Anyone who engages in the Bible Versions debates will become familiar with the name of Peter S. Ruckman. Some elevate him as a demigod and others despise him as the devil. My opinion about him can be found here: The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman.
Because Ruckman is such a lightning rod, it has become a popular tactic to identify a King James Bible supporter as a “Ruckmanite.”[i]
What is a Ruckmanite?
Is there a standard definition that is useful and consistent when using the term “Ruckmanite”? Here are three explanations I found online, with one being very broad, and the other two relatively close.
- A Ruckmanite is one who follows the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such.
- A Ruckmanite is anyone who is King James Version Only.
- A Ruckmanite position is one that is hyper-dispensationalism (e.g., OT saints saved by works, etc.) and hyper-KJVOism (advanced revelation, KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew, foreign language Bible should be translated from the KJV, etc.).[ii]
Valid or not, like the wording or not, these represent explanations that I found online. I think the term “Ruckmanite” gets used in all three of those ways. Based on the comments I have read in Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere, the terminology “Ruckmanite” is undefined (i.e., it has no standard and easily recognized meaning). It means anything and everything – whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is not worth much other than as a pejorative. (It really fits the modern secular divide-and-conquer methodology.) Calling a KJV supporter a “Ruckmanite” is the equivalent of calling a person a racist, Nazi, and such like .The term is not very useful beyond that, and should be avoided.
Is there a proper, standard, and consistent way to define a “Ruckmanite”? What are your thoughts?
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.
6 comments:
I think either option 1 or 3 have to be legitimate uses of the term, particularly #1 though. If you've bought the "seven-foot shelf", quote him uncritically in your preaching, evangelize for the Ruckman reference Bible, are amazed at his "new revelation" ideas, and defend him against all comers and at all costs, then you're a ruckmanite; a follower of the man.
Thanks, Adam. I agree. There are people who are clearly “all-in” followers of Peter Ruckman and they can legitimately be called Ruckmanites. I think the larger problem is that the term loses that meaning when it is used to smear KJB supporters generally.
Sorry, Adam. I was using my phone and didn’t realize that I was not logged in.
By the way, I had to look up the "seven-foot shelf." I see it is only $1,312.00!! Or "low payments" of $118.42 per month! From what I've seen, if you removed all the name calling from his books, you could probably get the "shelf" down to two-foot or less.
I laughed for two minutes at the "shelf" dialogue. But I grieve for the folks that have turned away from Christ because of the vitriolic attitude of people like PR. Thankfully, the Spirit CAN draw them back. :)
Definitions 1 and 3 combined. Definitely a person who swallows hook line and sinker whatever the persuasive P.R. taught, or the one who grew up in these teachings and accepted them without questioning. If you read the KJV for yourself and compare what’s being said to what the printed word says, you can spot error. I wanted to love the KJV. Before I got out of high school I realized there were some archaic expressions that were not understood today. I began my own research to find a reliable translation. That was in the 1960s. I settled on the NASB and now I use the LSB. There are many other good ones, but those are the ones I chose because the pastor was using them. It’s hard to follow along when the pastor is reading from a different version. If I go to a church where the pastor uses a lot of different translations in his sermon I consider that a red flag. That is because I think he is looking for one that says it the way that best represents his point of view. I feel sorry for the KJV only Ppl because I feel that they have been manipulated into a position that is not based on facts. It reads beautifully, but when I found out what “suffer the children” meant, I realized that I needed one with updated translation.
Post a Comment