Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Matt Souza

Peter Ruckman

Recommended Posts


Not to hijack anything here, but when people talk about John MacArthur are they speaking of Sr. or Jr. or both?

Regarding Ruckman, I'd never heard of him until online. Some folks have provided links and I've read some of his stuff and listened to some of his sermons. From what I can understand Ruckman was among the first who took a stand for the KJB but he certainly wouldn't rank as the one who has done the most for the KJB. In fact, in his later years he's done damage to the KJO ranks due to his unscriptural, unChristlike manner and attitude.





Not to hijack anything here, but when people talk about John MacArthur are they speaking of Sr. or Jr. or both?

I didn't know there was two of them! PrOBably Senior, it was years ago that I heard his tapes. He claimed that the "blood" should be a general "bloodshed" as if it were Christ death, aside from the blood, that redeems us. He also was a big time NIV proponent, as well as a Christian psychologist. He coined the term "grace giving" (at least I had never heard of it before that) as opposed to tithing in the church. Those were the main things, but the blood is prOBably the most important.

if he has a son, I would assume he too was indoctrinated by his father, but that I cannot confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Ruckman has done more to promote so-called "KJVonlyism" than just about any other man dead or alive. This is the reason many professing Christians hate his guts. His harsh methods have been explained by him on many occasions. His stated reason for his "vulgarity and brutishness" is because nOBody would listen to the men who went before him who took a stand on the bible translation issue. Because they were too kind, polite and respectable they were dismissed off hand with a yawn and a door slammed in their face. So he decided it was time to take a different route. Like he has said (to paraphrase him), "while men like David Otis Fuller, who came to the front door with a bouquet of flowers, their hard combed nicely and fingernails nice and clean had the door slammed in their faces he came through the cellar window in army fatiques and face paint carrying handgranades." And it has worked indeed. God knows how much this man has done for the furtherance of the word of God i.e. the KJV even though apparently nOBody in here does (or they do but are to scared to admit it for fear of disdain from other memembers). Many in this forum hate his guts simply because David Cloud hates his guts.Period. Also, perhaps some of you folks should listen to some of his preaching sermons before you dismiss him as not being able to handle the gospel any better than a 12 year old. It's always interesting how much slamming of Dr Ruckman goes on from Christians who gotten all their info second hand. It's also ironic that their is a thread complaining of the arrogance of "Ruckmanites" when you have a thread that is now approaching 400 posts bashing their leader.



Thanks, I thought I was alone on this.

There is no issue more important than the Bible issue, and the truth is Ruckman was put "outside the camp" by the fundamentalists (John R. Rice and company) after he wrote Bible Babel and Manuscript Evidence. Dr. Ruckman does speak crudly, but he does not use profanity. Elijah, John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus were all name callers as well. I would encourage anyone who is honest about the subject to read his personal testimony, "The Full Cup".

As for his marriages, that comes down to Biblical interpretation. No where in scripture does it say that a divoriced man can not pastor, it says you must be the husband of one wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for his marriages, that comes down to Biblical interpretation. No where in scripture does it say that a divoriced man can not pastor, it says you must be the husband of one wife.

And a divorced man is not the husband of one wife...nor, if his wife leaves him, does he have his household under control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bible, divorce/remarriage is called "adultery" so Dr. Ruckman is a Biblical adulterer.... qualified? Nah.

I have heard a sermon on dvd by Dr. Ruckman. It was plenty. I also am close friends with a family that followed him and now has progressively been spiritually destroyed. That is more than plenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bible, divorce/remarriage is called "adultery" so Dr. Ruckman is a Biblical adulterer.... qualified? Nah.



Only if the divorice is under the wrong set of conditions, see Matt. 5 and 19. To further complicate the issue of being a "Biblical adulterer", Jesus said that if you lust after a woman you've commited adultry with her in your heart.

By the way, Ruckman resigned from the ministry three times, I bet you never knew that. When his house was not in order, he resigned.


I have heard a sermon on dvd by Dr. Ruckman. It was plenty. I also am close friends with a family that followed him and now has progressively been spiritually destroyed. That is more than plenty.



If I listed 100 pastors and missionaries that are actively serving the Lord, would that be "more than plenty"? What about 1,000? What if I told you that under his preaching over 7,000 people were saved directly under his preaching... by 1990. Would THAT be enough of overcome the ONE bad experiance, or would your ONE, SINGLE, LONE, bad experiance with people who followed him (and tells people all the time not to) completly override the thousands of good stories and GOOD FRUIT of his ministry?

It wouldn't be, because you, like many others, have a personal and irrational BENT against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know pastors who have led people to the Lord and led vibrant churches but now their families are torn apart and they are not living for God and they are definitely not qualified for the ministry. They do not believe what they once believed.

It doesn't mean I can still agree with them even though at one time they did good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Ruckman has done more to promote so-called "KJVonlyism" than just about any other man dead or alive. This is the reason many professing Christians hate his guts. His harsh methods have been explained by him on many occasions. His stated reason for his "vulgarity and brutishness" is because nOBody would listen to the men who went before him who took a stand on the bible translation issue. Because they were too kind, polite and respectable they were dismissed off hand with a yawn and a door slammed in their face. So he decided it was time to take a different route. Like he has said (to paraphrase him), "while men like David Otis Fuller, who came to the front door with a bouquet of flowers, their hard combed nicely and fingernails nice and clean had the door slammed in their faces he came through the cellar window in army fatiques and face paint carrying handgranades." And it has worked indeed. God knows how much this man has done for the furtherance of the word of God i.e. the KJV even though apparently nOBody in here does (or they do but are to scared to admit it for fear of disdain from other memembers). Many in this forum hate his guts simply because David Cloud hates his guts.Period. Also, perhaps some of you folks should listen to some of his preaching sermons before you dismiss him as not being able to handle the gospel any better than a 12 year old. It's always interesting how much slamming of Dr Ruckman goes on from Christians who gotten all their info second hand. It's also ironic that their is a thread complaining of the arrogance of "Ruckmanites" when you have a thread that is now approaching 400 posts bashing their leader.


The botom line is, I'm not listening to a whore monger preach!!! I don't care if he uses just the KJB!!! The Bible which he claims to believe and hold to, says he's disqualified!!! The same goes for Danny Castle, or any of those other guys!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor excuse, seems most have one, its not becoming to him to offer up excuses. It would be more becoming to ask of forgiveness.

Actually there is no excuse for a man of God to use vulgarity.

I think that is the only defense he has against those who show him for what he is.






How true, however, he's not a man of God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing PR is not acting according to scripture, no matter what the excuse. the Holy Spirit opens men's hearts and eyes to the Lord and His Word, not Peter Ruckman! People don't always listen to every one, but that is no excuse to arrogantly castigate them and make yourself of non effect for it! He is doin just the opposite if whaat he supposedly hoped to accomplish.


as for your statement that "Peter Ruckman has done more to promote so-called "KJVonlyism" than just about any other man dead or alive." that is not true. You yourself admitted that their were men before him that touted the KJB only. Some say "Billy Graham has done more for Chritianity than any other man in our times" and look at his testimony! He used to preach with John R. Rice until he went liberal!

Qualifications are set by the Lord, and not by us! It is his duty to meet them if he feels called to preach. Perhaps God broke his own rules, knowing the life of PR that was laid out before Him like a blanket? How can you excuse blatant, ourioght defiance of God's Word? i do not understand.

By the way, He gets his own thread because of the nuts that are still duped by his methods. a serious heretic takes drastic efforts to expose, and that is what many are trying to do. Personally I think there ought to be one for John MacArthur too!


AMEN, Brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bible, divorce/remarriage is called "adultery" so Dr. Ruckman is a Biblical adulterer.... qualified? Nah.

I have heard a sermon on dvd by Dr. Ruckman. It was plenty. I also am close friends with a family that followed him and now has progressively been spiritually destroyed. That is more than plenty.


Good (or rather not good,) and plenty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The botom line is, I'm not listening to a whore monger preach!!!


Listen to whatever you want, but if I were you I wouldn't be so loose to call other pastors whore mongers. Once saved, he never cheated on any of his wives.

So, if you get divorced, even if it is for the cause of fornication (See Matthew 5), EVEN if you have no choice in the matter and do everything you can to prevent the divorce - you can't be a pastor..... EVER. Because why, now?

Oh I know, because you have to be the husband of one wife. Ok, so if you're divorced you are not the husband of one wife. You are the husband of zero wives because you are divorced. Ok, that does make sense.. so let's see here, what is the solution to the prOBlem...

I know! The solution to the prOBlem is to get married! There we go, now you are the husband of... wait, get ready for it... zero wives plus one wife equals..... two wives! Great math!

Ok, ok, I get it now... this is what it means. You can't be the husband of more than one wife in your entire life.

Well, I suppose you could but that would only be if you got divorced BEFORE you were saved. So then, yes you are *technically* the husband of two wives, except one doesn't count, I think. Maybe, let me go ask the brethren what they think...

Oh, and if you are married, and your wife dies you go from being the husband of one wife to the husband of zero wives. But that's the only time it really counts, then you are free to marry again and be a pastor, even though throughout the course of your life you are the husband of two wives, but right now only really one.

Do you see the prOBlems with this line of thinking and huge gaping holes in it?

So here's the question to settle it all:

"If a person is married, and divorced, and then remarries, does God look at the person as having one spouse or multiple spouses?"

What does Jesus say about it?:

John 4:18, "For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

Jesus recognized that this woman had five separate individual marriages. There's no getting around it. If God looked at you as being married to everyone you've ever been married to ALL at the same time, he would have said:

"For thou hast five husbands..."

But that's not what He said.

If you want to Dr. Ruckman is disqualified from being a pastor, please use a little creativity and find something other than the standard "husband of one wife" line. The accusation is tired, played, worn out. In light of scripture itself, the passage is dealing with polygamy.

He spent around 10 chaste years between his first divorce and his second marriage. He tried to reconcile many times to his ex-wife, and was against the divorce. She married another man. He was free to remarry according to Matthew 5.

On his second marriage, she told him she wanted to be in the ministry, and then two months into the marriage told him she wanted out. They stayed married for 14 years, and then she left him for a police officer. He was free to remarry according to Matthew 5.

The times that his house was out of order, he resigned the ministry. Three times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for you, Rick, your idol is a whore monger!!! He's disqualified from preaching, not just pastoring!!!


The botom line is, I'm not listening to a whore monger preach!!! I don't care if he uses just the KJB!!! The Bible which he claims to believe and hold to, says he's disqualified!!! The same goes for Danny Castle, or any of those other guys!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go again...Bro. Rick, even the secular world recognizes divorce and remarriage as SERIAL POLYGAMY. Being married to more than one wife, just not at the same time. I am not one who says that all remarriage after divorce is unscriptural - if the marriage was broken due to fornication, it's broken in God's eyes. Therefore, a remarriage can take place. However, a man needs to step down from the pulpit if he is in such a case BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY SAKE. It's purely pride that keeps a divorced, remarried man in the pulpit.

As far as his having resigned three times for not managing his household: THREE times he realized he didn't manage his household well and so resigned...sounds like a track record to me. If he was disqualified ONCE for not ruling his house well: HE'S STILL DISQUALIFIED! Getting married again doesn't erase the initial disqualification.

Another qualification is to be blameless: not able to get a handle on the pastor for something (it doesn't mean perfection, else all would be disqualified). Being thrice married, absolutely going against scripture with his abrasiveness (I don't give a fig that he tried to justify it as a way to get people's attention...if that were true, he would have stopped when he had the attention, but he didn't...) towards people who don't agree with him.

And sarcasm as regards being thrice married and still in the pulpit doesn't cut it, Rick. He's a poor example of a pastor. He cannot teach against divorce without being a hypcrite. Oh, sure, he can stand up there and say the Bible says...but he's lost his credibility with that issue.

My personal opinion is that those who remain in the pulpit are filled with pride - as if a church cannot get along without them. When, in actuality, if a person humbly says I am disqualified and steps away from the pulpit, they could have a wonderful NONpastoral ministry.

Believe me, I would never go for marriage counsel to a man who couldn't love his wife enough to help her keep her vows...and more than once!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I personally see nowhere in Scripture where a person is encouraged to remarry after any situation except the death of a spouse. On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence that remarriage after ANY divorce is adultery.

It happens all the time and I understand that...but that's why God specifically limits Pastors and Deacons to being undivorced men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I personally see nowhere in Scripture where a person is encouraged to remarry after any situation except the death of a spouse. On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence that remarriage after ANY divorce is adultery.


I'd really like to see Biblical evidence for that one.


It happens all the time and I understand that...but that's why God specifically limits Pastors and Deacons to being undivorced men.


That's not what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is pretty clear that if you divorce and remarry, you have committed adultery.


Kita, Give him the Biblical references and then he can go away................just make sure you give him all of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that God does not like divorce at all. But when Jesus gave what is known as the exception clause: "except if be for fornication," I believe that God granted mercy to the wronged spouse.

If a woman is faithful to her husband, and loves him the way she should but he still runs around on her (and I think we all know people like that...), she is not to blame for his sin. His fornication ended the marriage, and I believe that is in God's eyes. Because marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, fornication (on the part of the man) gives the picture of an unfaithul Christ...and needs to be ended. Now, if the man repents and the wife forgives and they can go on for Christ, wonderful. But too often it doesn't happen that way. And, because of that exception clause, I don't believe God would make a wronged spouse remain single the rest of their life.

However: more than once indicates a major prOBlem on the part of the "wronged" spouse.

And, since the man is to be head of his home, I would hesitate to use a man in my above example. The Bible tells us that we love Christ because He first loved us. If a husband is being truly loving, the way Christ would have him, I think the straying wife would be very rare indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HC I actually personally believe that's Jewish Betrothal...Mary and Joseph being a total picture of that. He was going to put her away and would have been free to marry another had the angel not intervened. Once the union is complete, I believe God does not approve of remarriage even if a separation or divorce is necessary due to abuse or unfaithfulness.

I realize not everyone agrees...but in everything I've read, including some of the passages where Jesus specifically says a man who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer and causes her to commit adultery. (HC knowing your church background I would express some surprise and dismay about some of the beliefs taught in the church there especially in cases of putting the beliefs into practice, but of course everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions)

There is only one word in the entire Bible that can be used to try to back up the idea of remarriage after divorce and its the word "bondage" and I believe that means "bondage" to the marriage vows...NOT "bondage meaning I can't remarry". God never once says its okay to remarry after divorce...as a matter of fact, He kinda encourages widows to stay single if they possibly can, if they have family to take care of them, or if they are very young!!!

God only puts forth two punishments in the NT for adultery/remarriage after divorce. (The divorce is not the adultery...the remarriage is.) 1: You can't be a deacon 2: You can't be a pastor. Its not grounds for church discipline or anything like that (remarriage) but it is losing your opportunity to be called as a pastor or deacon. They are not to be looked down upon, or judged.... but its just the way God set it up. My dad used to be a deacon. My mom died. He remarried a divorced woman. He realized HIMSELF that the Bible removed him from being able to be a deacon. But he still serves in a church faithfully, and helps in Christian counseling, and teaches Sunday School sometimes. But he will not be a pastor or deacon.

Its really pretty simple...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean about my church background? Is it the teachings of my church that cause dismay or that I expressed a belief that you don't think my church teaches?

Yes, I've heard people say that's the Jewish betrothal, but I don't agree. If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 19, you will see that Jesus is speaking about more than betrothal.

Jesus plainly and simply says, in verse 9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

That "except it be for fornication" comes just before "and shall marry another." I don't believe that Jesus would have included the exception clause if He didn't mean that remarriage was okay. If remarriage at all is wrong, I think He might have said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery." But He didn't say that: He included the exception.

As to widows: actually, young widows were counselled to remarry and "guide the house" to keep from becoming busybodies and poor testimonies (wild women in today's vernacular).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go again...Bro. Rick, even the secular world recognizes divorce and remarriage as SERIAL POLYGAMY.



I'm a serial cereal eater. :)

Look, I've never heard anyone say that besides you, the secular world doesn't care if a divorced man preaches or not. "Serial polygamy" is not an idea supported by scripture.


Being married to more than one wife, just not at the same time. I am not one who says that all remarriage after divorce is unscriptural - if the marriage was broken due to fornication, it's broken in God's eyes. Therefore, a remarriage can take place. However, a man needs to step down from the pulpit if he is in such a case BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY SAKE. It's purely pride that keeps a divorced, remarried man in the pulpit.



So it's ok for a man who is scripturally divorced to remarry, but he can't pastor. The Bible doesn't say that.

As far as testimony sake, he took a vote, and 1/3 of the congregation was against it so he resigned. He played it by the book ALOT more than people give him credit for.


As far as his having resigned three times for not managing his household: THREE times he realized he didn't manage his household well and so resigned...sounds like a track record to me. If he was disqualified ONCE for not ruling his house well: HE'S STILL DISQUALIFIED! Getting married again doesn't erase the initial disqualification.



Whoooooaaa..... hold on. So, if a man has prOBlems in his marriage, and then is honorable and humble enough to recognize it and step down, there's never ever a time where he can come back and pastor? Disqualified once.... forever? Where is that in the Bible?


Another qualification is to be blameless: not able to get a handle on the pastor for something (it doesn't mean perfection, else all would be disqualified). Being thrice married, absolutely going against scripture with his abrasiveness (I don't give a fig that he tried to justify it as a way to get people's attention...if that were true, he would have stopped when he had the attention, but he didn't...) towards people who don't agree with him.



Elijah, Peter, Paul, and Jesus were abrasive.

By and large, Dr. Ruckman's abrasiveness is aimed at those who would take the Bible out of our hands and replace it with nothing other than faith in a man. God has blessed him for taking up that banner.

When he is abrasive for other reasons, I don't agree with it. I wouldn't go so far as to go out of my way to say someone is disqualified from the ministry because he's rough around the edges. Like I've said, I don't make a hOBby out of finding out which pastor is qualified and which one isn't. If I don't think a pastor is, I don't join his church.


And sarcasm as regards being thrice married and still in the pulpit doesn't cut it, Rick. He's a poor example of a pastor.


His first church was a disgrace in the community, being well over $300,000 in debt. He got the church out of debt, turned it into an aggressive soul winning church, and got the membership up to 300. I think that's pretty good.

Oh, and when he resigned that church, because they asked him to, it was debt free. It then proceeded to dwindle down to about 30 members and die, after trying many other pastors and kicking them out.


He cannot teach against divorce without being a hypcrite. Oh, sure, he can stand up there and say the Bible says...but he's lost his credibility with that issue.



Are you sure? He never divorced anyone, they divorced him. He tried very hard to reconcile after the divorce, and he stayed single until they remarried.


My personal opinion is that those who remain in the pulpit are filled with pride - as if a church cannot get along without them. When, in actuality, if a person humbly says I am disqualified and steps away from the pulpit, they could have a wonderful NONpastoral ministry.

Believe me, I would never go for marriage counsel to a man who couldn't love his wife enough to help her keep her vows...and more than once!!!!



He's had a wonderful marriage to his third wife for 22 years now, and he's 89 years old. Does that count for anything?

I've been married 7 years, and I'm 30.

You'd listen to me over him?

Do you really think that a pastor my age, or (I can't help but laugh) a pastor, newly married and fresh out of Bible school who's barely legal to drink would understand how to be a good husband better than him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean about my church background? Is it the teachings of my church that cause dismay or that I expressed a belief that you don't think my church teaches?

Yes, I've heard people say that's the Jewish betrothal, but I don't agree. If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 19, you will see that Jesus is speaking about more than betrothal.

Jesus plainly and simply says, in verse 9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

That "except it be for fornication" comes just before "and shall marry another." I don't believe that Jesus would have included the exception clause if He didn't mean that remarriage was okay. If remarriage at all is wrong, I think He might have said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery." But He didn't say that: He included the exception.

As to widows: actually, young widows were counselled to remarry and "guide the house" to keep from becoming busybodies and poor testimonies (wild women in today's vernacular).



I agree, it would be terrible if a man or woman had to deal with the grief of being alone, being cheated on, thier ex-spouse marrying someone else, AND not being able themselves to remarry if they fell in love with someone. This is why Jesus gave offended spouse's an out for the sin of their ex-spouse.

Women cheat on men all the time. Today's culture is wicked. Romance novels and daily afternoon soaps leave women unsatisfied with thier men. Adultery is the spirit of age. Men have to deal with filthy bilboards and trash every where they turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point here, folks, is not trashing divorced ppl...its to say NO PASTOR OR DEACON CAN BE DIVORCED. Period.

Everyone else can do what they like. :-)

Sorry HC for saying that about your church, I had no right to do that.

I will bow out of this discussion now...agreeing to disagree with certain points. :th_tiphat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will bow out of this discussion now...agreeing to disagree with certain points. :th_tiphat:


I think I'll follow suit.

I don't mind discussing, but arguing and debating is something I'd rather not do. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's been sucked into doing that a time or two, and it's really not profitable.

He's not my "idol" as someone so tactfully put it, he's not my "mentor" as another one put it, and he's not my pastor. I just can't help but defend someone that I have a lot of respect for, especially when he's called a "whore monger", of all things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...