Peter Ruckman's Heresy - 6 Plans of Salvation!

illinoisguy

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
989
Reaction score
472
Points
63
Interesting new material here on Peter Ruckman's multiple plans of salvation. The Kent Brandenburg blog is IFB and KJVO but they obviously do not identify in any way with Ruckman. (I always wondered where Twisted got 6 plans of salvation when Scofield had only 4 and the Bible only has one - salvation by grace through faith. Well, now I know where he got it).

Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy, part 1 2 (kentbrandenburg.com)

Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 2 of 2 (kentbrandenburg.com)

"Ruckman makes many other incredible claims on things like aliens and the color of their blood to secret CIA alien breeding facilities that perhaps he is not credible. Furthermore, he says: 'There are SIX ‘plans of salvation’ in the book of Acts' (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Jan. 2007, p. 16. Does such an idea make Acts astonishingly confusing, instead of helping people understand God’s truth?


"Ruckman also wrote: 'Paul does not hesitate to misapply Habbakuk
[sic] 1:5-6, in the Church Age.' (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 37), claiming that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, misapplies Scripture. Such outlandish ideas permeate Ruckman’s teachings. If we follow Ruckman, are we not leading ourselves into incredible confusion, even apart from the fact that Ruckman’s life indicated that he was not qualified to pastor, based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1?


"Why do Ruckman’s writings have such a carnal, ungodly spirit, so that one feels defiled by just reading a few pages of them? I have never been able to read through any of his books cover to cover; when I tried I could not get past what seemed like regrettably carnal name-calling. What if Ruckman wrote in such a carnal way because he was himself a carnal man, not one who Christians should follow?"
 
Interesting new material here on Peter Ruckman's multiple plans of salvation. The Kent Brandenburg blog is IFB and KJVO but they obviously do not identify in any way with Ruckman. (I always wondered where Twisted got 6 plans of salvation when Scofield had only 4 and the Bible only has one - salvation by grace through faith. Well, now I know where he got it).

Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy, part 1 2 (kentbrandenburg.com)

Peter Ruckman: Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy part 2 of 2 (kentbrandenburg.com)

"Ruckman makes many other incredible claims on things like aliens and the color of their blood to secret CIA alien breeding facilities that perhaps he is not credible. Furthermore, he says: 'There are SIX ‘plans of salvation’ in the book of Acts' (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Jan. 2007, p. 16. Does such an idea make Acts astonishingly confusing, instead of helping people understand God’s truth?


"Ruckman also wrote: 'Paul does not hesitate to misapply Habbakuk
[sic] 1:5-6, in the Church Age.' (Ruckman, Peter. How to Teach Dispensational Truth. Pensacola: Bible Believers Press, 1992, 1996, p. 37), claiming that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, misapplies Scripture. Such outlandish ideas permeate Ruckman’s teachings. If we follow Ruckman, are we not leading ourselves into incredible confusion, even apart from the fact that Ruckman’s life indicated that he was not qualified to pastor, based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1?


"Why do Ruckman’s writings have such a carnal, ungodly spirit, so that one feels defiled by just reading a few pages of them? I have never been able to read through any of his books cover to cover; when I tried I could not get past what seemed like regrettably carnal name-calling. What if Ruckman wrote in such a carnal way because he was himself a carnal man, not one who Christians should follow?"

I went to college at MBU (MBBC then) in Watertown Wisconsin. His mother was my supervisor in the kitchen. I always believed that Kent would go far, and he has. As far as Ruckman goes, I've always been opposed to him, his lifestyle, his antagonistic narcissistic attitude towards people who wouldn't agree with him, and his lies about "second inspiration" in the KJV. He was a lecherous, ludicrous, lame "pastor" who should have been dismissed for his 3 marriages, his language, which was far worse than any sailor I've ever come in contact with, and his attitudes towards people that weren't KJVO or Baptist.
 
That said...

What if Ruckman wrote in such a carnal way because he was himself a carnal man, not one who Christians should follow?"

What if we figured this out c. 1992 when we first heard of him? While it's not always easy to make a grifter from a mile away, Dr. Petey wasn't exactly hiding his true nature, was he? He was never a wolf in sheep's clothing. He was an undisguised wolf.
 
I went to college at MBU (MBBC then) in Watertown Wisconsin. His mother was my supervisor in the kitchen. I always believed that Kent would go far, and he has. As far as Ruckman goes, I've always been opposed to him, his lifestyle, his antagonistic narcissistic attitude towards people who wouldn't agree with him, and his lies about "second inspiration" in the KJV. He was a lecherous, ludicrous, lame "pastor" who should have been dismissed for his 3 marriages, his language, which was far worse than any sailor I've ever come in contact with, and his attitudes towards people that weren't KJVO or Baptist.
Well I am not defending Dr. Ruckman but I am a former sailor and I do not see his language coming anywhere close to your typical unregenerate "Squid" who drops the "F-Bomb" at any and every given opportunity. As a matter of fact, I have never heard Ruckman use the "F-Bomb" but perhaps those who knew him personally know different?

Yes, his position on "Multiple Plans of Salvation" are legendary but hardly worth wasting anyone's time as such is easily refutable by your average 3rd grade level Sunday School student and pretty much laughed at by everyone else!
 
Top