By David W. Cloud
Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org
http://www.wayoflife.org

First published 1994
Fourth edition, May 2001

Updated May 25, 2001 (First published November 1994) (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) – “What do you think about Peter Ruckman?” How many times I have been asked this question! For good or for bad, Peter Ruckman’s name is intertwined with the defense of the King James Bible. Personally, I think it is bad. On January 24, 1985, I wrote to Dr. Ruckman from Nepal and told him that I believed he had done more damage to the cause of the King James Bible than many of its detractors.

“...your writings--because of the spirit in which they are given--actually make me desire to flee from whatever beliefs you are propounding. I sincerely fear ... that you have done more damage to the cause of the truth of the preservation of the Textus Receptus and the faithful translations thereof than have the enemies of this position.”

I know these words make some of my friends cringe, but I still believe this. Why? Because his strange ideas, his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his arrogance, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, tends to cause men to reject the entire issue.

His teaching has also caused many unnecessary divisions and problems in churches. It is one thing if a Christian tries to stand for the Word of God and leaves a church that does not so stand, a church that promotes the new versions, but it is quite another matter if a Christian becomes caught up in Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines and spirit and comes to the conclusion that his church is apostate because it does not accept all of the jots and tittles of Ruckman’s thinking even though it is a King James only church.

An example of this occurred last year in the church which publishes O Timothy in Canada. Pastor Wilbert Unger in London, Ontario, stands unhesitatingly for the King James Bible, but he does not swallow all of Ruckman’s peculiarities. To many Ruckman followers, though, if a man does not believe about the KJV exactly what Ruckman believes, he is “not a Bible believer.” To believe that the KJV is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God is not necessarily enough. The printer for Bethel Baptist Church began reading some of Ruckman’s books and came to this conclusion. He felt that his church was not a true Bible-believing church and he began talking to some of the members, stirring up trouble. He finally left the church because of this and left a serious, unfulfilled gap in the printing ministry which the Lord had led the church to start three years ago.

This has happened many times. For the record, therefore, I want to list the Ruckmanisms that I reject.

Let me also say by way of introduction that all men who support Ruckman are not quarrelsome church splitters. I know a number of gracious Christian gentlemen who appreciate Dr. Ruckman. They appreciate the fact that the man stands boldly for a perfect Bible in a confused, wicked hour. They appreciate the fact that he has stirred up the pot and caused many to look at the Bible version issue. They are willing to overlook his problems. While I have no quarrel with any man who takes such a position, the bottom line for me is this: I don’t believe an extreme position on an issue is a blessing to that issue, and I don’t believe a mean-spirited defense of the truth furthers the truth.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S IDEA THAT THE KJV WAS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION; I BELIEVE IT WAS GIVEN BY PRESERVATION

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Ruckman claims: “The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’”

I believe the King James Bible, as an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God, IS the inspired Word of God. I can hold it up and say “this is the inspired Word of God.” But I don’t believe the King James Bible was GIVEN BY inspiration of God. I don’t believe the KJV is GIVEN BY inspiration in the same way that the original writings were. I believe it has DERIVED its inspiration from the text upon which it was based. The King James Bible is an accurate and beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly.

I don’t believe this is merely a semantics game; it is an important distinction. The King James Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God and as such is the preserved Word of God. It is no more than that, and it is no less than that. The King James Version is the inspired Word of God because it accurately translates the inspired text. God chose Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I’m not going to say that God made a mistake. It is important to study those Greek and Hebrew words as much as possible. The KJV is a wonderful translation, but IT IS a translation. Some would charge that to say such a thing detracts from the KJV. No, it doesn’t. To say such a thing honors the text God inspired.

To make myself perfectly clear, let me also say that I believe the KJV is superior to all other English versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior the time of its translation. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OR THAT IT IS ADVANCED REVELATION.

Let me also emphasize that the Bible doctrine of inspiration cannot be divorced from the Bible doctrine of preservation. The key New Testament passage on the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Verse 16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...” This refers to the original giving of the Word of God. Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible.

The thrust of this passage, though, is that Timothy should have confidence in the Scriptures that he possessed. Verse 15 says the Scripture Timothy had known from a child was “holy Scripture.” What Scriptures had Timothy known? Were they the original autographs of Moses and David? Certainly not. Timothy had been taught either from copies of the Hebrew text or from a translation thereof, most likely the latter since his father was a Greek and his mother and grandmother had instructed him (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1).

Further, verse 17 encourages Timothy that the inspired Scripture “is profitable.” Any definition of inspiration which does not involve this doctrine of profitability is wrong. God did not intend that His Word be inspired, then lost. The inspired Word of God has been kept by God. There is inspiration, and there is preservation, and this guarantees profitability.

I don’t intend to mix inspiration together with preservation, for these are two distinct things. But I also don’t intend to remove preservation from the formula as so many do. One without the other is useless.

It appears to me, whether you look at it from Greek or from English, that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers both to process and to product. Timothy had known the inspired Scriptures from his childhood (2 Timothy 3:15-17), and it is obvious that he did not have the original Hebrew writings. He had copies and/or translations. Thus this passage refers to the inspired scripture both as to the process and the product of inspiration.

I believe God originally gave the Scriptures by the process of inspiration (see also 2 Peter 1:21) and that the preserved copies of Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew, and even the accurate translations into other languages, are the inspired Scripture, being the product of inspiration.

To get down to where “the rubber meets the road,” I believe the King James Bible, being an accurate translation of the inspired Greek and Hebrew scriptures, is the inspired Word of God in the English language. This in no wise discounts the uniqueness of the original process of inspiration in the giving of the Scripture, but it makes the doctrine of inspiration practical to men in every generation; and that is obviously what God had in mind when He gave the Scriptures.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S IDEA THAT THE KJV IS ADVANCED REVELATION

The KJV translators had good reason for every reading they included in their translation, and some of those readings are based more on ancient versions than on Greek texts. This, though, does not add up to advanced revelation. I believe the KJV translators were God-guided, but the KJV readings were not pulled out of thin air. The readings were not given by inspiration from God. The readings were all based upon textual witness from centuries past. Peter Ruckman, on the other hand, SAYS he believes the KJV is advanced revelation. Consider:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).
“If you are able to obtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2,4).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew.” (Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii). [Editor: Why does Ruckman treat the Critical the same as the Received Text?]

“If you had the original manuscripts, you couldn’t find what a soul was, no matter how educated you were, because the key for ‘finding out’ had nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349). [Editor: Why does Ruckman put critical, modernistic textual editors Nestle, Aland, and Metzger on the same level with Beza, Elzevir, and Stephanus who honored the Word of God and handed down to us the Text Received from the Apostles?]

“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s unique idea that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage” (Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9).

While I believe the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God and therefore the inspired Word of God in the English language, I reject Ruckman’s contention that the Authorized Version is superior to the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated, or that God slammed shut the door of revelation two different times, or that the English text straightens out the Greek text, or that the Authorized Version contains advanced revelation.

If Ruckman is right, where was the inspired Word of God prior to 1611?

I know the man enjoys speaking for effect, saying things simply to shake people up, but words mean something. If a man puts something into print repeatedly, year after year, and sends those books out across the land, we are not wrong to take him seriously.

To put the critical Greek texts on the same level with the Received Text, as Ruckman does when arguing for the superiority of the Authorized Version, is wrong.

God chose to inspire His Book in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and I am satisfied that He knew what He was doing. I’m not going to say that the English language has become a better vehicle for God’s Revelation. English is an excellent vehicle, a satisfactory vehicle, but not a better vehicle. Do you see the difference? I believe it is an important one.

Let me hasten to say that I DO believe God had his hand upon the translation of the KJV in a marvelous way. I DO NOT believe there are any real mistakes in the King James Bible. (By this I mean that the alleged mistakes are not real.) The King James Bible has played a crucial role in the preservation of the Word of God in the last four centuries because of the importance of the English language. God gave the English-speaking people an accurate translation. I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date. (To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying there are changes which must be made, or that it contains mistakes. To say that there are passages which could be translated differently is not the same as saying there are passages which contain error. I, for one, do not support any new attempts to revise the King James Bible.)

The point here, though, pertains to whether or not the KJV is advanced revelation. Revelation means a revealing of something that was not previously known by man and can only be discovered by divine revelation. The KJV IS NOT ADVANCED REVELATION.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S IDEA THAT THOSE WHO DIFFER WITH HIM ABOUT THE KJV ARE MEMBERS OF A CULT

Consider what Ruckman believes:

“...every ‘recognized’ church historian and Christian ‘scholar’ is a member of a CULT. This cult is the Alexandrian Cult of North Africa, and its tentacles stretch from Origen (184-254 A.D.) to John R. Rice and the faculty members of every ‘recognized’ Christian school in the world” (Peter Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part One, 1978, p. 6).

I believe John R. Rice was wrong about Bible versions, but I do not believe he was a cultist. I believe my teachers at Tennessee Temple were wrong not to instruct me properly in regard to Bible texts and versions, but I don’t believe they were cultists. I’m not going to put them in the same lot with the pope, as Dr. Ruckman does.

Second Thessalonians 3:14-15 says that while we are not to overlook a brother’s sin or error, and while we are to separate from him if he persists in it, we are not to count him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother. Mr. Ruckman counts everyone as an enemy who does not adhere to the jots and tittles of Ruckmanism.

Ruckman lumps together and lambastes with equal harshness the Fundamental Baptist who supports the modern versions with the Fundamental Baptist who rejects the modern versions--so long as both reject Ruckmanism. In the February 1989 issue of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Ruckman says:

“The polemics in the publications by Donald Waite and Robert Sumner are dedicated to that proposition, and pretense that they are protecting you from heresy is just so much hot air in a wind bag” (p. 6).

“No apostate Fundamentalist (Duncan, Hudson, Afman, Martin, Price, Newman, MacRae, Waite, Sumner, Kutilek, etc.) ever believed what the scriptures said about the scriptures. ... Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Ronald Walker, Donald Waite, Gary Hudson, Fred Afman, etc. ... They go right on with their nonsense” (p. 4).

Most of these men do not support the Received Text of the Word of God. Afman, Martin, and Price, for example, are teachers at Tennessee Temple who do not support the Received Text. Mr. Martin was one of my teachers, and he used the NASV in the classroom.

Note, though, that Ruckman lumps Donald Waite into this group as if there were no difference in his position on the Bible and that of the others. Waite is a staunch defender of the King James Bible. His book Defending the King James Bible presents “the four-fold superiority of the KJV”: Superior texts, superior translators, superior technique, and superior theology.

Why, then, does Mr. Ruckman consider all of these men equally to be members of “the Alexandrian cult”? Waite is not considered by Ruckman a true Bible believer because of one simple fact: he rejects Ruckmanism.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S DEFENSE OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE FOR PASTORS

Dr. Peter Ruckman has been divorced two times and married three times yet he has been a pastor all along, is still a pastor, and he defends his unscriptural marital status in his book on divorce and remarriage. His first marriage was before his salvation, and it ended in 1962 when his wife left him and filed for divorce. He began pastoring the Brent Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, soon after that. In 1972 Ruckman married the divorced wife of one of his former students. When a vote was taken in Brent Baptist as to whether they supported his second marriage, 200 voted for it and 100 opposed it. He resigned and started the Bible Baptist Church in 1974 with 17 people. In 1988 the second marriage ended when she walked out and sued for divorce. The third marriage was to a member of his church, a mother of three.

I have read Dr. Ruckman’s autobiography in which he goes into this situation in some detail. My heart went out to him as I read about the tremendous confusion which existed in his family life for 32 years. I know that the problems were not necessarily something he could have avoided, though he admits his role in the marital strife. Of course he didn’t have to take the second marriage, or the third. He claims the first and second marriages were God’s (called “the Bookkeeper” throughout his testimony) foreordained judgment on him.

I don’t care to doubt that God called Peter Ruckman to preach, and I believe a divorced man can preach and serve God in many ways without being a pastor. But he should not be, and is not qualified to be, a pastor. That’s not Phariseeism; that is King James Bible. The book of Titus connects the term “blameless” with the pastor’s family life (Titus 1:6), because the pastorate is a very special position. The pastor is the preeminent leader of God’s work today. It is the highest position in the house of God, which is the church. I don’t believe there is a higher calling in the world today. The pastor not only is to be a teacher and a preacher and a soul winner; he is to be an example of the will of God. “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3). If the pastor’s family is not right, whose will be? If the pastor’s family is not right, where will the church be? The pastor must meet qualifications which are not required for any other Christian. It’s a special position.

The Bible says that a pastor must be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3:4,5). Regardless of whose fault the divorce is, there can be no question that it does NOT represent an exemplary family life. Regardless of whose fault the divorce is, there can be no doubt that the man involved is NOT ruling well his own house. Regardless of whose fault the divorce is, there can be no doubt that it is a handle the devil will use to cast blame upon the church and the work of God.

Divorces do not take place in a vacuum. They take place in an environment filled with anger, carnality, hostility, bitterness, and sin. That is not judgmentalism; it is fact. Consider how Dr. Ruckman himself describes his family life in days gone by:

“I have had two wives desert me after fifteen years of marriage ... I have been in court custody cases, where seven children’s futures were held in the balance; in situations where Gospel articles were being torn out of typewriters, Biblical artwork torn off the easels, women trying to throw themselves out of cars at fifty m.p.h., mailing wedding rings back in the middle of revival services, cutting their wrists, threatening to leave if I did not give my church to their kinfolk; deacons threatening to burn down my house and beat me up; children in split custody between two domiciles two hundred miles apart, and knock-down, drag-out arguments in the home sometimes running as long as three days” (The Last Grenade, p. 339).

That is what the man admits took place. That is only a small glimpse into the sin and confusion surrounding those years. Friends, you can label me a judge if you want, but a man with that type of family life has no business in the pastorate. Let him preach on the streets. Let him preach in the jails. Let him preach in the nursing homes. Let him work in these ministries, but we must obey the Bible and reserve the pastorate for men who have godly homes. Did I hear someone say that nobody is perfect? That is correct, but there are men who have godly homes, friends. There are many men who, by God’s grace, have godly homes. If God were not going to take the standards of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 seriously, why did He give them? And if God is going to take them seriously, who are we to slight them?

Dr. Ruckman often mocks those who call for high standards for the pastorate and who don’t believe a divorced man fits God’s requirements for the office. Those who take this position he calls hypocrites and Pharisees. Consider how he describes his third marriage:

“... we got married in a regular Sunday night service after the offering was taken up: bridesmaids, wedding cake, rice, shaving cream on the car, the whole works. Standing room only. I WAS FLAUNTING MY FAITH IN THE FACE OF THE APOSTATE FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO WERE GOING TO ‘CASH IN’ ON MY MARRIAGE” (Peter Ruckman, The Full Cup, p. 280).

On page 211 of his biography, Dr. Ruckman says that those who ask the question, “Do you think a divorced preacher is qualified for the ministry,” are “self-righteous Pharisees.”

This attitude has encouraged other men that it’s O.K. to be divorced and remain in the pastorate, and, sadly, many have followed Ruckman’s lead.

See chapter three for more on the topic of divorce and the pastorate.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S IDEA THAT MEN ARE SAVED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT AGES

Dr. Ruckman believes men were saved by blood plus works in the Old Testament, that they will be saved by faith plus works in the Tribulation, and by works alone in the Millennium. In his booklet Millions Disappear: Fact or Fiction? Ruckman says:

“If the Lord comes and you remain behind, then start working like a madman to get to heaven, because you’re going to have to. ... You must keep the Ten Commandments (all of them, Ecclesiastes 12:13), keep the Golden Rule (1 John 3:10), give your money to the poor, get baptized, take up your cross, hold out to the end of the Tribulation, wait for Jesus Christ to show up at the Battle of Armageddon, and be prepared to die for what you believe. In the Tribulation you cannot be saved by grace alone, like you could before the Rapture.”

My friends, Romans 4 says both Abraham, before the law, and David, after the law, were saved by faith without works. This is the only plan of salvation God ever has had and ever will have--salvation by faith in God based on the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Those who are saved in the Tribulation will be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ and through His blood alone. “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).

See chapters four and five--“Salvation Is the Same in the Old Testament and the New Testament” by Bruce Lackey and “Salvation in the O.T. and the N.T. Follow-up.”

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S STRANGE, FLESHLY NAME CALLING

Some of the names Ruckman calls men who disagree with him are “jackass,” “poor, dumb, stupid ‘red legs,’” “silly asses,” “apostolic succession of bloated egotists,” “two-bit junkie,” “two-faced, tin- horned punk,” “some incredible idiot,” “this bunch of egotistical jack legs,” “conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed,” “cheap, two-bit punks,” “jacklegs,” “stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates.”

Dr. Ruckman can get pretty vulgar. He calls the New American Standard Version “more of the same old godless, depraved crap” (Satan’s Masterpiece--the New ASV, p. 67). In The Unknown Bible, p. 100, Ruckman says, “You see how people get all screwed up?”
Ruckman believes it is God who has called him to speak like this:

“God called me to sit at this typewriter and pour forth VINEGAR, ACID, VITRIOL, AND CLEANING FLUID on the leading conservative and fundamental scholars of 1900 through 1990. ... God is in charge. He ... destines me to sit at this typewriter and LAMBAST, SCALD AND RIDICULE these Bible rejecting fundamentalists who ‘believe the Bible is the Word of God,’ ... I hereby dedicate myself anew to the task of DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND NEGATIVE BLASTING against every adversary of that Holy Book...” (The Bible Believers Bulletin, Dec. 1985).

Ruckman is fighting for a holy Book in an unholy manner. It is confusion.

I know what Jesus called the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I have read how Paul, filled with the Spirit, spoke severely of the false teacher in Acts 13:9-10. I know the harsh plainness with which the Spirit of God speaks of false teachers in passages such as 2 Peter 2 and Jude.

But there is a world of difference between the language used in the Bible and the language used by Peter Ruckman. There is a world of difference between the spirit of Peter and Paul and Jude and the spirit of Peter Ruckman.

There is also a distinct difference between the way the Spirit of God deals with a saved but erring man and an unregenerate corrupter of the gospel. There is a vast difference between the way the Lord Jesus Christ dealt with His own disciples and the way He dealt with the Pharisees. There is a vast difference between the way Paul dealt with Peter’s hypocrisy and the way he dealt with the unsaved teacher in Acts 13.

Yet Mr. Ruckman makes no difference between the Pope, a Modernist, or a Fundamental Baptist. He will lump Curtis Hutson with John Paul II and Karl Barth.

Ruckman’s spirit and language is not that of the Bible. James 3:13-17 says:

“Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works WITH MEEKNESS OF WISDOM. But if ye have BITTER ENVYING AND STRIFE in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first PURE, then PEACEABLE, GENTLE, AND EASY TO BE INTREATED, FULL OF MERCY AND GOOD FRUITS, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

My friends, this passage from the King James Bible condemns Ruckmanism. This passage from the King James Bible tells me that Ruckman’s spirit is earthly, sensual, and devilish. Enjoying Ruckman because he “gets after those Bible perverters” is the same spirit as enjoying a good dog fight when the dog you have betted on is the biggest, meanest one around. “Sic ‘em, Pete, sic ‘em!” It is entertaining, and it is immensely satisfying to the flesh, but God says bitter envying and strife is earthly, sensual, devilish. God says heavenly wisdom is peaceable, gentle and full of mercy.

Some will protest, “But Ruckman is only striving with and showing bitterness toward the enemies of the Bible.” The Holy Spirit gave instructions in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 on how to deal with those who oppose the truth. He said nothing, absolutely nothing, about pouring vitriol and acid on them!

“And the servant of the Lord MUST NOT STRIVE: BUT BE GENTLE UNTO ALL MEN, apt to teach, PATIENT, IN MEEKNESS instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”

When I wrote to Ruckman in 1985 and told him these things, he wrote back and said that I didn’t understand the battle. Dr. Ruckman claims that those who reject his attitude and language are pacifists who don’t know the heat of the battle.

That is a smokescreen. For a full decade I lived and preached the Gospel and planted a church in a land which was strictly and officially opposed to the Gospel. Our work for those 10 years was illegal. We lived constantly with the possibility that we could be arrested any day. Not only was Nepal one of the strangest and most difficult lands to live in, but it was a Hindu state and Christianity was outlawed. Further, I stood practically alone in that entire part of the world for the preserved Bible and for Fundamental Baptist doctrine. My literature made me more visible than otherwise would have been the case. Our magazines and books went out across most of South Asia. I was slandered; labeled a cult leader; lied about; mocked. I was brought to trial by a group of Christian leaders in Nepal (including the head of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal, the pastor of the Assemblies of God in Kathmandu, the head of Youth for Christ in Nepal, and the head of the Bible Society of Nepal) and was told to leave because I was said to be “the greatest hindrance to the cause of Christ in Nepal.” They said I was dividing “the body of Christ in Nepal.” The Bible Society man claimed that I was resisting God because I had taken a stand against the Nepali equivalent of the Today’s English Version (Good News for Modern Man). The Roman Catholic Jesuit priests had meetings about me and took steps to hinder my literature ministry

The battle IS hot, but the Lord’s battles must be fought with the Lord’s weapons, not with fleshly ones.

I REJECT DR. RUCKMAN’S PECULIAR DOCTRINES AND CULTIC ATTITUDE

In The Unknown Bible, Ruckman claims to hold to 14 “biblical truths” which other Bible teachers have overlooked for 2,000 years. These include the following:

1. Angels as thirty-three year old males without wings; and all woman in the CHURCH AGE receiving thirty-three year old male bodies at the Rapture. ...

2. Faith and works as the plan of salvation for the Tribulation saints with WORKS ALONE in the Millennium. ...

3. The spiritual circumcision of the believer’s soul literally cut loose from the inside of his fleshy body at the time of his new birth. ...

4. Demons as winged creatures ranging in size from those of flies and mosquitoes to eagles and vultures ...

5. The Biblical teaching on what constitutes the essence of a marriage in God’s sight [Ruckman believes sexual relations constitute marriage].

On page 347 of The Unknown Bible, Ruckman modestly claims: “Do you realize that in these last two chapters, you have learned a dozen things that were unknown to the greatest Bible teachers in the world? In 2000 years of church history, they haven’t even been able to find the passage which dealt with these things we have been talking about.”
Dr. Ruckman also claims that his view of man’s soul is brand new truth:

“The problem is the word ‘soul,’ but since there isn’t one pre-millennial, soul-winning, fundamentalist who knows what a soul is (see the entire library of books published by Eerdmans, Baker, Zondervan, and the Sword of the Lord before 1970) ... The soul in the Bible is an invisible BODILY SHAPE. In the Old Testament, the soul is almost synonymous with the body, for it is STUCK TO IT till death” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

Ruckman believes that the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is not Noah’s flood but one which supposedly occurred at the judgment of the earth, when Satan was cast out of Heaven. The fact that no other Bible teacher has held this view is considered in the following way:

“Now who could get a message so simple all muddled up? Answer: Every major fundamental Bible scholar and teacher in the United States, without one exception. If you were to ask Henry Morris what the verses refer to he’d say Noah’s flood: ditto Harry Rimmer, Clarence Larkin, J. Vernon McGee, Swindle (sic), MacArthur, Bob Jones III ... the Scofield Board of Editors” (Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, p. 67).

In bragging up his new book, The Salient Verses, Mr. Ruckman makes these comments:

“If you are able to obtain a copy [of Ruckman’s proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D. This would include all of the modern Bible revisors (1800-1999), all of the faculty members and staffs of every major “Fundamental” (Conservative and Evangelical) seminary, university, and college in Europe and America since 1500, and every Greek and Hebrew scholar (or teacher) since 1611. ... Actually, if a Bible believer has this work he will have the accumulated knowledge of Cornelius Stam and Ethelbert Bullinger ... Clarence Larkin and C.I. Scofield Ewing, Osborne, Tilton, and PTL ... Pember, Peters, Gaebelein, Pentecost, Lindsey, Kirban, Rockwood, Webber, and Van Impe ... plus the Puritans, Reformers, major evangelists (Moody, Sunday, Finney, Torrey, Wesley, etc.) and all that ANY Greek and Hebrew scholar ... ever found out--that was SO--in the last 200 years” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2,4).

This is a proud, cultish mindset. Consider a few of the other peculiar teachings held by Dr. Ruckman:

“God has ordained on this earth 12 boundaries, with 12 nations, who are destined to leave this earth (transported by angels--Luke 16:22), and populate outer space infinitely and forever, beginning with the 12 constellations that are seen on the earth once every 12 months” (The Unknown Bible, p. 588).
“In eternity, the Christian is in New Jerusalem; he is in his apartment house that is made out of transparent gold, like clear glass. ... He is called out on trips, and these trips take him to Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, etc. transporting couples into gardens placing them down and saying, ‘be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth’“ (Ibid., p. 592).

“I know they [demons] have to be small. ... there’s two little animals that have wings. One’s a fly and the other’s a mosquito. Know what these things are? They’re pictures of demons. all commentaries, and all theologians, they’re winged. The things have wings” (Ruckman, Demons and Christians, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1976, side 1).

IN CONCLUSION

I really don’t understand why men believe it is so necessary to read after Dr. Ruckman to understand the Bible version issue. There are a multiplicity of good materials available on Bible versions by men such as D.A. Waite, D.O. Fuller, Edward F. Hills, Bruce Lackey, and Jack Moorman. I came to a Bible-believing position through the writings of such men without any help from Dr. Ruckman, and I recommend their writings to our readers. Their writings are not filled with bitter wrangling, hateful sarcasm, and fanaticism. The fruit of reading after such men is peace and settled confidence and zeal for the Truth, not a fleshly bitterness against the members of a supposed cult.

In conclusion, let me say that while I have some serious problems with Dr. Ruckman, I also have some serious problems with many of his detractors. Many of Peter Ruckman’s most bitter enemies are trying to discredit the idea that there is a perfect Bible anywhere in the world. They have their own rotten agenda, undermining men’s faith in a perfect Bible. I am glad that Dr. Ruckman believes he has a perfect Bible. I have no quarrel with that. I believe the King James Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Word Of God, and I do not believe there are any errors in it. It is living and dependable.

“Who, then, can we trust?” some might be thinking? The Word of God says, “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm ... Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is” (Jer. 17:5,7).

Man is twisted and defiled even at his best. Our confidence must be in Jesus Christ and in His eternal Word.

---

For follow-up articles on Peter Ruckman see--

"Divorce and Remarriage and God's Standards for the Pastor," O Timothy, Volume 12, Issue 5, 1995

"The Divorced Pastor," O Timothy, Volume 10, Issue 10, 1993

"Ruckman's Perfect Bible," O Timothy, Volume 12, Issue 4, 1995

"Ruckman's Slanderous Mouth," O Timothy, Volume 12, Issue 4, 1995

"Peter Ruckman's Speech" by D.W. Cloud

"Response to the Ruckman Critique," O Timothy, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1995

Salvation Is the Same in the Old Testament and the New by Bruce Lackey

Salvation in the Old Testament and the New Testament - Follow-up by D.W. Cloud

"My Position on the King James Bible" by D.W. Cloud

"Is the King James Bible Advanced Revelation?" by D.W. Cloud