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.