In his failed attempts at legitimizing his extreme teachings on the KJV issue, Ruckman has attempted to rewrite history in order to portray those who merely believed in the trustworthiness of the KJV as holding to Ruckman's position. He tries hard to convince others that Ruckmanism existed before his era in order to not arouse suspicion about his teachings. This can be noted by a quote in which Ruckman accuses R. L. Hymers of having “lied about ‘Ruckmanism’ not being around till 1950.” (The Last Grenade, p. 268) For a reply to that accusation, see No evidence of Ruckmanism before 1950.
In the following quotes Ruckman characterizes between four and ten million ordinary Christians as having believed in an infallible KJV:
Yet the same nuts will insist that if a saved sinner believes that the AV is infallible, he is an “extremist”! There have been on this earth more than 10,000,000 ordinary Christians who believed the AV (1611) was the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice… (The Book of Acts. 1974, 1984, p. 728)
Since college-educated people are always in the vast minority among the human race, these fellows will try to tell you that the vast majority of scholars don’t take Ruckman’s position. Well, I’m terribly sorry, but the vast majority of Christians do. And always have. (Ruckman, Peter. How God opened my eyes to the KJV. No date, CD audio recording, about 18 minutes into track 3)
If a Baptist pastor says, “Ruckman taught you the AV was infallible and inerrant,” he is not “speaking the truth in love” (or in decency). He is “speaking a lie in hate.” Over 4,000,000 Christians believed in the AV before my mother was born. (Ruckman, Peter. God is Love. 1998 reprint, p. 112)
On page 154 of his book The Last Grenade, Ruckman states that 40 million Christians held the position of four Christians whom he tried to portray as believing in an inspired KJV. The fact that he went from four million to 40 million–1000% higher– demonstrates he is apparently just pulling figures out of thin air.
In this next quote, what appears between quotation marks written by another is what Ruckman is reacting to:
“…And the KJV is on par with the originals because it is verbally inspired.” No stupid, that is what Christians taught back in 1660-1700 … “… the KJV was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit … and the Textus Receptus in the New Testament corresponds exactly, word for word, letter for letter, to the inspired originals.” … He just repeated what was being taught in 1680-1700. I didn’t teach that or even imply it. (The Last Grenade, p. 261)
The fact is throughout history those who had the highest confidence in the KJV did not normally go beyond declaring the KJV to be reliable and trustworthy. This is demonstrated by the fact that the few quotes Ruckman presents as "proof" were so easy to dismiss in our article No evidence of Ruckmanism before 1950.
Not only does Ruckman misrepresent past believers of generally having a tendency to hold to a Ruckmanite position, he does the same with specific Christian leaders of the past.
In a previous article we refuted Ruckman's false charge that Spurgeon had taught “the most cultic, demonic ‘Ruckmanism’ ever espoused by a Baptist." Many other cases of misrepresenting Spurgeon have been found, including the following:
Spurgeon was preaching pure, unadulterated “Ruckmanism” in 1880. (The Last Grenade, p. 84)
Some folks say, “what person ever believed the King James is infallible besides Ruckman?” Charles Haddon Spurgeon. (Ruckman, Peter. The Historical Relationship of the King James Bible to the Church. 1980, CD audio recording, about 7 minutes into track 3)
Dr. Hills never attended PBI. But he, unwittingly (and accidentally) described our theological position. (The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 358)
The above is a tragic mischaracterization of the views of Edward Hills. In his writings, he has stated plainly that the KJV was not absolutely perfect and denied that it was inspired. (See Who was the first KJV defender to influence others to declare the KJV to be inerrant or inspired in the 20th century?) This was not the only time that Ruckman misrepresents Hill’s position, as can be seen in the following quotes:
Take the BOOK or the opinions of Ruckman and Hills. (The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 383)
Ruckman, Fuller, Gipp, Riplinger, etc., do. Hills just gave the body of Christ our position, which we have maintained for 31 years, without variation, at the PBI. (The Scholarship only Controversy, p. 357)
Ironically, in an article that labeled Edward Hills as a Bible believer, Ruckman admits that he knew that Hills did not believe in the perfection of the KJV:
Even Edward Hills blanches a little at the thought that the AV is a perfect translation, although he is a Bible believer. (22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin Vol. 1 “The AV Holy Bible” p. 223)
The above demonstrates how inconsistent Ruckman can be. He often mocks people in a cruel manner for not believing in a perfect KJV, and yet he so wants to establish a link with those who wrote in defense of the KJV before him (to portray them as Ruckmanites), that he will label Hills a "Bible believer" for the same view (in this case regarding perfection of the KJV) as someone he will label as a Bible corrector or apostate.
Bob Jones, Sr.
Ruckman cannot plead ignorance concerning Bob Jones Sr.'s position on the KJV, as he sat under his preaching for a number of years as a student at BJU. In an article first published in 1996, Ruckman refers to Bob Jones Sr. as "an old-time Bible-believing Methodist." (Ruckman, Peter. 22 Years of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin. Vol. 7 Strictly Personal. 2004, p. 535) In 2007, an article appeared in which everything Ruckman writes about Bob Jones Sr. is positive. He portrays Bob Jones Sr. as follows:
They never gave the old saint even credit for believing his mother’s old King James Bible was the “final authority” for him in all matters of faith and practice all his life. (Bible Believers' Bulletin Mar. 2007, p. 7)
One thing we quickly notice is that Ruckman gives Bob Jones Sr. special treatment regarding his KJV position. When Ruckman deals with cases when Bob Jones Sr. corrected a KJV reading, strangely he will nearly always say something in his defense. For example, when it was told by Bob Jones III that Bob Jones Sr. "used references from other translations," Ruckman brushes it off with, “So do we all, kid.” (The Last Grenade, p. 144) In the following quote, Ruckman insists that Bob Jones Sr. was not an apostate, even though he knew that Jones had made a statement that he otherwise attributes to apostates:
All apostate Fundamentalists use the same line: “We can agree on the main things; there is nothing in these new translations that denies or does away with one ‘fundamental doctrine of the faith.’” Bob Jones Sr. was not an apostate Fundamentalist, but because he founded an interdenominational college, he appropriated that cliché in order to get students. While he did it (1929–1949), his faculty members spent their lives destroying the words in the Book from which Bob Jones Sr. learned the “fundamentals.” (Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 2004, p. 13)
Do you notice how he attributes that cliché to apostates and even admits that Jones appropriated it, but still insists that Jones was not an apostate? The double standard continues:
No Moslem or Roman Catholic Pope ever told a bigger lie than the Christian hell-cats who published the Amplified Version—the Lockman Foundation. (Ruckman, Peter. The Books of 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Philemon. 2005, p. 39)
What does the above quote have to do with Bob Jones Sr.? The relevancy is that Bob Jones Sr. was connected in at least a small way to the Amplified Version. Ruckman admits to the following:
He was invited to California to have his name associated with a “Gospel of John,” which was the first publication of the Lockman Foundation, in view of publishing a New Testament. (The Last Grenade, p. 298)
Does Ruckman refer to Bob Jones Sr. as a "hell-cat" for his association with the Amplified Version, (however remote it may have been) as he does for the publishers of the Amplified Version as we documented? Instead, Ruckman speaks defensively, minimizing Dr. Jones' participation. In some articles Ruckman was a little more candid about Jones' position:
For many years I have held up Bob Jones Sr. as a genuine King James Bible-believing Methodist evangelist who believed that when he said, “Whatever the Bible says is so,” he was always referring to the Bible by which his mother was saved, by which he was saved, by which he was called to preach, and by which he led hundreds of sinners to Christ in evangelistic campaigns. … Twice in May of 2008 I heard the late Bob Jones Sr. on “The Word of Truth” broadcast, on the Milton FM station, say “children” in John 1:12 instead of “sons.” Where did he get that from? His mother? Oh, no! He got it from his FACULTY MEMBERS: specifically Drs. Brunner (Greek New Testament) and Brokenshire (Hebrew Old Testament). A change had come across the “old-time,” “old-fashioned” Methodist evangelist! He had encountered “HIGHER CHRISTIAN EDUCATION.” (Bible Believers' Bulletin Nov. 2008, pp. 11, 17)
Not even Bob Jones Sr. escaped it completely. If you listen to his “Chapel Talks,” you will find occasionally (very rarely; less than one correction through ten 15-minute broadcasts… one time I heard Bob Jones Sr. quoting 2 Timothy 4:2 (from memory) during a “talk,” and he produced “teaching” for “doctrine.” That is the Satanic script of the ASV and NASV. (Bible Believers' Bulletin June 2007, p. 14)
“Once in a while he’ll [Bob Jones Sr.] slip and not quote a King James Bible.” [Ruckman blamed it on the BJU professors supposedly pressuring him] ("The Rich Man and Lazarus" March 2009 Sermons. Audio Recording)
Although we are grateful that Ruckman appears not to attack Bob Jones Sr. in spite of some areas of disagreement between them, this demonstrates that Ruckman will at times be very selective in his treatment of others.
Ruckman’s strange excuses for portraying Christian leaders of the past as Ruckmanites
Ruckman is sometimes able to find an isolated quote from a godly leader of the past that is worded in such a way that Ruckman can take advantage of it. However, writers exposing Ruckman point out how in virtually every case, these leaders also make statements in their writings that contradict that for which Ruckman stands. Ruckman invents strange but novel ways to attempt to justify taking advantage of isolated statements from these leaders even though it is known or can be demonstrated that their position is far from constituting Ruckmanism.
It is true that every believer has two natures. However, Ruckman abuses this Biblical concept in a weak attempt to justify overlooking and explaining away non-Ruckmanite views and statements of leaders of the past in order to wrongly portray them as Ruckmanites:
It is true that some of those men occasionally denied their birthright by adopting the pottage line of the Alexandrian Cult…but this may be attributed to their old natures and not to the work of the Holy Spirit in them. (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church. Vol. 2, 1984, p. 197)
We have often remarked on the fact that sometimes you find conflicting statements from people like Charles Haddon Spurgeon, R.A. Torrey, and others, in regards to the infallibility of the King James Bible. We have called the attention of the scholars to the fact (which they can’t face or discuss) that if two statements conflict, there must be two different men making different statements, or the one man is lying in one case. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Aug. 2006, p. 1)
When J. Frank Norris “ran to the Greek” in Acts 2:38 to handle a Campbellite, his old Adamic nature came “front and center.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. June 2007 p. 18)
Spurgeon and Torrey occasional yielded to Satan… (No author listed, but it bared Ruckman's unmistakable style. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. March 1991, p. 3)
Just as Ruckman has a double standard for Bob Jones Sr., it is the same with the men he tries to portray as Ruckmanites. He defends the cases of them deviating from the KJV as yielding to their old nature, and that if it were not the case, they would be lying men. He is either misunderstanding them (at best) or totally mischaracterizing their views (at worst).
…trying to find a place where Riley contradicted himself (as Spurgeon had done) and then sided with the LYING RILEY instead of the REGENERATED RILEY. (The Last Grenade, p. 308)
Spurgeon is either talking about a Book he is preaching from that he reads and listens to, or he is lying… (The Last Grenade, p. 269)
Ruckman's interpretation of the above quote is that Spurgeon had to be referring to the KJV when he would state that the Bible is inspired; if not Spurgeon would be a liar. This is a clever tactic, but since Spurgeon clarified his position indicating that he did not believe in inspiration of translations, Ruckman is the one who is turning Spurgeon into a liar.
In some cases, Ruckman tries to give the impression that certain leaders are Ruckmanites regarding the KJV, with the excuse that when they deviate from the KJV it was because they only want to impress:
W. B. Riley (1861-1947) believed the AV of 1611 was infallible and “handed down from heaven,” and except for one or two occasions where his old nature got the upper hand and he tried to impress someone with his knowledge (R.A. Torrey and Spurgeon both did this a few times), Riley stuck with the Book. (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Vol. 2, 1984, pp. 184-185)
It has been proved that every “godly” leader has two natures, and ONE of these will speak on one occasion for the Holy Bible, while the other one will attack it and correct it to impress scholars and educators. (The Last Grenade, p. 335)
Ruckman implies that the following leaders and 95 percent of the members of the 10 largest Baptist churches in America believe what Ruckman believes:
Oliver Greene … John Bunyan … and all the converts of Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, Bob Jones Sr., Gen. William Booth, J. Frank Norris, DeWitt Talmage, Charles Spurgeon, and 95 percent of the members of the 10 largest Baptist churches in America (1970-1985). You see, Hymers meant Ruckman is the only “scholar” who believes what he believes. (The Anti-Intellectual Manifesto, p. 34)
Ruckman states that Dean Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Edward Hills, Larkin, Riley, Torrey and Spurgeon were “real Bible believers.” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1970, p. 62; Bible Babel, p. 132) Although he does not use the designation “Bible Believers” in this particular case, Ruckman portrays other such men as John Knox, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, George Whitefield, General William Booth, Sam Jones, Peter Cartwright, Adoniram Judson, M. R. DeHaan, J. Frank Norris, “and forty million converts between 1620 and 2009” as holding to a position of which Ruckman approved. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. May 2009, p. 16) Although we may agree that they are Bible believers, Ruckman often calls other men who believe in the trustworthiness of the KJV but not its infallibility “apostates." However, as we documented elsewhere, several of the men that Ruckman calls “real Bible believers” have actually written that the KJV is not inerrant. Ruckman is revising history in an attempt to make himself appear as being reasonable, maintaining views that are mainstream among believers, and holding to a historic position.
Another argument Ruckman uses is to allege that some leaders who oppose Ruckmanism have changed their position. He does this without any proof whatsoever:
If the truth were known, John R. Rice, Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones III, Curtis Hutson, and Shelton Smith at one time believed that King James Bible contained the words of God, and they believed it was “the holy scriptures” given by inspiration of God, until they got an education. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. June 2006, p. 20)
Their [no names mentioned] previous loyalty was to a BOOK, and the stand they took for that Book was that the Book was the Holy Bible; the word of God. Their present position is that that Book is to be USED without being believed, and that it is not the Holy Bible but only a “reliable translation”… (Ruckman, Peter. The Pastoral Epistles. 1989, p. 289)
Another argument Ruckman uses to dismiss the whole issue is to allege that some quotes are made up after the authors die:
…or maybe make up a few, [quotes] like the publishers of R.A. Torrey and Moody did AFTER THEY WERE DEAD? (The Last Grenade, p. 144)
The above is a merely an unsubstantiated allegation, since no documentation or analysis whatsoever is presented to justify the serious charge.
In his book Bible Study Charts and Outlines, on p. 41 Ruckman has a long list of those he categorized as "Bible Believers." Although he did not label them "Ruckmanites" outright, he heaped praise on them, saying "This line believes the Book they USE and uses the Book they BELIEVE. Their profession is genuine." In this lengthy list he included such individuals as Oliver Green, Billy Sunday, W.B. Riley, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Sam Jones, Gipsy Smith, George Whitfield, Dwight Moody, Bob Jones Sr., etc., whom Ruckman has never quoted in context proving that they believed similar to him as to the infallibility of the Authorized Version. John Wesley even produced his own translation of the New Testament, in which he made thousands of corrections and alterations to the KJV! (Wesley, John. The New Testament. With an Analysis of the Several Books and Chapters. London, 1790)
We are demonstrating once again that Ruckman is inconsistent. He holds men up as examples who in the end actually disagree with his position once all of their writings are examined. He will bash men of the current generation as apostates for holding relatively the same position of men of previous generations whom he praises. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8)
I’d love to know how John Knox could have defended the KJV, given that he DIED in 1572, nearly 40 years before the KJV was published!
ruckmanism is extremism!
That assertion has much more gravity than can be grasped. Ruckman was an agent provocateur, for as I have documented in my treatise Ruckmanism vs Baptists of the Past, not one Baptist prior to him in all my archive held his views of bibliology. None of the Strict and Particular Baptists, none of the Waldenses, none of the Bogomils, Petrobrussians, Wycliffites, Hussites et al believed what he has so cancerously spread about because scripture does not state multiple inspiration much less other schismatic, heterodox doctrines. Flatly, they would have called him an Anabaptist the type of the Münster radicals against which dear Bunyan warned in The Heavenly Footman. My publisher at Gospel Mission said it well the other day — yesterday's heresies are tomorrow's orthodoxies.
If the Webmaster cares to read that treatise, it can be sent to him.