Timeline of Peter Ruckman's Life

I'm pretty sure most denoms, beyond just those who use the KJV, agree that unfaithfulness can certainly be grounds for divorce, but more importantly: what happens in another man's bedroom is none of your business unless one of them was showing signs of being abused or something of that nature.

Certainly whether a man is guilty of adultery or not for divorcing his wife is dependent upon whether she cheated first. However, the stricter standard for determining the qualification of pastor has nothing to do with this. Either you apply the Bible standard or you just make it up as you go.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the bedroom. Divorce is typically granted in a court room not a bedroom. Because a pastor is held to a higher standard they receive a greater degree of respect. You are demanding a greater degree of respect for a man who did not meet the higher standard which the office calls for.
 
I've said it from the beginning: you shouldn't critique pastors from a place of ad hominem against their character, personality, or personal life. In debate terms, this is taking a very weak position. You should focus on their doctrinal positions and leave their personal life to God (unless they're abusing their power like Hyles or one of those jokers).
Except for to first determine if a man qualifies as a pastor you first need to compare his life and actions to the qualifications of a pastor spelled out out in the Bible. Among those qualifications is "the husband of one wife".

So putting aside the why-I'm really not interested in that. Below I've put together a little cheat sheet that can be used to see if based on the "one wife" qualification a man can be considered a pastor:

1 wife = may meet the qualifications to be a pastor
2 wives = not a pastor
3 wives = not a pastor
4 wives = not a pastor
5 wives = not a pastor
 
However, the stricter standard for determining the qualification of pastor has nothing to do with this.

Are you certain the standard laid out in Titus and 1 Timothy is isolated from the allowed guidelines for divorce?

It is a legitimate question: if we are to isolate the passage in all literal interpretation like that, 1 Timothy clearly says a Bishop MUST be the husband of one wife: I know many pastors who are not married, therefore they do not have one wife. The passage says they "MUST". Should they step down? I'm not inclined to say no, it is a legitimate question.

Also, Titus says "having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly", do you have any idea how many married pastors have unruly children? Have you heard of the "curse of the PK" (pastors' kid)? Satan often attacks pastors' families the hardest: especially their kids. Should they step down the moment their children act out in an unruly manner? Clearly they broke Titus in that case. 1 lie makes one a liar, 1 unruly act makes one unruly, they don't need to do it more than once for it to be broken.

These are difficult questions. Pastors would be in danger of stepping down from office left and right throughout the world if we were to be this legalistic about these passages. However I am not against these interpretations either. What do you think?

I think this is why grace, patience, and forgiveness are concepts we can't forget about in dealing with certain passages, though in some cases they certainly don't always apply.
 
Last edited:
1 wife = may meet the qualifications to be a pastor
2 wives = not a pastor
3 wives = not a pastor
4 wives = not a pastor
5 wives = not a pastor

Ruckman never had 5. He had 1 at a time. 3 total. But he was technically the husband of 1 wife each time. This is a legitimate statement.

(Edit: and if his wives were unfaithful (idk), it does meet the requirements for divorce, unless we say pastors should be forced to stay with a wife who cheats on them all the time... sounds crazy to me).
 
Last edited:
Are you certain the standard laid out in Titus and 1 Timothy is isolated from the allowed guidelines for divorce?

It is a legitimate question: if we are to isolate the passage in all literal interpretation like that, 1 Timothy clearly says a Bishop MUST be the husband of one wife: I know many pastors who are not married, therefore they do not have one wife. The passage says they "MUST". Should they step down? I'm not inclined to say no, it is a legitimate question.

Also, Titus says "having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly", do you have any idea how many married pastors have unruly children? Have you heard of the "curse of the PK" (pastors' kid)? Satan often attacks pastors' families the hardest: especially their kids. Should they step down the moment their children act out in an unruly manner? Clearly they broke Titus in that case. 1 lie makes one a liar, 1 unruly act makes one unruly, they don't need to do it more than once for it to be broken.
It seems to me the 1 wife rule is in contrast to multiple wives. Based on scripture that mentions pastors that were apparently single along with the fact you had the apostle Paul who was single being single did not exclude you. What you don't find among the pastors of the Bible is one who is divorced.

I think having disciplined children is and should be a standard. Obviously a child is not going to be 100% anymore than adults are. But if they are totally out of control on a consistent basis I think it could exclude them. I don't pretend to know exactly where the line is with this one it's not quite as cut and dry as the prohibition against multiple wives is.
 
Whatever comes out of your rear will certainly be more intelligent than what exits your mouth.

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
(2Ti 2:24-26)
 
Since we are all being asked to submit to the Lordship of Peter the Great, we should be aware that Ruckman admitted to being demon-possessed. Just thought you might want to know.

Ruckman 's Our-of-Body Experience
We must not be unfair to Ruckman. We must only quote what he himself has said. We must not go too far in interpreting his statements. But, in examining carefully Ruckman's "testimony tape" we find strong statements to support the position that Ruckman was demonized, and the idea that he may even now be demonically led. Using these testimony tapes as a source, we find how Satan recruited Ruckman as an agent provocateur, a troublemaker who will ultimately tum thousands away from the KJV. Ruckman gives an experience in which his soul flew out of his body, and demons entered him. Keep in mind that these are Ruckman 's own words on the subject:
"One night in the hotel room I had the experience of nirvana, which the Zen call samadhi, the dislocation of the spirit from the body ... and yet, looking at my moral life following that experience, and my desire at times to commit suicide, I realize I had produced a passive state that was an entrance for spirits. And the spirits that that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Note first that Ruckman tells us his soul flew out of his body during this experience of samadhi. Note secondly that he tells us that this "passive state was an entrance for spirits." This hair-raising experience of samadhi made his mind so passive that he says it provided an opportunity for the entrance of "spirits." Note thirdly that he specifically tells us that the "spirits" that entered him were not the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Jesus. These are Ruckman's own words. We have commented on them at face value.
Ruckman 's Admission of Being ''Full of Demons''
In another place in his "testimony tape" Ruckman says that he came back from the war "uneasy, unsettled, full of demons ... " So, Ruckman has plainly told us that he was "full of demons" prior to 1949. Furthermore, he gives us a series of experiences where voices talked to him, which I have expanded upon in Chapter 2. These voices and demons were never dealt with, according to Ruckman's own "testimony tape."
Ruckman 's Admission that the Demons ''Are'' in Him
Careful attention should be given, we think, to this statement by Ruckman:
"I realized I had produced a passive state which was an entrance for spirits. And the spirits that entered are not the spirits described in the Bible in speaking of the Holy Ghost and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Author's emphasis).1'
Ruckman is an extremely intelligent man, with a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University. It does not seem plausible that his use of the present tense ("are not") to describe the indwelling of demonic spirits could be a mistake of English. Added to this, is Ruckman's admission in 1976 that demons enter him every day. He actually said, "You can't get through a day without getting infested ... (with) a number of demons." Then he states, "I'll tell you how I handle 'em (demons). I'll tell you how I handle mine (demons)." So, as recently as 1976, Dr. Ruckman said that demons entered him every day and he had to "handle 'em." This is a clear admission that Peter S. Ruckman is presently demonized.

- Dr. R.L. Hymers, Jr., "Ruckmanism Exposed" p. 19 - This entire article is posted on the Internet, for those who are interested.
 
Since we are all being asked to submit to the Lordship of Peter the Great,
we find how Satan recruited Ruckman as an agent provocateur, a troublemaker who will ultimately tum thousands away from the KJV.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: You must have had some terrible experiences with the IFB, man. Your hyperbolic memory is simmering to the surface.

I find it ironic how some Christians think encounters with the spiritual realm discredits others. Just the opposite in my strong opinion. Think about it: if you're a Christian, you literally believe in a God and a Bible that is saturated with the spiritual realm. Angels, devils, the works.

Do you have any idea how many Christians experienced such things before their genuine conversion? I give them more credit because they have first-hand experience of the spiritual realm.

I think back to when I was in the military: those who hadn't deployed yet who came straight out of basic and tech school liked to talk like they knew the deployed environment; they had no clue. Only after you deployed and returned did you then look at the newbies and say "they don't have a clue what it's like out there."

I remember a friend of mine I went to Bible college with had never seen anything spiritual, and a kid showed up to his Youth Ranch who was experiencing demonic attacks. He had no clue how to council him at first, but he told me after the experience he was thankful for the learning experience. Especially if you are a missionary to foreign countries, spiritual warfare is more open, whereas it is more intellectual and heady in the 1st world.
 
Since it has been decreed that we must all "Submit" to Ruckman, let's find out as much as we can about him. More from "Ruckmanism Exposed," p. 46:

"I will not add to the Word of God. As you know, many of the cults add to the Word of God. In this, they resemble Ruckmanism. The Mormons add the Book of Mormon to God's revelation. The Christian Scientists add Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures to God's revelation. The Muslims to God's revelation. The Muslims add the Koran to God's revelation. The Unification Church (Moonies) adds The Divine Principle to God's revelation. I do not want to follow them by adding even one word to the God-breathed Hebrew and Greek Bible. · The Pentecostals and charismatics add to the Word of God through visions, voices and tongues. They have 'advanced revelation'' that the rest of us simple folks don't know about. Every preacher knows how they divide churches, because they think they know something the rest of us don't know.
"In this, they resemble Ruckmanites. The Ruckmanite, like the Pentecostal and charismatic, thinks he has advanced light or an advanced revelation. As a result, the Ruckmanite, like the charismatic and Pentecostal, is puffed up with pride because he thinks he knows something that a normal Christian does not know. This puffing up with pride brings division in churches, fellowships, dividing friend from friend.
"Strangely, Ruckmanism even resembles the ideas of Westcott and Hort on at least one point. Westcott and Hort were the men who came up with the new, mutilated version of the Greek Scriptures. They rejected the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version was translated. I say that these men resemble Ruckman in at least one way: Westcott and Hort said that the Greek and Hebrew of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text were not enough. They felt that they needed more light. The motivation behind them creating a new Greek text is similar to Ruckman's motivation in throwing out the Hebrew and Greek Bible and replacing it with a translation.
"The least we can say is that Dr. Ruckman 's inner motivations appear to be quite similar to those of Westcott and Hort: i.e., he wishes to replace the Hebrew and Greek Bible (Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) with something else which has greater light. We may also say that Ruckmanism has some similarities with Communism. The Communists come into a country and disturb everything. When there is complete chaos in the society, they themselves take over. We have seen Ruckmanites do this in many places. Their desire is to take over and control churches, fellowships, and even fundamentalism itself. We think that this desire for control flows from Dr. Ruckman himself, a man who clearly wishes to be the ONLY Bible scholar in fundamentalism."
 
"Ruckmanism Exposed,"
This is for morons

I have a decree: homework everybody, given by UGC teacher. Make a list: tally up all the things Ruckman got right and the things he got wrong in your eyes. Then I'll reveal the answer sheet. I guarantee no one will argue with it.

Exciting assignment, I know.
 
Oh you don't have to participate if you don't want to, Ransom.

But if you don't you'll never know why you got repentance wrong.
Ironman.gif
 
That's fine. I didn't need your permission, so thanks for nothing.
Yeah thought so, anybody else want to try?

Or can we put this thread in quarantine. We're 200 posts too many.
 
Top