Ruckmanism.org is a site designed for people who have, for one reason or another, taken some kind of offense to Doctor Ruckman. When it comes to dealing with Bible doctrine, it is a great example of the depths that men will go to get rid of a Bible teacher that they don’t like. I would like to prove this today as we look at their objections to the Scriptural fact that men in the OT and Tribulation are saved differently than during the Church Age. The author’s outline is a pathetic, scrambled mess of logical fallacies, critical omissions, and the mere opinion. It is utterly devoid of sound Bible teaching. His outline will prove the dictum that “If you mess with that Book, God will mess with your mind.”
Note: Disagreement with Doctor Ruckman isn’t “messing with the Book”. But in order to get away from the sound teaching about Dispensational Salvation that Doc taught, this man will mess with the Book. His main method will be the “Ostrich Method”. He hides his head in the sand and pretend verses don’t exist. Most people who act like this are not Bible readers. My bet is that the author is a “Proverb a day” guy…
As always, my responses are in bold.
- Switching back and forth between plans of salvation that are opposite to one another would be against God’s nature (Mal. 3:6). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Mal 3:6 has nothing to do with plans of salvation. I believe Mal 3:6 exactly as it is written and there is no problem with believing there are differences in how men get saved in the OT and the Tribulation. Clearly, the author has a problem with Dr. Ruckman and he’ll stoop to using flawed reasoning to prove it. THIS IS POINT #1. He should be starting with his strongest argument. But this is the definition of “weak sauce”…
- Six plans of salvation during a short time frame in Acts would portray God as the author of confusion, which he is not (1 Cor. 14:33). This is nothing more than the author’s OPINION. The only question that matters is “What Saith The Scriptures?” Do they reveal differences in the method of obtaining salvation in Acts? Yes or No? Whether the answer would make “God as the author of confusion” is nothing more than a personal problem. In Acts 8, men didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostle’s laid hands on them. Is that how you received the Holy Spirit? There are DIFFERENCES. Pretending that they don’t exist doesn’t change the facts.
- At no time could a combination of grace and works constitute salvation, as they are terms that are contradictory to one another (Eph. 2:8-9). I am going to assume that the author gave the wrong cross reference because Eph 2 has nothing to do with this subject. I felt like guessing what reference that he intended, but then I would be accused of putting words in his mouth and then attacking a straw dummy. Instead we will notice the care that this guy, who hates Doc, takes with the scriptures. He just throws out any old references and hopes that you don’t have the wherewithal to check him out. Bible Believers aren’t that gullible. Or they shouldn’t be…
- Abraham and David were examples of Old Testament saints, and not exceptions to the plan of God for salvation (Heb. 11:1-33). Hebrews 11 says nothing about OT saints being saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. If you think so, then I know that words are as important to you as they are to the Pope. (I’m saying that words and their meaning don’t matter to you…) The relevant issues are Saul losing his salvation and going to hell which matches the Tribulation saints that can lose their salvation in Hebrew 3, 6, 10, etc. Also, the fact that OT saints ended up in the heart of the Earth and didn’t go to heaven until Matt 28. Facts like these are never brought up by people who hate the truth of dispensational salvation. Instead they will PRETEND that something, somewhere in Hebrews 11 teaches that OT saints were saved the same way as we are in the Church Age.
- God declared Christ’s righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, which would naturally allow the sins of Old Testament saints to be remitted (Rom. 3:25). This train of thought is almost impossible to follow. Paul is writing about salvation after the cross. There is nothing in the text about OT saints getting saved. Something is wrong with this guy’s mind…
- Christ offered himself as a sacrifice once and for all and ever lives to make intercession for us, invalidating the need for any other means of salvation in the future (Heb. 7:25-27). Finally, after five flops the author gets to a halfway decent point. But you need to understand that different applications of Hebrews. From what we read in Paul’s letters, this passage in Heb 7 matches up well with Church Age salvation. As Doctor Ruckman, and any teacher worth his salt, has taught, parts of Hebrews deal with our salvation today. But parts don’t and that’s what this guy is willfully ignoring. In Heb 3, 6, 10 and other parts, there are verses that point to CONDITIONAL SALVATION. If that matches Church Age salvation, then our salvation is conditional. The author better hope that isn’t true… Finally, just because Tribulation salvation is different doesn’t mean there is somehow another sacrifice than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If the author intends to imply that, then he is deliberately misrepresenting the teaching, again.
- Although OT saints did not have complete knowledge of it, in God’s eyes Christ’s blood was shed before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:19-20). Salvation has always been based on his shed blood, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). None of these verses SAY that people in the OT were trusting in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. No doubt, there is an eternal element to what Christ did, but you will search in vain for one verse that shows that OT saints, even the best of them, were able to see much past the animal sacrifices and see the Gospel of Christ. It literally does not exist. And if you will remain believing this, then you will have to deal with Christ calling and sending as preachers, apostles who weren’t even saved. Christ explained the Gospel to his disciples “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Luk 18:34 (AV) Were Christ’s own disciples lost? What a ridiculous, unscriptural doctrine…
- Although some isolated verses may appear to teach salvation by works in the Old Testament, one of the most basic rules of Bible hermeneutics is to interpret individual verses in the light of the entire Bible, comparing Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor. 2:13). So then the burden of proof lies on the author to show that people in the OT were trusting in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Christ by faith for eternal life. This proof cannot be produced because it does not exist. Instead we find men losing their salvation like Saul. David praying that he wouldn’t lose the Holy Spirit (Ps 51). Ezekiel preaching salvation by works in Ezekiel 3, 18, and 33. We find people before the cross who are “saved” in an OT sense and end up in the heart of the earth in Luke 16 and not in heaven. And we find people getting justified by works in James 2 which is using OT salvation to teach how Tribulation salvation works.
As usual, there is no substance to the arguments of people who hate the facts of Dispensational Salvation. They never deal with the facts that really matter and they can’t. They can’t address the verses because they are clear as day. People outside of the Church Age are kept out of hell differently than today. We should be glad of it. We get eternal salvation as a free gift. Believe the text as it stands, even if it means Doctor Ruckman was right. He wasn’t perfect and there are doctrines we would argue about, but in the matter of Dispensational Salvation, he was correct. Too bad, so sad…
Vake Biblia 