Members copper Posted December 20, 2008 Members Share Posted December 20, 2008 What is a Ruckmanite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marcus2Israel Posted December 20, 2008 Members Share Posted December 20, 2008 The definition some of the people on this board is anyone who: 1. Heard Peter Ruckman or met him 2. Touched/Read/Looked at one of his books 3. Said something pseudo related to Ruckman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted December 20, 2008 Members Share Posted December 20, 2008 Some do go to such extremes but I think mostly one is considered a Ruckmanite if they follow the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 The definition of the majority of people on this board is anyone who: 1. Heard Peter Ruckman or met him 2. Touched/Read/Looked at one of his books 3. Said something pseudo related to Ruckman No.. Not a good definition... But people have obviously shown this is the definition by their actions. I guess that would make me a ruckmanite then since I would fall under one, two and maybe three. But somehow I don't think I am one... :loll: Generally, I think when people say someone is a "ruckmanite" positionally they are thinking of his hyper dispensationalism(thinks OT saint were saved by works etc.) His hyper KJVO stance( he thinks the greek and hebrew are lost and that the KVJ contains addition revelations not found anywhere else, bibles in other languages should be translated from the KJV rather than from the original languages etc.). That is one kind of "ruckmanite". Of course there is also the kind that almost literally hangs on his every word and won't disagree with anything he says or does no matter what. Commonly if you try to show why his positions are unbiblical to them they will just say that the "doc" as they usually call him has been studying scripture for so long, read the bible so many times etc., and so imply that he must be right regardless of how unbliblical it sounds. Not all ruckmanites are quite such extreme fans of his as that, but pretty much all of them are going to hold to most of his hyper KJV views and most of them are going to hold to his "OT saints were saved by works" beliefs as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Some Bible critics (non-KJVO) will call anyone who is KJVO a Ruckmanite. Some KJVOs say that anyone who agrees with Ruckman on anything (even if it's just one thing) is a Ruckmanite. Actually, a Ruckmanite is someone who believes any or all of these: 1. salvation is obtained in different ways in different dispensations, 2. the KJV is directly inspired, 3. divorce and remarriage doesn't disqualify a man from being a pastor That's what I've heard anyway. I'm sure that's not a complete list, but those are the major issues I've heard about Ruckman. (if you don't know who Ruckman is, I found his website at KJV1611.org) ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 I would say your post is pretty accurate with a note that number three "divorce and remarriage doesn't disqualify a man from being a pastor" will also apply to many liberals who are not ruckmanites in any way shape or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastorj Posted December 20, 2008 Members Share Posted December 20, 2008 Ruckmanism is a cult, with Peter Rucman as the God of their cult. Their followers worship him (though they do not claim this). They defend his heretical teaching of direct inspiration of the KJV and many of his other teachings which are contrary to Scripture. Daniel Gladu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Annie Posted December 20, 2008 Members Share Posted December 20, 2008 I personally have never called anyone a Ruckmanite, mainly because I think labels like this are neither helpful nor clarifying. If someone calls himself a Ruckmanite, I ask him what he means by that. There are probably a number of different answers to the question posted in this thread's title. Daniel Gladu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 I would say your post is pretty accurate with a note that number three "divorce and remarriage doesn't disqualify a man from being a pastor" will also apply to many liberals who are not ruckmanites in any way shape or form. Oh, oops. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Ruckmanism is a cult' date=' with Peter Rucman as the God of their cult. Their followers worship him (though they do not claim this). They defend his heretical teaching of direct inspiration of the KJV and many of his other teachings which are contrary to Scripture.[/quote'] I personally have only met one or two people who like Ruckman that would fall into your description. I know several people who like Ruckman's material and agree with him on doctrine who would never consider him to be their leader. I guess we have many cults in the IFB world, because I've seen people who follow Dr. Hyles, Steve Anderson, David Cloud, and others the same way you say Ruckmanites follow Ruckman. (not that these men themselves are/were evil, I've just seen some weird followers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastorj Posted December 21, 2008 Members Share Posted December 21, 2008 Followers of Ruckman do not come out and say they are in a cult. However, their behavior states otherwise. Here on this board, the followers of Ruckman spue their heresy and defense of Mr. Ruckman. As to the other men you mention, Hyles was another cult leader. He demanded worship of those who went to Hyles Anderson. He is, as some say, the Baptist Pope. Paul dealt with this in Corinthians when he said, that he follows Christ, not man. When a man gets to that point, he allows this to go to his head and begins to teach things that draw men to himself, rather than to God. Daniel Gladu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted December 21, 2008 Members Share Posted December 21, 2008 You mean we are going here again? Amen PastorJ btw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deafnva77 Posted December 21, 2008 Members Share Posted December 21, 2008 <> I only like him because his materials seem mostly lined up with the bible.. if he drifted away, I will drop him like a hat. I found out there were several people who used to listen to Ruckman because his teaching lined up with the bible but stopped when he got worst. That's how I would do to Cloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Annie Posted December 21, 2008 Members Share Posted December 21, 2008 If I may elaborate on my previous post... I, for one, don't believe labels like "Ruckmanite," "BoJo," "Hylesite," "Gothardite," etc., have any place in our vocabulary. I know I don't like to be labeled just because I happen to agree with a certain teacher or organization on an issue or two. Yeah, I'm a graduate of BJU, but I'm not a "BoJo." I homeschool, but I'm not a "Gothardite" or a "Vision Forum-ite." I wear pants, but I'm not a "feminist" or a "liberal." I think that labeling a person in the course of a discussion does a disservice not only to the person, but to the discussion as well. When a label has been assigned, the focus of the discussion inevitably veers off the real issue onto the label--why that person accepts or rejects it, and what others think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted December 21, 2008 Members Share Posted December 21, 2008 If I may elaborate on my previous post... I, for one, don't believe labels like "Ruckmanite," "BoJo," "Hylesite," "Gothardite," etc., have any place in our vocabulary. I know I don't like to be labeled just because I happen to agree with a certain teacher or organization on an issue or two. Yeah, I'm a graduate of BJU, but I'm not a "BoJo." I homeschool, but I'm not a "Gothardite" or a "Vision Forum-ite." I wear pants, but I'm not a "feminist" or a "liberal." I think that labeling a person in the course of a discussion does a disservice not only to the person, but to the discussion as well. When a label has been assigned, the focus of the discussion inevitably veers off the real issue onto the label--why that person accepts or rejects it, and what others think of it. Wow, you are way outside the mainstream IFB thought here................please come back.................soon, we miss you! {yes, said in fun} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.