[George]

Aloha brother Winman,

I do not refer to brother Peter Ruckman as an “authority” for anything, but since you introduced his “testimony” as being in support of your position of there being ONLY ONE “Gospel” - I must set the record straight.

Winman’s Post #13 > Dispensationalism

Bro Parrish

”I also enjoyed those links. Now I understand some of the viewpoints of those I have been wrestling with here lately much better. I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”

Ruckman’s Quote:

“I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.”

First off your “conclusions” are faulty.

Peter Ruckman has NEVER taught that there has been ONLY ONE “Gospel”. Ruckman clearly says in the quote that you cited that: “God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43”, which clearly indicates that BEFORE Acts 10:43 Peter did NOT know the “Gospel” (“the Gospel of the Grace of God” – i.e. “Paul’s Gospel”).

Ruckman NEVER said “there is only one gospel”, as you “claim” (READ HIS “WORDS”). You are “reading into” what he clearly said - what you “think” he “meant”. Ruckman was pointing out the “False Teachings” of some Hyper-Dispensationalists which say that Peter and Paul “preached different Gospels” - AFTER Acts 10:43. It wasn’t until Acts 10:43 that Peter “learned” of the “Gospel of the Grace of God”, so HOW could he have possibly been preaching “the Gospel of the Grace of God BEFORE Acts 10:43 – IF he didn’t know it?

I gave away almost all of Ruckman’s Commentaries and books (that I owned) four years ago. If I still had his Commentaries on Matthew and Acts, and his book “the Sure Word of Prophecy” (formerly known as “The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of heaven) I could point out to you where brother Peter Ruckman clearly taught that there is MORE than just ONE “Gospel”.

However, fortunately I still have his book “Bible Study Charts & Outlines” and I shall quote from page 55 of that book:

“In this age the only “GOOD NEWS” (GOSPEL) is the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20:24). Every FALSE TEACHING in this age comes from diluting this Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) with works of some kind (see Romans 4:1-8). Paul says a man is “ACCURSED” (Galatians 1:8-9) if he teaches Acts 2:38 or the “Sermon on the Mount” as a “PLAN OF SALVATION” (see Romans 10:1-14).”

“EVERY “HERESY IN THIS AGE COMES FROM FAILURE TO PUT A VERSE INTO ITS PROPER TIME PLACEMENT!”

In speaking about the “Tribulation” Ruckman said:

“Since this is not the time of the church’s trouble, but “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7), The LAW COMES BACK INTO EFFECT (see Revelation 12:17 and 14:12) FOR ISRAEL (see Matthew 24:15, 20).”

“A man must “ENDURE UNTO THE END” (Matthew 24:13) and NOT TAKE “THE MARK” (Revelation 13:1-8, 12:10-12). ”

“In this period, “The Gospel of the Grace of God” is NOT PREACHED. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL” IS PREACHED to Gentiles (Revelation 14:6) and THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN” IS PREACHED to Israel (see Matthew 24:13-15, 3:2, 4:17, 5:10, 19, 6:10, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 13:11, 24).” {Underlines are mine – G.A.}

Now, by my count – Peter Ruckman cited THREE (3 )“GOSPELS”:

#1. “The Gospel of the Grace of God”.

#2. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL”.

#3. THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”.

You said: “I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.” Obviously “RUCKMAN DOES NOT “AGREE”! (You misread and misinterpreted what he actually said.)

You Said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” Obviously you DID NOT! IF you had truly “reached the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”, as you said, you would have had to “conclude” that there are MORE than ONE “Gospel”!

This is what comes of someone desperately searching for “something” – i.e. ANYTHING (or ANYONE) to support their “position” on a Biblical issue. If you had read Peter Ruckman’s words more carefully you would have seen that he did NOT SAY: “there is only one gospel”. If you had carefully researched some of Ruckman’s other books (articles, etc.) and done your “homework” on brother Ruckman’s position on this issue, you would NOT have enlisted him as being in “agreement” with you. Sadly, all I can say is that, this careless approach extends to many of your Posts regarding this issue.

Winman’s Post #32 > Dispensationalism

“First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.”

In your Post #13 you said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” After I pointed out WHAT Peter Ruckman actually said (and its implications) - you suddenly back away from your statement, and indicate that you did NOT reach ALL of “the same conclusions as Ruckman”. But that’s NOT what you said in your Post #13.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3) “Gospels”.

I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

I am growing weary of disproving what you say. You are determined not to believe what I have presented here in this Thread. I have NO power over you, and I seek NO power over you. You are “free” to believe whatever you want to believe, but I would think at some point you might get tired of repeating the same arguments - taking the Scriptures out of “context” to prove your point; making the Scriptures “MEAN” something other than what they “SAY”; and now doing the same with what brother Peter Ruckman has said also.

I am going to proceed with the rest of my comments on the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, and, if I find the time (or have the inclination) I may deal with some of your other Posts on this Thread; but it is pretty clear to me that we are never going to come to an agreement on this issue.

The question you should be asking yourself at this point is - WHY is it that you misquoted brother Ruckman. WHY did you take his words out of context? WHY did you twist his words around to “mean” something other than what they said? And WHY have you ignored most of the questions that I have posed to you on this Thread?

There is a distinct DIFFERENCE between the ways that the two of us approach the study of God’s Holy word.

You seek to “HARMONIZE” the Scriptures and MAKE them “MEAN” whatever you have predetermined you think they “MEAN”.

I seek to “RIGHTLY DIVIDE” the Scriptures and try to SEE where they FIT. I want to know WHAT God’s words SAY – NOT WHAT THEY “MEAN”.

No where’s in the Holy Bible are we instructed to “HARMONIZE” the word of truth; on the contrary we are clearly told that we should be “rightly DIVIDING” the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.