Below is a photo of the major portion of our collection of Ruckman books, pamphlets and recordings. We are posting them here because we have been accused more than once of just borrowing Ruckman quotes from others who have written against him. Although exactly what to count is debatable, our figures reveal that Ruckman has written 138 books, tracts and pamphlets, totalling 32,718 pages.* One thing is certain–Ruckman is not a lazy man!
* Our count does not include Ruckman's Apocalypse, which is made up exclusively of his artwork, nor his reference Bible. The page count does not include Absolute Standard Versus the "Greek Original," which is out of print and not in our posession. Some books have also been revised and enlarged, which would affect the final page count. In the August 2010 issue of the Bible Believers' Bulletin, six months after we posted these figures, Ruckman listed his page count at 32,000. Either we were right on target, or they used our number.
Oh! You have the glue bound books with the old covers…
I have been a fan of Dr Ruckman since 1977 and have never heard of “Absolute Standard Versus the “Greek Original”. I have about 70 of his books (including his Reference Bible) and none of these mention it. I disagree with Dr. Ruckman on a few minor issues but generally he is solid in Baptist doctrine. To say he “passes himself off as a Baptist” is a false statement. I have met Dr. Ruckman several times and played softball and volleyball with him at a youth camp. Other preachers and teachers have tried guessing the date of the Rapture and have missed it. Dr. Ruckman always says “if our calendar is right” when discussing the Rapture.
Why is Ruckman trying to figure out when The Rapture happens? We ate told to be READY for His return, not guesstimating time frames.
The "Absolute Standard Versus the 'Greek Original'" by Ruckman was advertised at least once in an old issue of the Bible Believers' Bulletin. The reason I don't believe Ruckman should call himself a Baptist is not for one reason only, but for many departures from historical Baptist and biblical beliefs as documented on this website. Thank you for being polite in your comment, which seems rare for a defender of Ruckman.
I disagree with Ruckman on abortion, in fact, the best book I have found on the anti-abortion issue was written by one of his graduates, Glen Stocker,my former pastor when I lived in Amarillo TX. I take a stand somewhere to the position that all involved in the abortion( the mother, the father, parents and the doctor are guilty of FIRST DEGREE MURDER!! I disagree with his views on the believer’s glorified body. Ruckman is right on the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, ordinances of the church, Church age salvation, soul-winning, and other doctrines. Just because he is pre-tribulational as far as the rapture does not brand him as not being a Baptist.
Hyper-Calvinists deny the local church, the need for casting bread upon the waters, and much more than the mere beliefs Baptists (I speak as a Vadious descendant) of Christ dying for the elect alone and evidentiary faith which proceeds regeneration. That makes us neither Calvinists (we predate them some 1500 years) nor Hyper-Calvinists because we abhor the majority of what they believe. Ruckmanites, Hylesites, Richlingites, Denlingerites and so on deserve to like the Cooneyites have the name of another than Baptist or Biblicist because they have a heretical doctrine of inspiration that no Baptist believed, and surely not confined in the Protestant sola and tota scriptura. Hymenaeus and Philetus were named because they "concerning the truth have erred, and overthrow the faith of some", so they were no more sound than they were Baptists. As an admirer of Philip Mauro, Bishop Ryle, Dr John Rice and Dr Ian Paisley, I can state emphatically Ruckmanism, Riplingerism in addition to Hylesism do not fall in the fundamentalist pervue. None of the fundamentalists, even Drs Waite, Fuller or other more recent worthies held to the views of Ruckman; rather, they as this website in part denotes, regularly oppose it.
Pleased don’t continually bring up Calvinism and reformed doctrine. That is not what this website is about.
The articles on this website provide abundant documentation to show that Ruckman is not a Baptist. Ruckman is on record stating that he is against the historical positions of Baptists:
As to abortion, I am aware that Ruckmanite Glen Stocker wrote a book against abortion, stating in the first line of the introduction that it is murder. However, not only did he not warn against Ruckman's views on abortion in the book, he actually mentioned Ruckman positively (for one of the quotes he is known for) in passing on p. 12! According to the Bible Believers' Bulletin, Feb. 2009, Glen Stocker spoke in Ruckman's 2008 Bad Attitude Blowout. Because Ruckman is looked upon as a hero by his followers in what some would describe as a cultic fashion, Ruckman gets a free pass. Ruckman can say abortion is not murder and his followers who believe the exact opposite in something this significant will keep quiet and still defend him and not take heed to Biblical commandments such as, And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 2 Th. 3:14.
I wrote a comment her and you have not included it. Is there a reason for this?? Perhaps you did not like my remarks and desided not to include them.
Your comment was posted on the page containing the critique of Ruckman’s reference Bible, but your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the RRB. It was not merely a matter of disagreeing. If you look around, you will find many comments I approved that I did not like. Your comment was off topic.
rucman teaches that as adam the baby does not become a living soul until it takes its first breath. the breath of life. just from the bibles view, seems to be right . not a popular teaching but until god breaths the breath of life into something you could have cut adams head off,before god breathed into his nostrals the breath of life and nothing would happen . so you cant murder something that’s not a living soul. now I know the developing baby kicks moves so forth and so on, but until god breaths the breath of life into there nostrals sorry, there not a living soul!
your interpretation of life is not taught in the Bible without twisting scripture. when John the Baptist was being formed in the womb of Elizabeth, God called John a baby before he was born, he most certainly had life before he breathed or was born. In Luke 1: 39-45 we have the account of Mary visiting Elisabeth. In verse 42, God said the babe[notice GOD CALLS IT A BABY] leaped in the womb of Elisabeth,thereby proving he was alive before he ever took a breath!Good luck getting something to jump that is dead. there are plenty of living things that God created in this world that don’t even breath. Adam was a direct creating and children are born, so in my opinion it is like comparing apples to oranges as far as how we entered into this world. in Luke 18:15 , Jesus was brought infants to touch. The greek word for infants in that passage is brephos which means unborn and born. Are you saying Jesus wasn’t alive in Mary’s womb until He was born and started breathing? try studying the Hebrew word for soul sometime-it may help you. sincerely Charley
Don't the Jews in their writings take this same stand? I have heard some even go as far to say the soul doesn't enter the body until 8 days after birth. Would like to find more writings on this.
On my podcast (if God is gracious and it can get the hardware required), I have as an ex-Ruckmanite endeavored to refute some of his non copos mentis heresies. Would you suggest the books The Last Grenade and Full Cup as worthwhile?
I know this might be a little off topic, but considering this article has to do with Dr. Ruckman's books, I was wanting to know which is your personal favorite book defending the King James Bible and/or which book (by any author) do you consider the best book on the subject, and what are your thoughts about James R. White's book 'The King James Only Controversy'?? Thanks,
See Recommended non-Ruckmanite literature in defense of the KJV or Textus Receptus
If your talking about Ruckmans beliefs against Baptist I see nothing wrong with them. I am a Baptist Pastor and I dont believe a person has to be Baptist to join my church.(I believe you have to be baptist after salvation but dont believe you have to be rebaptist to join mine) I dont belive in closed communion which we would all argue on that being Baptist. I believe we would argue back and forth on if its ok to have snakes in Sunday School. I know baptist that believe we our going through the tribulation. So anyone can say I dont believe in Baptist beliefs. I guess Dr. Ruckman is the standard like the KIng James so everyone is on board of going after him. The ones that say: I dont beleive everything he teaches. Someone taught you what you dont believe is right with Ruckman. Give me the name of the man that taught you and I would guess I can find lot of things wrong with him. If he was smart enough to publish anything.
Is it just me or does this Parnell fellow not make any sense?
Parnell is guilty of the incoherent babbling that I often read on here and other Christian sites from sloppy Christian writers. They don't write well and their grammar is atrocious. I often find this is also a major problem with Christians who don't hold English as their primary language. I have been into online scuffles with these chaps before and its mainly do to the language barrier, so I don't waste my time conversating with such foreigners. But some of the brethren are just plain ignorant and backward and should just stay off social platforms altogether.