Ruckman has repeatedly denied that he gets personal with those he disagrees with, as in the following examples:
We have never had any argument with the PERSONAL and PRIVATE LIVES of any man we ever mentioned in our series on the Alexandrian Cult. And we are not going to get off track like Robert Sumner and begin to chase rabbits and emphasize nonessentials by getting all balled up in the personal lives of those who correct (or attack) the AV. Our argument, after all, is a very limited one. (Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers' Bulletin Reprint #7 Strictly Personal. 2004, p. 43)
Notice throughout that our point of contention has never been PERSONAL. Not once would we bother to go into personalities or ministries. We are dealing with documented facts that concern written texts as they are printed in books and letters. We have no argument with the personal lives or beliefs of any member of the Cult in this century, if that member is a saved man. (Ruckman, Peter. The Alexandrian Cult, Part 5. 1980, p. 10)
Is it true that Ruckman never gets involved in personal matters regarding those who oppose his positions? Name calling and dehumanizing tactics are very common in Ruckman's writings, as we have already documented. That can be very personal in itself. The following quotes are downright personal, and to our knowledge all personalities involved were gospel preachers at the time. Read the following and decide for yourself whether Ruckman never gets personal with his attacks:
…the Lord showed [name withheld] that he did not have the brains or the intellect to be a teacher…
(Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Volume 2, 1984, p. 187)[name withheld, living] … in an obscure little trailer …
(Bible Believers' Bulletin. Dec. 1990, p. 1)Being about forty pounds overweight, the author of the tract … has evidently confused "antinomianism" with dieting.
(Bible Believers' Bulletin. July 1980, p. 1)… this idiot tried to shake my hand when he came up front, and called me "BROTHER" throughout the hour. When he offered me his hand I told him "Run on, [name withheld]. YOU ITCH!"
(Bible Believers' Bulletin. May 1992, p. 4)Some day we will know why [name withheld] split a church, a school, and a family… (Bible Believers' Bulletin. Jan. 1990, p. 15)
How do you feel personally about [name withheld]? Personally, I am blank. I have no “feelings” at all. To me … is not an individual, let alone a man… You couldn’t possibly pick on such a man as a genuine individual with any personal feelings involved. (Custer’s last Stand, p. 65)
Sometimes Ruckman will quote a denial concerning something from one of his Ruckmanite supporters, as if there would be no conflict of interest in doing so. This matter of being accused of getting involved in the personal life of others in his writings is no exception:
In all of his books I have never read where he [Ruckman] ever tried to question your character or personal life, or anyone else’s, for that matter. (The Last Grenade, p. 217)
The above quote appeared in Ruckman's The Last Grenade, which is likely the book in which he took ad hominem attacks to the furthest extreme of all his books. In said book, there are multiple cases of depicting others he despises as needing their diaper changed (pp. 63, 82), just to provide one example from this reprehensible book. That Ruckman has a twisted sense of humor personally involving others with whom he has disagreements that he has no qualms about making public is readily apparent in the following quote:
I’ll tell you a funny joke. If Augustine and Calvin were not “saved” according to those Scriptures, they are in hell right now, and [name withheld] and the men who taught him are either there or “on the way!” (Ruckman, Peter. Why I am not a Calvinist. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1997, p. 51)
Nothing about the possibility of anyone being in hell or going to hell should be considered funny or worthy of a joke! In this case, Ruckman seemed be fantasizing about the possibility of one of his detractors going to hell under certain interpretations taken to extremes (that he did not advocate), and he actually thought that was funny.
In the process of describing how his detractors tend to portray him, Ruckman offered the following terms in one page of one of his books:
… rude, crude, vulgar, un-Christian … Cavil, rantings, ravings, bombastic retorts, slander, dehumanization, vulgar epithets and slang, etc., … (The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 317)
After offering these deprecating terms, Ruckman did not attempt to deny their accuracy in describing himself, and proceeded to defend himself with various justifications, such as "plain talk shreds 'em like a bowl full of dry Twinkies." (The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 317)