In part one of this study of Peter Ruckman’s heresy about different ways of salvation in different periods of time, four questions were given for disciples of Ruckman to consider.  This part provides several more questions for those who have adopted or been influenced by Ruckman’s heresy on this issue.

5.)   Does the idea that anyone at any time can be saved partially by works deny the depths of the sinfulness of the human heart? Isaiah, confessing what Israel will pray at the end of the Tribulation, affirms: “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). If even the “best” we can do is a filthy rag—is itself sinful—how can it help one to be saved? We deserve to go to hell for the “best” thing we have ever done, because of how our indwelling sin leads even our “best” actions to be tainted by sin.  Does that not obliterate salvation by works at any time?  If not, doesn’t it strongly impact how we preach the gospel even now?  If Ruckman is right (God forbid), then we can’t tell sinners: “Salvation by works is hopeless and impossible!” but only can say, “Right now God has decided salvation is by faith in this time period, but salvation by works really is possible—the Catholic church is right when it teaches salvation by faith and works; it just puts that way of salvation in the wrong time period.” Isn’t that an attack on the gospel even now?  Is it OK to make salvation by works possible, and salvation by faith alone to be a mere dispensational distinction like whether or not it is OK to eat bacon or lobster?

 

6.)   Why are verses that allegedly teach different ways of salvation in different time periods taken out of context in a major way?  For example, the Ruckmanite pamphlet referenced in part one claims that Revelation 14:12 proves salvation by faith and works in the Tribulation, but it does no such thing—it just proves that true faith will manifest itself in one’s life, a fact that is all over the Pauline epistles (Romans 2:6-7; Ephesians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, etc.), all over 1 John, and all over the whole Old and New Testament.  Why is there so much misinterpretation going on?

 

7.)   Would salvation be by faith alone in the Messiah from the Fall until the Tribulation and then suddenly change? Wouldn’t we need very, very clear Biblical evidence for this—evidence that does not exist?

 

8.)   If we accept Ruckman’s claim here:

 

This means that in the Tribulation, you can lose it! … the truth that I’m talking about right now—taught first in 1954—is unknown to Pre-Millennial scholars.  (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Revelation. Pensacola, 1982, p. 413)

 

Wouldn’t the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, contrary to Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 3:21? Was the church teaching lies about the gospel until 1954 when Ruckman came along to explain the truth?

 

9.)   Shouldn’t anyone who teaches multiple ways of salvation stop calling himself a Baptist, since there are no Baptist confessions of faith from the first century until modern times that teach this idea?  One thing that John Davis in his “Why have millions of people suddenly disappeared?” pamphlet and “Time for Truth!” website deserve commendation for is not having the name “Baptist” on his religious organization, but just “The Oaks Church.” That is honest. Someone who teaches ideas about salvation that have never been in any Baptist confession should not call himself or his religious organization a Baptist church.  When will you stop confusing people by dishonestly claiming to be a Baptist, when you reject what Baptists believe?

 

10.)  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?

 

11.) Ruckman also wrote:  “Paul does not hesitate to misapply Habbakuk 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? (See, e. g., What About Ruckman? by David Cloud).

 

12.) 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?

 

13.) Why do you use Romans 10:9-13 in gospel tracts, when Romans 10:9-10 is quoting Deuteronomy 30:14, and Romans 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32?  If Romans 10:9-13 proves salvation by grace through faith in this period of time, but not in other time periods, why does Paul quote Deuteronomy 30, from the Mosaic dispensation, and Joel 2:32, which is about the salvation of people in the Tribulation period?  Is Paul misinterpreting the Old Testament, or is Ruckman misinterpreting the Bible?

 

14.) Romans 4:1-8 is one of the classic New Testament texts on justification by faith alone apart from works:s

 

Rom. 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom. 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom. 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

Paul proves the glorious truth that God justifies the ungodly apart from works by quoting Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2, the experiences of Abraham and of David.  If salvation were by works in Abraham’s day or in King David’s day, how could Paul quote Genesis 15 and Psalm 32 to prove exactly the opposite doctrine, and if there are different ways of salvation in different dispensations, why does Paul prove his doctrine of unmerited salvation from the way people in the patriarchal and legal dispensations were saved?

 

15.) If you cannot answer the questions above, are you willing to reject Ruckman and his false teaching about the existence of multiple ways of salvation?

 

Read part one on Peter Ruckman’s Multiple Ways of Salvation Heresy by clicking here.

 

–TDR