If you've ever heard that Ruckman's Bible commentaries are unconventional–that is an understatement! Below is an example of what we mean. We only scanned one page, but the jokes continue half-way into the next page.
Peter Ruckman jokes
Recent Comments
- Matthew B. on Dr. Ruckman against himself or Do as I say, not as I do!
- Webmaster on Timeline of major events in the life of Peter S. Ruckman
- Sarah on Timeline of major events in the life of Peter S. Ruckman
- Mark Bell on A look at Ruckman’s reasons for declaring the KJV to be superior to the originals
- Dan Shively on Ruckman’s twisted view of God
-
Recent Posts
- Ruckman’s disregard for Biblical hermeneutics
- Ruckman’s disdain for the founders of Fundamentalism and historic positions
- Ruckman’s teaching on inspiration is confusing and hard to follow
- Is this Ruckman’s favorite person to talk about?
- Analyzing Peter Ruckman: Some random thoughts and unanswered questions
Links to other sites
This is a waist of time on who ever is hosting this site. Why don’t you explain from the Scripure where Dr. Ruckman is wrong in what he say’s about the Bible. Can you? If so could you prove it with Scripture? Don’t waist your time harping on someone’s personallity or thier privaite life. What DOES THE BIBLE SAY>
Many of Ruckman’s bizarre theories are self-refuting simply because they are not found in the Bible. The responsibility is on him to prove a given theory, not us to refute it if he hasn’t presented a valid case.
Sir you are wrong, If you are bringing charges against a man you had better come up with the goods. If I am to stand up and say that the hidden “web master” is teaching herisy then I need to prove it. The same principle is applied in the law system of the United State Courts. If a man is on trial for murder the EVIDENCE is given proving his guilty. Then you the defendent or his lawer can try and defend the accussed. Please tell what Ruckman is teaching that is against the Bible and prove it with the Bible. Please tell. We are listening. Remember you are the one with the “given theory” that Ruckman is teaching many bizarre theories. So prove your theory.
Ruckman is a modern Balaam. Clouds without rain! By his own words and life (divorces) he has taught people not the path of Christ, but the path of chaos and sin. By their fruits ye shall know them, said our Jesus. Ruckman’s own words condemn him. Compare it. If you so not see the stark contrast, ask Christ to open your eyes.
How come you would not post these verses. Love the conflict, and the fact that you can hinder the Lord’s work from behind your internet fortress and you will not post the Bible Veres. You so subtily removed the Bible. Why are men afrain of the words of God?
Here they are again.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” Rom 16:17-18
You’re attacking the webmaster of ruckmanism.org for causing division and “hinder[ing] the Lord’s work from behind [his/her] internet fortress]… yet you’re defending a guy who posts humorless, harmful racist “jokes” in his Bible commentary?
I shouldn’t have to state the obvious, but I shall:
1.) Bible commentaries are meant for learning more about the commentator’s perspective on the Bible texts, as well as where and how they learned the doctrines and perspectives they teach. Commentaries are no place for racist epithets such as “Frog”, “Kraut”, “Hun”, “Hunky”, “wet back”, “greaser” or that horrid N-word I refuse to even type. Aren’t we believers instructed to keep our communications full of “grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6)? We should have “sound speech, that cannot be condemned” (Titus 2:8), and words that are free of all corruption (like racist terminology), speaking only “that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Ephesians 4:29).
2.) You quoted Romans 16 regarding those “which cause divisions and offenses” in the body of Christ. Wouldn’t referring to people of other races using terms like “Frog”, “Kraut” or “greaser” be offensive to them, even when using these terms in jest? Would you refer to a French believer in Christ as a “frog”? What about referring to a German believer as a “Kraut”? These are words meant to cause division and offense, and Ruckman uses them freely, not just in everyday speech but in his Bible commentaries (as the webmaster has shown with the helpful scanned image above), which should be free of such verbal filth.
3.) “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth” (Colossians 3:8). As Christians, our words should be designed to soothe anger, yet speak truth. Ruckman’s words are often filled with vitriol and rage (by his own admission), and his Bible commentary is filled with the aforementioned racist slurs – in other words, “filthy communication”. Even the text of the King James Version he espouses condemns his words.
Knowing the three (very obvious) statements I have just typed, how can anyone support someone like Dr. Ruckman? You say the webmaster of Ruckmanism.org is trying to cause division, Joshua, but I think you have things backward: Ruckman is causing division on his own without anyone’s help; the webmaster is trying to point out and correct that division by exposing the truth in Ruckman’s words and doctrines.
You picked the wrong page for this complaint. This page was to prove that Ruckman’s commentaries are unconventional, something that I provided proof for that you didn’t dispute. As for the burden of proof to disprove Ruckman, I have several observations:
As mentioned, the burden of proof is borne by the one who presents a theory (in this case Ruckman). In your trial analogy, you need to keep in mind that a judge can throw out a lawsuit for lack of evidence, in order not to waste the courts and people’s time and money. Let me illustrate. If Ruckman teaches that the Antichrist will land on St. Peter’s square and will have big black lips, the burden of proof is for him to prove that from Scripture, not for me to have to find a passage that says something to the effect “the Antichrist shall not land on St. Peter’s square, and he shall not have big black lips” in order for me to disprove him. If a Christian realizes that Ruckman has not proven his case, he doesn’t have to feel obligated to disprove him every time, wasting time that could be spent more profitably in other endeavors. Just like a judge under certain conditions can throw out a lawsuit in order to make room for what at least appears to be more valid claims.
If a Christian feels Ruckman has not proven his case, but that his theory has been presented as fact in a clever enough way that could deceive the simple (Rom. 16:18), a Christian has the right to point out that the threshold of evidence has not been reached to declare a speculative teaching to be an established Biblical fact. If accepted rules of hermeneutics have been breached in the process of proposing a theory, that can also be pointed out. If the Bible plainly teaches the exact opposite of a given theory, of course the Christian should demonstrate it from Scripture. But often Ruckman is guilt of teaching as fact what is mere speculation, such as teaching that Ham had a homosexual encounter with Noah in Gen. 9:22, to give a real example. Ruckman doesn’t teach that as a speculative theory, but rather he says that “There is no doubt about the meaning of verse 22 in the English text. Ham’s boys have a sex problem…[here he brings up Gen. 19 and Rom. 1] There is not the slightest doubt, whatsoever, about the meaning of Genesis 9:22.”(Genesis commentary, 1980 printing) Am I supposed to present a verse that says “Ham did not…” to prove Ruckman wrong? Or is Ruckman the one responsible for proving his speculative, imagination-gone-wild theory regarding Gen. 9:22 is in reality beyond doubt as he claims? When a Christian realizes that Ruckman has not proven his case, he can dismiss Ruckman’s claim outright if he so desires, and move on. He doesn’t have to waste time disproving Ruckman’s theories if they were never close to being proven in the first place.
There are many places where I refuted Ruckman with Scripture. Here are a couple articles for starters: “Ruckman’s sensational characterization of demons” “Ruckman’s multiple plans of salvation for different ages.”
It devides. The Jews under the law were saved by faith and works
That is news to me! Zecharias prophesied the new birth in the fourth chapter, as did Jeremiah in chapter 31 and Ezechiel 36 speak of the law written in the heart of flesh by covenant! Jesus summarized what they stated in John 3.1-36!
Here is wisdom and the historic Baptist belief straight from the Bible into the Philadelphia Confession.
(Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24)
PCF Chapter 11.6
The 1693 Baptist Catechism asks the following in Questions 35 through 40.
Answer:
Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.
2 Tim. 1:9; Jn. 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezek. 36:26; Jn. 6:44, 45; 1 Cor. 12:3
Question 36:
What benefits do they that are effectually called, partake of in this life?
Answer:
They that are effectually called, do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them. Rom. 8:30; Gal. 3:26; 1 Cor. 6:11; Rom. 8:31, 32; Eph. 1:5; 1 Cor. 1:30
Question 37:
What is justification?
Answer:
Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16
Question 38:
What is adoption?
Answer:
Adoption is an act of God's free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.
1 Jn. 3:1; Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:16, 17
Question 39:
What is sanctification?
Answer:
Sanctification is a work of God's free grace whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:23, 24; Rom. 6:11
Question 40:
What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?
Answer:
The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification, are, assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end.
Rom. 5:1-5; 14:17; Prov. 4:18; 1 Pet. 1:5; 1 Jn. 5:13"
Gadsby's Catechism adds the following.
If after all this you do not see the church in the wilderness has been justified the same way by the cross as the believer of the New Testament, you are blinder than a bat.
Biting and devouring one another eh?
This site is called a smear campaign site. The Pharisees and antichrists must attack!!!
Jesus said BEWARE of many people and pointed to their fruits and leaven. Judge righteous judgment. Paul also warned and so did Jude and Peter.
You should learn how to spell waste.
Keep up the good work exposing this fool….
If you’re going to throw doubt on Ruckman’s commentary you should probably show more context. These “jokes” are just showing how God has kept man polarized in modern times. At babel, God used the confounding of languages. Today one of God’s methods is obviously racism and nationalism. These quotes were showing the racism and nationalism of today. Also, Ruckman may be a sinner like all of us and obviously isn’t right about everything, but the bible says: “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and it seems to me that he has plenty of fruit. An article like this does not belong on a website that is supposed to disprove someone’s beliefs.
More context was not needed, as my stated objective was to simply prove that Ruckman’s commentaries are unconventional. No one disputes this.
Ruckman has plenty of fruit? If we go just by what he has admitted himself as documented in https://www.ruckmanism.org/what-ruckman-admits, Ruckman admits that he is one of the crudest people you will ever meet and that he is no example, he admits that he is sometimes too vulgar, he admits that at times his language is downright crude and vicious, he admits to using harsh and sarcastic language, he admits to having a streak of meanness, he admits that his second wife (out of three) had been the young wife of one of his former students, he admits he doesn’t know where the Word of God was before 1611, he admits to abnormal behaviors, Ruckman admits to having some involvement in hundreds of church splits, and he admits he has a bad reputation with many.
Some fruit! Yes, I agree that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” And I have only listed what Ruckman has admitted to in writing. What a tragedy that people continue to defend him, in spite of all that is proven, documented, and even admitted to by him!
It seems like the Ruckmanites have reading comprehension problem. It is a waste of time responding to these people who does not understand what they read nor have the ability to think half critically.
That is the best observation of most of the Ruckman cult I have ever heard!
God is ok with a Christian referring to someone as a “Kraut”?? Ruckman is not commentating, he is rambling like a person who either has dementia or a demon.
Possibly both… The few ruckmanites I’ve run into are cult like in their following of him. They tell me they will pray for me to see the lies and heresy I am spreading. The attitude is arrogant and their rhetoric is identical to ruckman. It’s really sad, but for now I will keep on doing what Jesus said: love. And I will continue to avoid their “vitriol and acid” that ruckman loves.
Ur an idiot.
I get a lot of these senseless insulting comments from Ruckmanites. I delete most of them. Just approved this one as an example.
“Ruckman may be a sinner….”
Obviously you haven’t been reading your KJV. It says ALL have sinned.
This is an old comment, but I felt it was appropriate to address it,
“If you’re going to throw doubt on Ruckman’s commentary you should probably show more context. These “jokes” are just showing how God has kept man polarized in modern times. At babel, God used the confounding of languages. Today one of God’s methods is obviously racism and nationalism.”
I sincerely doubt that God uses racism and nationalism to keep man polarized. As a matter of fact the Bible states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28.
It sounds more like Ruckman’s offensive sense of humor. I think we should be careful of using God to attempt to justify the sinful behavior of men.
I see nothing wrong with the battlefield humor of Dr. Ruckman. I am an old infantryman with over 18 yrs of service and have been accused of having a GI sense of humor. We are to be soldiers of the cross not rear echelon panty waists sniveling about someone hurting our feelings. I like things to be clear cut and straight to the point. What I can’t stand is some mealy mouth beating around the bush so as to mislead folks by showing how smart they are. I have always believed in telling it like it is instead of using a 25 dollar word when a nickel word would do the job. When I hear someone beating around the bush and using fancy speech and big words I know right off he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is telling a lie. Plain speaking is always the best.
I totally agree.
Amen, I totally agree!
I am very interested to give my comtnems on your curiosity about the Gap Theory and the Biblical facts about creation. Hopefully it can help and give a balance perception concerning your understanding pertaining to the subject matter.let me first rehearse what the stand of gap theory, in Genesis Chapter 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Genesis 1;2 the gap .And the earth was without form, and void;and the darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The view of the theory is the word WITHOUT FORM AND VOID in verse 2 was the destruction created by Satan here on earth after his fall from heaven, according to this theory verse 1 of genesis chapter I, millions or billions of years was past is the gap because of the effect after that destruction .( Isaiah 14:12 to 17 )and ( Psalms 104:29&30 )
Amen, amen, amen!
Another older comment –
“I see nothing wrong with the battlefield humor of Dr. Ruckman. I am an old infantryman with over 18 yrs of service and have been accused of having a GI sense of humor.”
Again – if I may webmaster.
Prior to being saved I used to drink a lot. However after being saved I now no longer drink. We should look to remove ourselves from our old lives – or at least have the desire to do so. Ruckman laughing and joking like he was decades after he was saved is, if anything, a demonstration to cast doubt on his salvation.
Now, i’m not saying he isn’t saved, but what I am saying is that it is apparently an example of where the perfecting work of the Holy Spirit seems to have fallen back, which of course the reasons for this can be many.
By Ruckman’s own admission – his behavior becoming worse over time than better, his crude crude humor. Is he admitting he’s backslidden?
It's amazing how ruckmanites turn a blind eye to sin, and the sins of their cult leader.
By the way, Ruckman says in one of his booklets that he was cursing through his sinner's prayer. That is not salvation! Perhaps he got saved after that. But anyone who curses during a supposed salvation prayer is deceived! Common sense 101.
Of all the good that Peter Ruckman ‘might’ have accomplished, it is made null and void by his slanderous remarks against those with whom he disagrees and living with his third wife. It just proves to me that he does not have a bible that he can live by. I am KJV but not a ruckmanite.
Continuation of my comments, Let us deifne what is theory in this case. The definition that we may apply for this is not the kind of definition as the theory of relativity, but a formulation assumed to be true but base on certain principles not completely verified,abstract reasoning or speculation and assumption or guess based on some evidence written in the scripture but need to be clarified according to the right way of interpreting it.let me explain how I assists that this theory is nonsense, because of the following truth of the matter. All of us we must consider that God hath made everything beautiful in his time Ecclesiastes 3:11. Genesis Chapter 1:2 is a description of what was created in verse 1 the whole entire universe and the following verses is the chronological order of creation from first day until the six days, and the word DAY in Hebrew word is Yom meaning 24 hours not ages. The supporting books and verses like Isaiah 14:12 to 17 cannot be because there is no nations that exist during that time and the other reference of Psalms 104:29&30 the context is all about the human being according to verse 23 of the same chapter and besides in verse five ( 5 ), it says that the foundation of the earth should not be removed for ever and ever.
” If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. ” James 1:26
“Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.” Eph. 5:4
Does anyone out there know for sure Dr. Ruckman's IQ?
I don’t claim to know, but this old church announcement claims 192. I don’t doubt he had a high IQ, but that has no relevance as to whether he was right or not in his teachings.
I think you missrepresent Ruckman. On the page you coppied he uses the deregatory statements that people use among them to dispise one another while they all wish peace for eachother. Thus showing the hypocrisy of people, and the reaskn gor the ongoing wars. Now, if he does it using slang that everyday people use that, in my oppinon, is not unconventional but more popular, meaning for evefy day common folks. It seems that the Lord used language like this to siscribe the jewish leaders. I am not defending anyone, just a more abjective look into what is gokng on. Would I use it? I don't know…. Maybe if I have to. Everyone is free to use their style I guess….
I misrepresented Ruckman? If you look at my brief statement, all I set out to prove what that his commentaries were “unconventional!” And you dare say you are not defending anyone?!