PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers.

[Alan Dale Gross]

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers, which use and Defend the King James Version and many others as Inspired, but can in no way be associated with the term "KJV-Only", as related to Peter Ruckman, WHOSE 9 PREMISES BELOW WE CONSIDER TO SIMPLY BE 9 DEMONSTRABLE LIES.

"It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:

(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;

(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;

(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;

(4) the KJV can be used to correct the Original language Scriptures;

(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “Inspired” English Translation;

(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement on the KJV);

(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has Gospel or Salvific content;

(8) those who do not use the KJV are Condemned to Hell; and

(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

 

[Mike B]

Some people will say outrageous things in order to be recognized and given
attention to. I believe Peter Ruckman was one of those people.

 

[Kai]

Not only was his view on the inspiration of the Bible bizarre, but his interpretation of it was just as wacky.

He once claimed that all women raptured during Christ’s return would be transformed into 33-year-old male bodies. Now that’s what I call a real sex change operation!

 

[Logos1560]

(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

Since that was not one of Peter Ruckman's own tenets, you seem to join D. A. Waite in misrepresenting his view.

D. A. Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20).

Some of Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Peter Ruckman had actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman did not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and did not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.


Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

 

[Logos1560]

PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers,

Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural. This definition of Peter Ruckman differs and even conflicts with his definition of the term at 2 Timothy 3:16 in his 2009 Reference Bible. After admitting being “indebted to Herb Evans for the ideas,” Bruce Lackey wrote: “Anything which qualifies to be called ‘scripture’ is inspired” (Why I Believe, p. 19). Gail Riplinger wrote: “No textbooks define ‘scripture’ which ‘is given by inspiration’ by citing the Bible’s usage of the word ‘scripture’” (Hazardous, p. 1174). Gail Riplinger declared: “Inspired scripture must be something that all men must have” (p. 1177). Jack McElroy asserted: “Scripture = given by inspiration of God” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 359).

Seeming to use or agree with Ruckman’s definition of scripture, Ralph Yarnell wrote: “Either the Authorized King James Version is not scripture and therefore uninspired, or it is scripture and therefore inspired since ‘all scripture is given by inspiration of God’” (Fresh Look, p. 10). In his preface, Alan O’Reilly asserted that the KJV ‘is Holy Scripture given by inspiration of God, 2 Timothy 3:16” (O Biblios, p. vii). Alan O’Reilly wrote: “The issue is whether or not a BOOK available TODAY is ‘The Holy Scriptures.’ If there is such a Book, and I believe that it is ANY Edition of the AV1611, then IT (the BOOK) is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD” (p. 214). Agreeing with Ruckman’s definition, Charles Keesee claimed: “If we do not have anything inspired then we do not have any scripture” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 195).

 

[Ascetic X]

Tenets (not “tenants”) of Ruckmanism:

Though maintaining an orthodox pretense in the Baptist tradition, ruckmanism is clearly outside the tradition of both historic and Biblical Christianity.

Ruckmanism includes the concept that restricts the deity of Christ to Jesus being the manifestation of God in the flesh, but not actually God, in that Christ the man was capable of sin and could have fallen.

Should Christ have sinned the universe, Ruckman surmised, might have exploded. It is felt that were Jesus above the capacity to sin, His testing on the earth would have been a hoax. This of course is a denial of the Godness of Christ just as so called Apostolic (Jesus Only) doctrine is a denial of His humanity. The fact is that there was no possibility of Jesus falling for He was truly God. His testing is a willing one to reconcile man to Himself, not of any necessity whatsoever to the blessed Trinity.

Other aspects of ruckmanism are: the English King James Version of the Bible is superior to the original Greek manuscripts, the antichrist may land in a spaceship in the Vatican, there are no women in heaven (all resurrected saints will receive bodies identical to the resurrected body of Jesus), and a vicious badgering and name calling of those who do not submit to Ruckman’s authority.

Ruckman invented the unbiblical theory that at salvation, the Holy Spirit physically cuts your soul away from your flesh like a surgeon’s scalpel, so that your flesh can go out and sin freely while your soul remains pure and detached. That is not biblical regeneration—that is ancient Gnosticism!

Another interesting Ruckman tenet is that Judas Iscariot was not human, even though the New Testament shows Judas betraying human emotions, repentance and suicide. Ruckman takes Christ’s statement, “one of you is a devil” to mean that Judas was not human. Of course Jesus no more meant that Judas was not human than He meant that the Pharisees were not human when He called them serpents and children of vipers. Interestingly enough Ruckman’s teachings on the non-humaness of Judas is a denial of the traditional and Biblical teaching of the antichrist, whom Ruckman thinks Judas was and is and will be. For the Pauline teaching on the antichrist is that indeed the antichrist is human, specifically the “man of sin.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Peter Ruckman was infamous for his venomous mouth, his foul language, his public cursing of godly Christian leaders, his vicious racial remarks, and an insufferable pride that boasted of street brawls while claiming that he alone held the pure truth of God.

When people follow Ruckman, they don't produce the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness (Galatians 5:22). They become angry, cynical debate warriors who copy and paste someone else’s study notes because they have never sat quietly on the Father’s knee.

In that the distinct element of this teaching revolves around a man, ruckmanism can be accurately described as a cult.

 

[Mike B]

Ruckman was a narcissistic mess of a human being, and that narcissism pushed him
to make ridiculous claims simply to gain attention, and to give himself the illusion
of having authority. JMHO

Unfortunately, he left a legacy that some, to their own detriment, still try to cling to.

 

[Kai]

Unfortunately, he left a legacy that some, to their own detriment, still try to cling to.

Indeed. I’m aware of at least one church nearby that has a pastor who attended Ruckman Bible School in Pensacola, Florida.

 

[Logos1560]

Tenets (not “tenants”) of Ruckmanism:

I incorrectly copied "tenants" from the opening post in this thread after using the correct "tenets" in an earlier post.

 

[Logos1560]

(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;

The tenets of Peter Ruckman were sometimes inconsistent. What he wrote at one period of time or in one book may conflict with what he wrote at a different period of time or in a different book.

Peter Ruckman himself had evidently understood and interpreted 2 Timothy 3:16 differently in the past [1971] than he later did. In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman himself had asserted: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Timothy 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (photocopy of letter, p. 2). In his book with a 1980 copyright, Peter Ruckman wrote: “There is only one verse in the Bible that says ‘INSPIRATION’ (2 Tim. 3:16) and it has nothing to do with any originals by anyone (see 2 Tim. 3:15)” (Problem Texts, p. 171; Errors, p. 175).

In 1988, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Although we cannot claim direct inspiration in the original Biblical sense for the King James text, we could claim that the King James text presents an infallible text, preserved without proven error in the language in which God intended for us to have it” [bold type added] (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 15). Peter Ruckman asserted: “So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can be claimed to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” [bold type added] (p. 23). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270). Ruckman asserted: “I’ve never said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I’ve broadly intimated it sometimes” (Why I Believe the KJV, p. 8).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

that was not one of Peter Ruckman's own tenets

"It cannot be denied that in several ways English has gradually become a dominant language over the years. Its dominance is noteworthy in areas of technology, commerce, transportation, medicine, etc. The increased dominance of the English language around the world is undeniable. When it comes to choosing to study a second language to advance a career or for other purposes, English is a clear favorite in numerous instances. As we shall document, Peter Ruckman exploits this and exaggerates some of these matters for his own purposes.

"It has been our observation that for those who live beyond our borders, most who manage to acquire relative fluency in English as a second language are the affluent, the college educated, and business leaders; therefore, they do not reflect the vast majority of people around the world.

"Ruckman makes many dogmatic theological proclamations as to God’s plan, purpose, and method involving the English language, while the Bible is silent about English or future languages in prophecy.

"Ruckman often refers to English as “the universal language of the end times” as if there was, is, or ever will be such a thing:

"Any advanced revelations given by the Holy Spirit are always revealed FIRST from the “King’s English” as the authoritative standard for truth, in the universal language of the “end times.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Feb. 2006, p. 7)

"As for his claims of advanced revelations in the KJV, see our article “Ruckman’s belief in advanced revelations in the KJV.”

"In an attempt to bolster his claims, Ruckman will take the term “English” out of context when used in reference to “British” matters in a non-language context. Observe:

"From henceforth, even the Antichrist will have to speak English (Rev. 13:1-3), because absolute time, absolute temperature, absolute location, and absolute truth are ENGLISH, and that is FINAL. (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 122)"

"Notice how Ruckman injects the matter of the world supposedly being English-speaking in an attempt to prove that the KJV was “the culmination and final work of the Holy Spirit”:

"It is the culmination and final work of the Holy Spirit in the Church Age in a world that is English-speaking. (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 79)"

"[the KJV] … converted the whole world into an English-speaking world … (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 581)"'

"Absolutely untrue."

Peter Ruckman on the superiority of the English language.​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Are Peter Ruckman's tenants as seen in his definition of scripture seen as pure error?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural.

Peter Ruckman's teachings under discussion are the following (1) - (9)

"(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;

"(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;

"(3) the English KJV is as or more Inspired than the Original language Scriptures;

''(4) the KJV can be used to correct the Original language Scriptures;

"(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an “Inspired” English Translation;

"(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement on the KJV);

"(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has Gospel or Salvific content;

"(8) those who do not use the KJV are Condemned to Hell; and

"(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I incorrectly copied "tenants" from the opening post in this thread after using the correct "tenets" in an earlier post.

That could mean that you are not a schoolmarm. Dunno though. Jury's still out on Clancy.