What does Ruckmannite mean?

Oh, and ladies and gentlemen: If Mr. Ruckmann has been married three times, I don't believe this disqualifies him from preaching. It disqualifies him from being a pastor.

Let's not tell anyone they can't preach--unless, of course, they're preaching false doctrine.

 

Your first paragraph is a fine line. I would agree perhaps if this had happened once. But three times??? It calls into question if the man believes what he preaches. However, your second paragraph sums it up anyway. When false doctrine is preached, that man is disqualified. Therefore, disagreements about Ruckman's marriage issues are moot anyway.

 

Larry,Ruckman does not teach false doctrine. Being married three times has nothing to do with being a pastor. I have his testimony on audio,everone needs to listen to it before they judge him.
KJVTIM,I was at the baptist blowout in JAN.and his church raised 17,000 for the missionaries in that meeting,and gave the money to them on the spot. He also gives all the profit from the books and other material the baptist bookstore sales to missions. That must be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. It is always packed in that place. Dr.Ruckman is misunderstood by people who do not know him personally. I'm glad I know him and know what he stands for.

 

That the KJV is advanced revelation that corrects the Greek and Hebrew?? That the blood of Christ is not sufficient for sin??

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

I even highlighted a few words that should be of interest and I quoted from the KJV so that you would not accuse me of changing the Word of God. God said it had a lot to do with being a pastor. Don't you think God's words matter more than Ruckman's or anyone elses? Why are you so flippant about God's word??

I have read his testimony is his autobiography. I got it straight from the horse's mouth. I have read his reasons. They are excuses. Period. We can dress it up by shifting blame and the like. But we cannot change the fact that it is wrong.

And why is the amount of money or the public decisions the test of qualification? The Bible gives two qualifications: Blameless and true to doctrine. You seem to think that those can be done away with if someone brings in enough money or draws a big enough crowd. I can't see it. You say he gives a lot of money to missions; God says he desires obedience rather than sacrifice. Again, God says one thing; you say something else. Why?

Guys, we have to be biblical, even if it means we take a stand against those we have personal relationships with or personal affection for. We cannot just pretend like God didn't say what he said. Why is Scripture the first casualty in a discussion like this??

 

KJVTIM promotes pragmatism, especially the kind that starts with dollar signs:

Last year the church that Dr. Ruckman pastors gave over $280,000 to missions. . . . In one service at the church over $38,000 was taken up . . . How many of us as Christians have a resume like this?

If, in some alternate universe, I should ever become the intended recipient of any of Peter Ruckman's excess cash, he can keep it. I would rather have my integrity than give the appearance of legitimizing a false teacher and serial adulterer, or those who countenance his sin.

There seem to be a lot in the Fundamentalist camp who think you can buy God off with good works. I don't know how many times I have seen some Hyles supporter say something like "When you have as many souls won as Dr. [sic] Hyles, then you can criticize him." Now I see that the Ruckman supporters do the same thing. Shameful.

 

OK, let's stipulate that being the husband of three living women doesn't disqualify Ruckman from pastoring. What about:

"Without," of course, means "outside the church." Any Pensacola natives out there who could tell us what Dr. Petey's reputation is like around the community? By this I mean, what do people think of him; let's not have some Ruckman supporter spouting numbers with lots of zeros as though you can buy a good name.

 

Sorry, but I can't stipulate that having three wives still living doesn't disqualify him from pastoring.

I personally know several men who have a magnificent gift of preaching and leading people to the Lord; but each of them gave up pastoring when their wives left them and they then remarried.

I only personally know one who's wife left him, but he hasn't remarried, and thus is still pastoring.

And this isn't intended to judge anyone; it's intended to show that some of us who hold dear to the KJV and what it says, actually follow what it says.

[ August 17, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

First, as a point of reference, I use the King James Bible in private study and public ministry; not because of convenience, but because I believe its accuracy of translation and underlying Greek texts are superior. I recommend only it to others for personal study, public use and private devotions. That being said, THIS PETER RUCKMAN ISSUE IS NOT a KJV vs. Modern Versions issue. There are people on both sides of the fence that believe that Mr. Ruckman's teachings are heretical and disruptive. If any wish to prove that Ruckman's teachings are scriptural - do so! But don't charge that this position against Ruckman is inspired by hatred of the King James Bible. That simply IS NOT true!

I Timothy 3:2 (KJV) - "A bishop must be...the husband of one wife..." Titus 1:5,6 (KJV) - "...ordain elders...If any be blameless, the husband of one wife..." Luke 16:18 (KJV) - "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery..." It would seem that the Bible has already judged him.

 

Ransom why dont you just tell it to Jesus because I dont care for your smart mouth remarks.That goes for you to Larry.Ransom,Be careful what you say!!!The only way Dr. Ruckmans church has a giving heart is his sound preaching and teaching.You people have a rude awakening one day.

 

We must also be careful about ascribing "scripturality" because of one's "many wonderful works." Some of those people will also have a rude awakening one day. Matthew 7:22,23 (KJV) - "Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." I am not using this in reference to Ruckman or any particular individual mentioned here, but rather as a caution that outward works are not definite proof of the inward heart condition. I believe someone has already pointed out that such reasoning would also prove Billy Graham and Benny Hinn to be correct.

 

KJVTIM said:

Ransom why dont you just tell it to Jesus because I dont care for your smart mouth remarks.

Sure. After you.

The only way Dr. Ruckmans church has a giving heart is his sound preaching and teaching.

I rather doubt it's the ONLY possible reason.

It was, after all, you who "trumpeted" Dr. Petey's monetary accomplishments, when you should have kept them secret.

Hope you enjoy all the attention you're getting, and that it's not all the reward you get.

Oh wait - Petey says the Sermon on the Mount is for a different "dispensation," doesn't he?

[ August 17, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Again, Jer 3:8 states that God himself give Israel a bill of divorcment;does this disqualify Him??? Of course NOT!!!

 

First, Dr. Petey is not God, and the comparison is frankly offensive.

Second, God himself didn't go off and marry the Philistines, and then the Amalekites, did he? No, he reconciled himself to his own people.

 

I did not implie that Ruckman is God,read carefuly,NO man BUT The Lord Jesus Christ can claim that!! Again, ANYBODY who takes a stand for the infalibilty of the KJV WILL be critisized and scourned.

[ August 17, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

I am surprised that you run to the Old Testament to support a New Testament pastor being divorced. Why not deal with the plain New Testament Scriptures right there in the writings of the Apostle Paul?? I Timothy 3:2 (KJV) - "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." Titus 1:5,6 (KJV) - "...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife..." Is this what Paul says?? If not, why not??

II Timothy 2:15

 

If I am not mistaken, Ruckmann teaches the men were saved in the OT by works and will be saved in the tribulation by works. This is the false teaching that I have a problem with. I don't care if he upholds the KJV or not, I think it is an excellent translation and think people would be well served to read it.

P.S. Do you guys agree that men were saved in the OT/Tribulation by works?

 

Yep.

 

Well, there you have it, Pete; straight from the horse's mouth. You can read more of the same here concerning Tribulation Salvation.

But, Japheth, KEVO, et. al., please don't get distracted with that until you have dealt with Paul's plain statement in the King James Bible requiring that an elder (bishop, pastor) be the husband of one wife.

 

Ruckman is the husband of one wife. He is not still married to the other two. Sure I believe people in the old testament were saved by works,just like they will be saved in the tribulation. Peter Ruckman did not invent this doctrine.This is just sound bible doctrine. By the way I also know kjv only people who don't like Ruckman. There were people standing for the kjv way before Ruckman.
Kevin

 

I have seen this argument for a number of years, but I think you are the first KJV-only person I have heard advocate it (though I'm sure you're not the only one). I wonder if Mr. Ruckman taught this BEFORE he was divorced??

You've certainly got those last two statements right!

[ August 18, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]