Ruckman videos

PETER RUCKMAN, UFOS, AND DAFFY DUCK. Friday Church News Notes, August 19, 2005 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - Peter Ruckman of Pensacola, Florida, has done more harm to the cause of the King James Bible than some of its enemies. That is due to his cultic beliefs and his strange, ungodly spirit. According to one of his books, “Black Is Beautiful” (1996), UFOs are real, and if you doubt it you are an unbeliever. If Ruckman says two plus two equals five, and if you don’t agree, you are an unbelieving “jack leg” and a “bloated egotist.” He believes the CIA has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people, blacks, and prisoners (p. 243) and operates underground alien breeding facilities (p. 256). He believes in blue aliens with blue blood (pp. 85, 86), black aliens with green blood (p. 244), and grey aliens with clear blood (pp. 310-11). He believes that Adam originally had water in his veins instead of blood (p. 185). He believes that the CIA flies around in space ships developed from technology gained when the government made a deal with aliens to allow them to kidnap children and use their organs as food and to experiment on U.S. citizens (pp. 291, 295-297). Ruckman does not use facts he abuses them, and he often builds his case upon thin air, fables, and half-truths. Consider one example of his reasoning. An old Bolivian legend tells of a non-human race that had webbed feet. Old comic books about Daffy Duck and Donald Duck depict creatures with webbed feet (p. 85). Voila! The legend must be true and Donald Duck must be a secret depiction of aliens!!!! For 32 years, since I was converted, my sole authority has been the King James Bible, and the bottom line here is that the Bible says nothing about UFOs and therefore it is not something I need to concern myself with (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The verses that Ruckman cites in support of UFOS are taken out of context and grossly misused, not remotely supporting such nonsense (e.g., Gen. 6:1-5; 2 Sam. 5:24; 2 Ki. 2:11; Isa. 14:29; Ezek. 1:4; Zech. 5:1-3). Ruckman believes that the aliens are demons who are preparing to take control during the Tribulation and he cites Revelation 9:2-3, but this does not describe UFOs and it has nothing to do with events in our day. Revelation 9 describes demons who are currently imprisoned rather than appearing on earth. The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did not teach God’s people to worry about UFOs or to rage against the government. They taught us to honor those in authority and submit to them (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-25), to live obedient and holy lives and to dedicate our lives to preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth until Christ returns (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). You don’t see Paul ranting against the Roman Empire and mocking its emperor. Dear friends in Christ, beware of the cultic element in the independent Baptist movement.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/news/2005/fridaynews050819.html

 

Linda64 wrote: "You don’t see Paul ranting against the Roman Empire and mocking its emperor. Dear friends in Christ, beware of the cultic element in the independent Baptist movement."
While I happen to basically agree with the first sentence, I would tell you that I have recently had the displeasure of running into some who hold exactly the opposite POV on the RE and Caesar. And 'led' by an individual who is not a cultist, himself, but has become a 'cult leader' because of his abilities among those who 'follow' him. I'd say that the 'cultic element' can be found LOTS of places. Ed

 

Oh yeah, one more thing! I'd offer a comment on the individual this thread centers on, but why bother? Ed

 

I don't agree with the statement 'a divorced man is not qualified to be a pastor'. We must remember that when Paul wrote to Timothy, Timothy was in Lystra, a location where polygamy was the accepted rule. Paul was instructing Timothy that the leader of the church should have only one wife. Paul was prohibiting polygamy and promiscuity. It had nothing to do with a divorced man.

Paul likely was divorced. We know he had to have been married, as the Pharisee was to be married and Paul was at one time a Pharisee. What happened to his wife? Many speculate that his wife divorced him after his conversion, others speculate she died. The general consensus is that she divorced him.

We know at the time of writing to the Corinthians he was single, for he wrote, 'to the unmarried and the widowed, I would that ye remain, even as I'.

 

Paul's divorce is, as you mentioned, pure speculation.

 

yes, C4K. we are truly unsure whether it is divorce or widowed.

At any rate, I would say it was not necessarily about divorce that Paul was writing in those qualifications.

In the case of Ruckman, however, because of 2 divorces, and 3 marriages, I would wonder.

Also, the strange documented beliefs that my wife mentioned a few posts back would raise the greater question.

 

I'm Baaa-aacck! Having re-read this entire thread, I done rethunk (or is that rethinked?) my position!
Based on the whole of this, I wonder if it is fair to either Dr. Peter S. Ruckman or Dr. Cyrus I. Scofield to ever dump them in the same boat? The late Dr. Scofield is not able to defend himself, although I suppose Dr. Ruckman can. I do wonder what either would think about being compared to the other. Heretic or no, (and for this thread I don't care, although I have some specific views about that) I see multiple mention here about why Dr. Ruckman should not be a pastor. By what Biblical standard is this said? One John of Japan said, about 6 weeks ago that:
"To me the point is here that God gives gifts to men, and it is such a tragedy when such men use those gifts for themselves, their own glory, false doctrine, etc."
How true! All of it! But he also said:
"As _______ pointed out, the man has forfeited his qualifications to pastor, should be rejected as a leader, and is dangerous and deceptive."
How false! At least the first clause is, viz.
"... the man has forfeited his qualifications to pastor...", which makes the ensuing false, as well, when you put it all together in one sentence. Dr. Ruckman may or may not be, any or all, or fit any or all of the last three things mentioned. But they have absolutely nothing to do with cause or effect of "... the man has forfeited his qualifications to pastor...". Quite often I run into someone who does or says something they claim (or someone else calims about them) the Holy Spirit influenced them to do or say. Happened not too long ago by someone- who was it?- Oh yeah- someone named Saul [(Or was that Paul? I forget.) FTR, the Bible does not say that Saul's name was 'changed' to Paul. (Acts 13:9)] He said something about The (Holy) Spirit dividing gifts (δε χαρισματων) as he (the Spirit) wills. (I Cor. 12:4, 11) and something about one of the 'χαρισμα' being pastor and teacher, as well. I'm pretty sure he did not speak of 'pastor' as an office, anywhere, rather a gift. But he also said that 'τα χαρισματα' were irrevocable. I'm not sure I can ascertain with certainty whether any one person has the gift of pastor and teacher except for myself. [I don't. The gift of teacher (I Cor. 12:28), yes; the gift of pastor and tacher (Eph. 4:11), no!] Should Dr. Ruckman (or anyone) have this gift, he or she could not forfeit it even if they so wanted. The Spirit gave it; it is irrevocable; who am I to say someone forfeited it? The office of bishop or elder is another matter, indeed. Indeed one can well be 'outta here!'. The body of Christ, local and/or colledctive in any form, is well served to distinguish between the gift of pastor/teacher, and the office of bishop or elder, observe the Biblical differences, and act accordingly. Dr. Peter Ruckman, pastor? Could well be. Dr. Peter Ruckman, elder? Biased- 'er I mean based- on what is posted here, not on a bad bet. Ed

 

The quotes I've seen from Ruckman from time to time disqualifies him from any spiritual leadership as far as I'm concerned. People have focused on his divorces. One might consider forgiving one, but he's had two. But since I don't know the details, I'll pass on those.
But I do know what has come from his own mouth. His abuse of his brethren disqualifies him. He exhibits the works of the flesh, not the fruit of the Spirit.
This thread is not about his kooky KJV views so I'll pass except to say that someone who's theology is that goofy should also be disqualified from leadership. His dishonest means of presenting those views also have an important bearing, independent of the views themselves.

 

Well said