Ruckman Drawing Spirit Soul Body

1 of Peter Ruckman's many unusual teachings that seem to take originated with him is what he terms "spiritual circumcision." Even though he does not dedicate an entire volume or pamphlet to it, he mentions it relatively often. Ruckmanites are known to promote it and defend it vigorously. It essentially consists of teaching that at the moment a person is converted to the Gospel, his soul is literally cut loose of his body. Before explaining any further, we will allow Ruckman to explicate his views in his own words:

In a saved man, the Holy Spirit has cut the flesh away from the soul and spirit (see Col. 2:11-13). That body has a spirit continued with it that is different from the new spirit that lives inside of you. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Romans: The Bible Believer'due south Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2003, p. 265)

A sinner dies "in Christ" because he could non possibly "alive in sin" (Rom. six:two) one second subsequently his spiritual circumcision: he was cut loose by a two-edged "Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" going inside the body and circumcising the mankind from the soul. (Bible Believers' Bulletin. Sep. 2006, p. 15)

The spiritual circumcision of the believer'south SOUL, literally cut loose from the inside of his fleshly body at the time of his new birth. (Ruckman, Peter. The Unknown Bible. Pensacola, FL: Bible Believers Press, 1984, 1996 reprint, p. 132)

And then before y'all were saved your soul was married to your flesh: they were continued. But when y'all received Christ as Saviour, the Holy Spirit entered your body and cut your dying flesh abroad from your living soul. Now the trunk is counted as dead with Christ on the cross. So your soul is no longer married to the flesh; information technology is no longer under the control of the flesh. (Ruckman, Peter. The Volume of Romans: The Bible Believer's Commentary Serial. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2003, p. 255)

In Ruckman's big imagination, the soul was connected to the trunk earlier salvation, therefore they were "married!" To consider 2 things to exist married to each other but because they are regarded every bit connected is absurd, but Ruckman does this so he can justify applying verses almost marriage in vain attempts to eternalize his theory. Observe:

When SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION showed upwardly in Colossians 2:11, all of them fabricated Christ the object of the circumcision and spiritualized the passage. He was the bailiwick of Colossians. HE CIRCUMCISED Y'all WITH A Pocketknife (Heb. 4:12) when you were born of "incorruptible seed" (i Pet. one:23). YOUR SOUL WAS CUT LOOSE FROM THE Within OF YOUR Trunk AT EVERY POINT WHERE It FORMERLY HAD TOUCHED IT (Col. 2:xi–12). To drive this bones, essential "FUNDAMENTAL OF THE FAITH" home (information technology is the ground for believing in the two natures and the "victorious life," Rom. 6–8), Paul likens your soul to a married woman whose husband died (Rom. 7:1–4). Y'all are costless to remarry. You got "hitched" according to Ephesians five:30–33. … A saved soul will not lose its bodily shape; information technology volition remain the same while the physical body is conformed to the image of Christ (Phil. 3:xx–21 and Rom. 8:29). The unsaved man will lose his actual shape and, for all practical purposes, cease to be a "man" (Psa. 22; John 3:14; Isa. 34:fourteen; Mark 9:46, 48). (Bible Believers' Bulletin. November. 2005, p. nine, 12)

In the previous two quotes, Ruckman attempts to apply verses on marriage to his view on spiritual circumcision. However—is it true that "Paul likens your soul to a married woman whose husband died" in Romans 7:ane-4? Absolutely not, equally the give-and-take "soul" does not even bear witness upwards in the entire chapter in Romans 7!

You will notice in these quotes that the primary passage Ruckman uses (or rather "abuses") to pretend there is a Biblical basis for his spiritual circumcision teaching is Colossians 2:11 & 13. Ruckman does not exegete the passage, which would refer to "drawing out or extracting" the significant. Every bit we will demonstrate, he instead imposes his own meaning on the passage, using concepts and terminology that is non included in the proof text, and includes unrelated passages that exercise non add missing elements to his theory. Some of Ruckman'due south failures to properly exegete a passage are so egregious that they could well serve every bit textbook examples on how not to interpret the Bible.

Let's expect at these two verses:

Col 2:11In whom too ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the mankind by the circumcision of Christ:

Hither is the analogy of concrete circumcision, which does literally involve cutting, but information technology is an analogy or word picture just. In the analogy, one circumcision is literal, physical, and would involve cutting, in the other, information technology is spiritual, described in Col. ii:xi equally "fabricated without easily" therefore not physical, no cutting necessary. In physical circumcision, a piece of work is performed "with hands" by others that one is unable to do for himself presently afterward nascency. This results in a concrete modify. In spiritual circumcision, a spiritual work of regeneration is performed "without hands" by the Holy Spirit that i could non do for himself. This results in a inverse heart, besides known as circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29).

Col ii:13 And yous, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you lot all trespasses;

This verse brings upwards circumcision again as an analogy. Here information technology is linked with death, because under the police force, the uncircumcised were dead in their sin. They were guilty of breaking God's covenant (Gen. 17:fourteen). Likewise, i who is living in unbelief and sin is under condemnation. In this verse the analogy is non and then much in the physical attribute involved in circumcision, but rather the guilty condition they had been under the police before the deed, compared to forgiveness thereafter.

There is admittedly nothing in the passage (including poetry 12 not covered here) about Christ or the Holy Spirit literally cutting the soul loose from the body. In Col. two:11-13 you will not detect the word "soul," nor will you lot find "cut" in any of its various forms. It is a simulated didactics not found in the Bible.

The Bible makes it plain that circumcision in the spiritual sense applies to the middle (although "uncircumcised" ears and lips are mentioned in one case and twice respectively). Circumcision of the eye is brought up in some way at least nine times in the Scriptures (Deut. 10:16; Deut. 30:6; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4; Jer. ix:26; Eze. 44:vii; Eze. 44:ix; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:29).

We looked to see what Ruckman has to say about the nine verses that accept to exercise with circumcision of the eye. That he seemed evasive is evident by noting that of the nine, nosotros only found him dealing with ane between his reference Bible and his commentaries. His reference Bible did non elaborate at all on circumcision of the heart. His Old Testament commentaries did not embrace the books the references involved, and for the New Testament, he only dealt with circumcision of the heart in Rom. 2:29. For the passage in Romans, Ruckman was all focused on trying to convince his readers that circumcision of the heart in the Old Testament is different than in the New, because otherwise it would ruin his unbiblical view that Former Testament saints were saved by works. His principal arguments:

Back in Romans 2:29, Paul speaks of the "circumcision … of the heart." What is not made clear in Romans, but is in Colossians 2, is that, in the New Testament, the inner circumcision is the outcome of your position in Christ, and that can never be changed. Romans two from verse 17 to verse 29, though it can be applied in the New Testament doctrinal sense, is technically describing an Old Testament situation. The "circumcision … of the heart" in Romans ii:29 is like that of Deuteronomy 10:xvi; it is an act of the will. (Ruckman, Peter. The Volume of Romans: The Bible Believer's Commentary Serial. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2003, pp. 97-98)

The divergence betwixt the "circumcision … of the middle" in the Old Testament (Deut. 10:16, Rom. 2:29) and "the circumcision of Christ" is a result of the New Birth and is therefore non an act of the will (John 1:13). Since information technology is dependent upon your position in Christ, a position which cannot be changed (Rom. 8:38-39), and not upon keeping the Police force, "the circumcision of Christ" is permanent. Your continuing in the New Testament may be different from your country. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Romans: The Bible Laic's Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2003, p. 99)

In the following quotations, you tin can discover how Ruckman uses his spiritual circumcision to give a unique explanation for the doctrine of sin involving the believer:

Every Christian was "cut loose" from his sins by spiritual circumcision (Col. ii:11) when the Holy Spirit cut his soul loose from his trunk inside. So even though in the flesh of a Christian there "dwelleth no skilful thing" (Rom. seven:18), notwithstanding inside that aforementioned trunk of flesh is "the new man" (Col. 3:x; Eph. 4:24) who is sinless (Rom. 7:17; 1 John 3:9). (Bible Believers' Bulletin. June 2009, p. 12)

If you are saved in this age, the Holy Spirit does not come in contact with your flesh (Rom. 7:17–18; Col. 2:eleven–13), yous have been cutting loose (Col. two:xi) … Fortunately, the New Nascence produces a spiritual circumcision which cuts off your soul from your flesh. Thus, the existent "You lot" is not responsible for fleshy sins (Rom. 7:15–18), although since YOU (the fleshy you) commit them every bit "works of the flesh" (Gal. 5:nineteen–21), you will certainly reap them—IN THE Flesh. (Ruckman, Peter. The Death of Biblical Doctrine. 2007, p. 71)

As tin can exist discerned from the last two quotes, Ruckman seems to have come upwardly with his spiritual circumcision teaching as a way to provide his own interpretation for passages such as i John 3:6, 9 that appear to teach that a Christian cannot sin. As to these passages, nosotros believe the answer is rather simple. A believer has two natures. Even Ruckman recognizes this, although he apparently does not employ this Biblical concept consistently because of his spiritual circumcision heresy. The Bible sometimes refers to the old nature equally the "old human" (Rom. half-dozen:six; Eph. iv:22 and Col. three:9), and the new or spiritual nature every bit the "new human" (Eph. 4:24; Col. three:ten). Many references to the flesh versus the spirit in the Scriptures involve the same Biblical concept. Our old nature is what is responsible for sin in the believer. The new nature does not sin. When the Bible says in sure terms in ane Jn. iii that believers exercise not sin, information technology is meant to refer to the new nature, not the quondam nature, which we are even so cursed with until nosotros receive a heavenly trunk.

It is admitted that Ruckman at times makes valid observations when dealing with the false teachings of others. Notice the post-obit, which nosotros volition then apply to put his spiritual circumcision to the test:

What does Galatians iii:27 say near water baptism? Nothing. What does Romans 6:3-four say well-nigh h2o baptism? Nothing. In those two instances, the Campbellite had to read the word water where there wasn't a drib around. "Where the scriptures are silent, we add words to get our own private interpretation." (Ruckman, Peter. Soulwinning. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2018, p. 98)

At present let'south apply Ruckman's excellent observation above to this concise sentence of his:

YOUR SOUL WAS Cutting LOOSE FROM THE INSIDE OF YOUR Torso AT EVERY POINT WHERE IT FORMERLY HAD TOUCHED Information technology (Col. two:11–12). (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers' Bulletin. Nov. 2005, p. 9)

Detect how Ruckman'southward own teachings directed at others totally undermine his ain, when we apply it to his imitation teaching:

What does Colossians 2:11 say about cutting the soul from the body? Zip. What does Col. 2:12 say about the soul touching the body previous to salvation? Aught. In those two instances, the Ruckmanite had to read the words soul, cutting and touch where it wasn't around. "Where the scriptures are silent, nosotros add words to get our ain individual interpretation."

Ruckman's own educational activity when applied to himself rules out his own heresies! Ruckman is quick to pull out accepted hermeneutical principles to employ against cults and others he disagrees with, only refuses to use those same principles to his own teachings. And he has plenty of followers who are willing to look the other way or speedily seek to change the bailiwick when confronted. Christian, beware!

fuentesthisees.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ruckmanism.org/ruckmans-unbiblical-spiritual-circumcision-teaching

Share this post