My Position on Dr Peter S Ruckman

 

     Dr Peter S Ruckman was an Independent Baptist Pastor as well as founder of Pensacola Bible Institute.  He was a controversial figure among the Independent Baptists for many reasons, but probably the main issue for them was that he was twice divorced and married 3 times.  Most Independent Baptists take 1 Timothy 3:2, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” to mean a pastor can only be married once.  Most would probably allow a remarriage if the first wife passed away, but that would be the only exception.  Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, in mainstream Christianity, Dr Ruckman’s position of believing and using only the King James Bible is considered controversial, since most mainstream Christians accept the position that only the “originals” were inspired and that all “conservative” translations are legitimate to use.  The majority of Independent Baptists use only the King James Bible, so any criticism Ruckman received from them on the KJV Only issue would concern the “mechanics” of how God preserved His word.  Some have said Ruckman believed the KJV translators were inspired, thus claiming “double inspiration.”  If Ruckman ever directly taught the King James Translators were inspired, then I missed that lesson.  The other main issue Ruckman was most criticized for by many Independent Baptists and mainstream Christianity was his “dispensational views” especially in regards to salvation.  For the “non-dispensational” or even “Acts 2 Dispensational” Baptists as well as those in mainstream Christianity Ruckman was considered “Hyper Dispensational.” 

     Considering the above, the question now comes up, “How About Ruckman and the Mid Acts Grace Believers?”  Many in the “Mid Acts Camp” are KJV Only, although they may disagree with Ruckman on the mechanics of how God preserved His word, there would not be much criticism of him in this regard from that group.  Of course, there are some Mid Acts people that accept any “conservative” translation, so they would be critical of the KJV only position of Ruckman.  Most of the Mid Acts people do not believe Ruckman went far enough in his dispensationalism, as opposed to the Independent Baptists and mainstream Christianity that believe Ruckman was a “hyper.”  I think Ruckman sometimes liked getting caught in the “middle,” because I heard him say more than once, “When you have both sides cussing you, then you know you have taken a Scriptural position.”  Having read all Ruckman’s commentaries and in comparing the teaching contained in them to the traditional Mid Acts teaching of Stam, O’hair, Baker, etc. the biggest difference I see is Ruckman practiced water baptism while the former did not.  Ruckman’s Bible teaching also would make as much “practical” application as he could to the “church” even if the book or passage was aimed doctrinally at the Kingdom Program of Israel.  He got a lot of criticism for this as well from the Mid Acts people.  They would usually say, Ruckman was not “rightly dividing.”  The truth is Ruckman taught Romans through Philemon was doctrine for the “church,” just like traditional Mid Acts people, and he understood that Genesis to John and Hebrews through Revelation presented Kingdom doctrine for Israel.  Ruckman in his “preaching zeal” would often muddy the water in his preaching, and as a result, his “right division” was not always as clear as the Mid Acts people would prefer. 

     Ruckman was more of an Acts 2 Dispensationalists when it came to “when the church started,” but he qualified that belief by stating, nobody knew the church started until Paul revealed it after his salvation in Acts 9.  In my opinion Ruckman was basically a “Mid Acts Baptist,” although he never claimed that title.  The Mid Acts people are very critical of Ruckman’s modified Acts 2 position because of it mixing “Jewish” stuff with the “church.”  Ruckman’s response to this was if the Mid Acts people really wanted to get consistent on everything, then they needed to follow E W Bullinger who eventually took the “Acts 28 Position” to avoid all the “Jewish” stuff in Acts.  I actually heard Ruckman say E W Bullinger was the most consistent of the dispensationalists.  Ruckman’s goal post was Acts 2 or the cross when it came to starting the “church,” and he was familiar with the Acts 9 and 13 goal post positions as well.  I don’t agree with Ruckman’s Acts 2 position, but in my mind, it is no more inconsistent than the Acts 9 or 13 Positions.  Moving the goal post to Acts 9 or 13 still does not get rid of water baptism, tongue speaking, miracle working, or Pentecost observance, etc.  The truth of the matter is the only way to get rid of water baptism, tongue speaking, miracle working, Pentecost observing, etc. is to put the goal post at the end of Acts 28 or take the position that God allowed both the Kingdom to continue to be offered during Acts with a new grace gospel being preached for individual salvation.  Paul describes his ministry in Acts as a “dispensation of the gospel” being committed to him (1 Cor 9:17).    Toward the end of Acts Paul definitely knows about the “mystery” (see Rom 16:25), although the details of it are not revealed until Paul writes Ephesians and Colossians after Israel’s final rejection of the kingdom in Acts 28.  Paul’s ministry after Acts 28 is described as being a minister of the “Mystery” dispensation (Col 1:25-27) in which he would fulfill or complete the word of God.  With the kingdom offer temporarily over at the end of Acts, Paul writes in Colossians that the ceremonial observances have no spiritual role in the dispensation of the mystery, but will again be part of God’s program in the future (Col 2:16-23).  So, considering this I would disagree somewhat with Ruckman’s dispensationalism as well as most of the Mid and Acts 28 dispensationalists. 

     Overall, I would say if one can get past Ruckman’s personality and demeanor, then I would recommend Ruckman for his stand on the King James Bible and his zeal to preach the gospel to the lost.  In my opinion, Ruckman’s modified “mid acts dispensationalism” is no more inconsistent than the Acts 9 or 13 position.  I agree with Ruckman that Bullinger was one of the most consistent dispensationalists, although I don’t fully endorse all of the Acts 28 position.

Smart "Rear End" Grace Believers

      I would have used another word for "rear end" in the title of this blog post, but some would have accused me of cussing if I had done so.  At any rate I want to address what I see as a problem among some grace believers.  In their actions and words they often come across as arrogant and "smart rear ends."  This is not how our Apostle Paul told us to conduct ourselves.  He states in Col 4:[6] "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."  Unfortunately many grace believers I have witnessed speak with all salt and very little or no grace to season it.  

     I will give an example of one being a "smart rear end" grace believer.  I heard a grace preacher once speaking of the truth that we have already been blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ.  This is certainly a true statement and I rejoice in it!  However, I heard him speak of some worker at a grocery store telling him to have a blessed day when he finished shopping.  I don't remember exactly what he said he told this employee, but he implied that this person was "stupid" for telling him to have a blessed day since he was already blessed with all spiritual blessings.  A better response would have been to thank this person for wishing him a good day, and maybe explain to this person the spiritual blessings that can be had in Christ. 

     You see the truth of the matter was this grace preacher was so "smart" that he actually showed his "back side" when it comes to both practical matters as well as doctrine.  He implied that he thought it is wrong to tell people to have a blessed day or to try to be a blessing.  Practically speaking we should always greet people with an attitude of blessing rather than cursing.  Our Apostle, that this grace preacher claims to follow, told us to "bless, and curse not" (Rom 12:14).  Paul actually teaches that even under grace there are physical blessings we can still experience.  He states, "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).  

     Unfortunately many grace believers' testimony is "curse, and bless not." 

Grace Believers and Hell

     Some Grace Believers reject the doctrine of hell, I assume because Paul did not specifically use the term "Hell," yet he does use terms like "flaming fire" and "everlasting destruction" that will be experienced by those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thes 1:8-10).  

     I already have a blog post on "Did Paul Believe in Hell" if you are interested.  See

https://acts20gracebeliever.blogspot.com/2022/01/did-paul-believe-in-hell.html

     If anybody, including Grace Believers, gets a doctrine wrong (hell, polygamy, Trinity, soul sleep, etc) the core of the problem is not with their "brand" of dispensationalism, whether Acts 2, Mid Acts, or Acts 28.  The core of the problem is rejecting the final authority of the King James Bible.  FYI, according to my computer the KJV uses the term "hell" 64 times in the Old and New Testament.  Although our Apostle Paul never used the term "hell," he did say in 2 Tim 3

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

     Hell existed before Paul was given the revelation of the mystery, for example, see Mat 10:28.  Hell continued to exist after the revelation of the mystery, for example, see Rev 20:13-14.

Grace Believers and Polygamy

      There is a fringe group in the "right division grace camp" that believe polygamy is OK under Grace.  It is true that God allowed polygamy in time past, but that was not His perfect will.  Genesis 2:23-24 states,

[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Note that in the beginning the first marriage was arranged by God and it consisted of only one man and one woman.  This teaching of only two in marriage (male & female) was also confirmed by Christ during His earthly ministry.  Matthew 19:5 states,

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The Apostle Paul during the Acts period as well as after Acts 28 confirms marriage as one male and one female becoming one flesh.  1 Corinthians 6:16 states,

[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

For one that might argue that things changed after the final offer of the Kingdom in Acts 28 in regards to the doctrine of marriage, note that Ephesians 5:31 (written after Acts 28) states, 

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

God's perfect will under Grace, even after Acts 28, is for marriage to be between one man and one woman for life!

This "fringe" group of "right dividers" who have put their stamp of approval on polygamy actually give right division a bad name and cause some to reject the Bible instruction of 2 Timothy 2:15.   Some of this same group also reject the doctrine of the "Trinity" (see my previous blog post on this subject).  Another characteristic of some in this fringe group is they also reject the doctrine of hell.  I have an old post on my blog "Did Paul Believe in Hell," but I may do an updated post on this subject as well.  Some say these people got off base on these issues because they went too far in right division.  I disagree.  My belief is that these "fringe" right dividers got off base on these issues, not because of their "right division" (whether it be Mid Acts or Acts 28), but because they rejected or changed words in the King James Bible. 

Grace Believers and the Trinity

      For some strange reason there a some grace believers that are weak on the doctrine of the Trinity.  Yes, I know the word, "trinity" is not in the Bible, but I believe based on my study of the Bible that it is a valid doctrine in the Bible.  

     The word "trinity," as stated is not in the King James Bible, but a similar word is, "Godhead."  This word is mentioned, guess how many times in the King James Bible?  Three!  Consider the following:

(1) Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

(2) Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(3) Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Since "Trinity" means three, I find it amazing the word "Godhead" is mentioned only three times in the King James Bible.  For those that do not share my belief that God supernaturally used the King James translators to preserve His word in English, then one might argue that it is just a coincidence that "Godhead" shows up only three times.  Well, notice something else remarkable about the inspired text.  In Acts 17:29 the "Godhead" is not to be thought of in regard to how many things?  Three!  Note the three things listed in Acts 17:29, gold, silver, and stone.  

     Romans 1:20 takes the context back to creation in discussing the "Godhead."  In Genesis chapter one we see God refers to Himself in the plural "us" and "our."  Genesis 1:26 states, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  Adam of course had a physical body that was made in God's image as stated in Genesis chapter one.  Notice how the third reference to "Godhead" in Colossians 2:9 states in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.  In Genesis one you have God mentioned as well as the Spirit of God in reference to the work of creation.  Colossians 2:9 seals the deal of the Trinity by showing that the bodily image of Adam had to be that of the Son, Jesus Christ.  So at creation, you have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all present.

     In conclusion, most grace believers I know claim to be Bible believers, so I am not sure why a number of them seem to be week on the doctrine of the Trinity in light of the above passages, and of course there are many more passages that I could have cited defending the Trinity.