckman is speaking the truth that this is the book to read about worshiping the LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. Dr Ruckmans teachings made me more fired up about worshiping our God . I thought Dr Ruckman was a Genius in preachings. He is very unique in every way, I thought. He says it as it is and I very much like that. The way I see him is he is real what you see is what you get. No hidden hypocrisy of himself. This looking for his life story is my way of saying how much I have loved this great man of God, through his preaching. My only regret is not meeting him in person, I wish I did. None of these criticisms bothers me at all. His so critics of crude words doesn't bother me he is who he is. I'm very sure he had his talk with God about that. Reminds me of biblical quote that God uses the fool of this world … not that I thought that Ruckmanwas a fool . I have a total admiration and respect for this man a true servant of the God. I am thankful for Dr Gene Kim for frequently mentioned his name as I was listening to his teachings. I thank God for ever giving me the privelege of getting to know the late Dr Peter Sturges Ruckman.
“No hidden hypocrisy of himself.” This goes to prove that no one is blinder than the one who refuses to see.
God says in his word he is no respector of persons , therefore you should not be either but hey don't let his word get in the way of your feelings! "Ruckman the great man of God"
Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Careful you don't worship these men of God , oops too late! Why don't you worship God through his word, you are a KJV believer? Aren't you?
My question is how flesh jouning flesh constitutes a wife? How do you substantiate that knowing that Solomon had 700 WIVES and 300 CONCUBINES for one example? The wives were obviously not concubines and the concubines were obviously not wives?
All your accusations can be explained very easly. you quote him out of context!!!!!!!!! if the same magnifing glass were placed on anyone you would get the same distorted vied. You will have to answer fo God Romands 14:12 so that says it all.
You can also prove it very easily, if true.
My dad always told me it was unfit for a Christian to make accusations without that person able to defend themselves. He is the hands of our Lord and Savior, who will be a better Judge than anyone posting above.
Have you asked yourself whether Ruckman himself practiced this? Why apply to others what you won’t apply to Ruckman?