During the dawn of the 20th century in what came to be known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, our fundamentalist forefathers battled against theological liberalism. At stake were vital truths such as creation, the virgin birth, Bible miracles, the literal resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, among other clear Bible doctrines. One of the main areas of focus of the early fundamentalists was defending the inspiration and inerrancy of the original manuscripts. Our wise forefathers recognized that if the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible was not settled, there would be little hope for having the proper basis for defending and upholding creationism, the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, the resurrection, and other vital Bible doctrines being denied with increasing frequency. If fundamentalists had instead chosen to focus on the inerrancy of a translation in battling modernism in the early 1900’s, it would have been a huge distraction, and likely turned fundamentalists against one another instead of uniting against apostasy.
A number of the founding fathers of fundamentalism were not opposed to critical texts, and would sometimes quote from the Revised Version (NT published 1881; OT published 1885) in their writings. This does not reflect our position, but such a view is not heresy. Our founding fathers were not heretics! There were differing views among the earliest fundamentalists, however. Philip Mauro, one of the contributing authors of The Fundamentals, wrote a monograph in 1924 defending the KJV and opposing the critical text by the title Which Version? It should be noted, however, that in direct contradiction to Ruckman, he did not teach the inspiration and inerrancy of the King James Version. We will return to his views shortly.
Ruckman did not restrict his bitter criticism of fundamentalist leaders to those of his generation. The date range he provides himself makes it abundantly clear that the target of his criticisms include the earliest fundamentalists:
Why, there is no battle going on in those ranks! God shelved that bunch twenty to one hundred years ago. They have been holding little parade ground drills and wooden soldier exercises for twenty to one hundred years, and since none of them ever found THE Bible or read it, how did they get enlisted in a BATTLE for or against it? Those gentlemen spent 1880-1980 playing with Alice in Wonderland. (Ruckman, Peter. The “Errors” in the King James Bible. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1999, pp. 259-260)
The main Fundamentalists (1890-1990) didn’t stand ten minutes against any “terrifying odds.” They sold out as quickly as they were challenged. Parading as “stalwart defenders of the faith” they compromised with educated atheists, liberals, humanists, and “modernists” just as quickly as more than 200 popes had compromised with kings, emperors, atheists, Communists, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Fascists, and Nazis in order to keep their own POWER: the power of AUTHORITY. (Ruckman, Peter. “Studies in Satanic Bible Translating” Bible Believers’ Bulletin. May 2001, p. 13)
Ruckman shows little regard for the founders of fundamentalism who took a valiant stand against apostasy and earnestly contended for the faith, as can be observed in the following statement:
… this famous petticoat brigade that is always talking about “battles” and “contending for the faith” while they refuse to stand by the Book that the battle and the contention are about. The “Battle” in America (1700-1980) has always been over what the AV said that scholars didn’t like. The “contention” has always been over what the AV said with which Christians didn’t agree. Not once in the history of America (1492-2000) has there ever been even a skirmish or a rear guard action because of what the “originals” said; mainly because nobody ever knew WHAT they said. (Ruckman, Peter. The “Errors” in the King James Bible. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1999, p. 270)
That the battle in America has always been over what the KJV said that scholars didn’t like is a very twisted view of church history. Sometimes even Ruckman’s own writings betray this not to be the case. Notice this example:
In 1890, the liberal was debating whether or not there were two Isaiahs; in the 1920’s modernists were debating whether or not there was a personal God; in the 1940s, Fundamentalists were debating the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture; but by 1970, they were saying that there wasn’t one Book on this planet that was the final authority for ANYTHING. Fundamentalists in the 1970s and 1980s beat a hasty retreat to cover up their dirty apostate tricks when the infighting began in earnest in the early 1970s. (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Volume 2, 1984, p. 192)
Whether there were two Isaiahs or whether there was a personal God has nothing to do with Bible version controversies. Also modernists disputing Bible miracles or siding with evolution against creation (acknowledged by Ruckman elsewhere) is not a matter that has its source in whether or not one adopts the KJV or considers it inerrant. These modernists do not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures (therefore they could care less about any translation), and that is the root of problem. There are conservative evangelicals, for example, who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures without upholding the KJV, yet nonetheless hold to creationism, do not question the authorship of Isaiah or Bible miracles, who likewise believe in a personal God. Although we use and promote the KJV, Bible versions are not the heart of the matter regarding these issues. Ruckman oversimplifies and tries to make nearly everything a mere issue of rejection or acceptance of the KJV, when there are other deeper matters as the root cause behind the scenes.
Nearly all denunciations of the Bible by agnostics, modernists, skeptics and atheists are directed at the Bible in general, meant to apply to any version in any language. The Bible critics may choose at times to quote from the KJV when expressing their unbiblical views because of the longevity and the recognition of said version, but they would be undercutting their own arguments if they intended them to apply exclusively to the KJV and not the Bible in general!
The greatest need for more than 100 years has been convincing people that the Bible is the Word of God. That premise is foundational, long before the issue of translations even comes into the picture. Ruckmanites will try to confuse the issue by immediately asking the question of which translation is the Word of God, even before someone is grounded in the fact that the Bible is inspired of God.
More examples of Ruckman mocking fundamentalism:
“Fundamentalism” was the bedrock foundation upon which modern DEGENERATION and APOSTASY was built. (Ruckman, Peter. Twenty-Two Years of the Bible Believers’ Bulletin Vol. 8 Essays on Bible Topics. 2010, p. 567)
Not surprisingly, Ruckman uses expressions such as “apostate fundamentalists” as if it was somehow not a contradiction in terms. Ruckmanism in numerous areas is in complete discordance with fundamentalism and historic biblical Christianity. Ruckman tries hard at times to associate some key aspects of Ruckmanism with great preachers of the past, but upon close examination, the teachings which Ruckman is known for are found to be totally unique to him, and therefore the label of Ruckmanism attributed to his teachings by his critics is well deserved, and its use is not a sign of disrespect. The disrespect has been Ruckmanites calling themselves Baptists, perhaps to make it easier to infiltrate among the unsuspecting or most gullible.
Wretched, miserable, saved sinners (Fundamentalists foremost) have been attacking the words of God for about 100 years now and they have, quite naturally, passed their ignorance on from one school to another via the faculty members. … These overgrown babies… In view of the fact that all apostate Fundamentalists have taken the time and trouble to change the last two verses in 2 Peter, chapter 1, one could hardly say that the Second Epistle of Simon Peter is of no consequence. After all, when the “leading scholars” (those who profess to believe in the “plenary, inerrant, verbally inspired, Cotton Patch dolls”) will take time out to alter a verse so that it will prove their own private interpretations and theories (2 Pet. 1:20), we should certainly give the Book in which these changes occur some careful attention. (Ruckman, Peter. The Unknown Bible. Pensacola, FL: Bible Believers Press, 1984, 1996 reprint, p. 87)
No man whom we have quoted got his ideas about Greek texts or “accurate translations” from a Bible-believing pastor unless that pastor was thoroughly brainwashed (programmed) by an educational institution BEFORE he got into the pulpit. When this is the case, he spreads the viruses and germs of his diseased mind to the congregation, and they pass it on to others. This explains how really “good” men like C. I. Scofield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, John R. Rice, Curtis Hutson, John Broadus, and R. A. Torrey got infected. They were intimidated by scholarly intellectuals. They learned how to lie. (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian Liar’s Library. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1997, p. 172)
Men who disagree with how the KJV translated a verse will be labeled by Ruckman as apostates, yet our fundamentalist forefathers, who believed what Ruckman deplores, boldly took a stand against real apostasy over 100 years ago. During the era known by church historians as the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, our Fundamentalist forefathers lost positions, salaries, retirements, church buildings and entire institutions as part of the price for separating from true apostasy. The King James version is very important, and we advocate for its continued use, however it never was, and should never become, one of the fundamentals of the faith.
If you notice Ruckman’s writings closely, he often bitterly criticizes and mocks the “historical positions” of Fundamentalists and Baptists. This is because in some important areas they don’t line up with Ruckman’s views. In others words, Ruckman is admitting that he does not believe what Baptists and sound Christians have historically believed. This constitutes his self-designation as a Baptist as misleading. In the following quote, Ruckman equates holding historic fundamentalist positions with “stagnation” and “remaining stuck in the mud”:
You can always spot these apostate fundamental theologians by their constant references to what they call “the historic Fundamentalist position.” They are not interested in believing the Bible or in causing the tumult that Luther and Paul caused. They are only interested in justifying stagnation on the grounds that they believe what a real Bible believer professed to believe two or three centuries ago or ten to fifteen centuries back. “Historic Fundamentalist positions” are often adopted as alibis for remaining stuck in the mud… (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Volume 2, 1984, p. 120)
The blindness of the Fundamentalists and their “historic positions” was one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of Christianity… (Ruckman, Peter. History of the New Testament Church Volume 2, 1984, footnote 61 for chapter 10)
With this much printed material available to anyone, there is no reason any longer why any Christian should think that the “historic positions” of the Fundamentalists are CHRISTIAN operations. Their stand on “THE BIBLE” is the operation of the old nature in the believer. Its source is Satan and the flesh, and its damnation is its own attempts to “explain” its position. (Ruckman, Peter. The Pastoral Epistles. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, p. 475)
These apostate Fundamentalists think they are superior to the word of God. They say the rallying point is the fundamentals, which, of course, is a lie. The rallying point is the written revelation of God from which the fundamentals were extracted. The modern apostate Fundamentalist in a Christian college or university is living back in the 1920s and 1930s when the big battle was over the “fundamentals of the faith.” Things have progressed a great deal since then. The apostate Fundamentalist falls fifty years out of step with the time and doesn’t realize that in the 2000s the big issues have nothing to do with the fundamentals at all. It has to do with authority. (Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Pamphlet vol. 12. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1986, p. 28)
In the quote to follow Ruckman starts with an accurate statement, but then in our view immediately thereafter engages in historical revisionism:
The Liberals and Modernists and various denominations apostatized back in the 1920s and 1930s. It wasn’t until the 1950s and 1960s that the Fundamentalists began to fall into apostasy. They did it by the simple device of sacrilegious idolatry: they put their churches and their schools ahead of the Bible. Then they called anybody that put the Bible first a “Bibliolator.” (Ruckman, Peter. Theological Studies. Pamphlet vol. 18. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1986, p. 18)
In the above quote, Ruckman conveniently placed the “apostasy” of Fundamentalists at the time he comes on the scene, as if Fundamentalism suddenly changed from what it had previously believed. This he did not prove. Fundamentalists were using the KJV since the beginning, but it was not unusual for them to occasionally quote from a modern versions, and suggesting the inerrancy and inspiration of the KJV was almost unheard of, except those with little or no theological training.
Tyndale (1525) has the verse [2 Tim. 2:15] as it has been preserved for us today (460 years!) in the AV, in spite of the wretched, disgusting, miserable, rotten, apostate work of apostate Fundamentalists who talk about “the historic fundamentals of the faith” and “historic positions.” (Ruckman, Peter. The Pastoral Epistles. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, pp. 216-217)
What did the founding fathers of Fundamentalism believe about the original autographs, the KJV, and Bible versions in general? They did not write extensively on the matter, as it was not a major issue, with the Revised Version (British edition)/American Standard Version as the only modern translation generally available. It seems few adopted the Revised Version for exclusive use (although some Fundamentalist preachers began to quote from it sparingly in their sermons or writings) therefore it had not created a major controversy at the time, forcing everyone to take a bold stand for or against.
One exception among the contributing authors to The Fundamentals was Philip Mauro, who would go on to publish the book Which Version? Authorized or Revised? in 1924. Mauro’s contributed several portions to The Fundamentals, in which he quoted John Burgon once but also quoted approvingly from the Revised Version on at least four occasions. His contributed portions in The Fundamentals did not reveal his views on Bible translations, as they were solidified later. The last volume of The Fundamentals was issued in 1915. Mauro’s book on the KJV was no published until nine years later.
Quotes from The Fundamentals, originally published in 12 volumes between 1909 and 1915:
Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record-the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it. (Gray, James M. “The inspiration of the Bible – definition, extent and proof” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Vol. 2. R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon, et al, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996 reprint, pp. 12-13)
First, they know that most of these apparent errors and contradictions were long ago satisfactorily answered, even to the silencing of infidel scoffers; and Second, they know that no one believes that the translations and revisions are inspired. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is simply this: The original writings, ipsissima verba, came through the penmen direct from God; and the critics are only throwing dust into the air when they rail against verbal inspiration and attempt to disprove it by pointing out the apparent errors and discrepancies of the authorized and revised texts. (Munhall, L. W. “Inspiration” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Vol. 2. R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon, et al, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996 reprint, p. 45)
Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as some suppose. Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text? Let candid consideration be given to these things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phantom in contending for an inspired autograph of the Bible. (Gray, James M. “The inspiration of the Bible – definition, extent and proof” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Vol. 2. R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon, et al, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996 reprint, p. 14)
We take the ground that on the original parchment-the membrane every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke jot, tittle was put there by God. On the original parchment. There is no question of other, anterior parchments. (Bishop, George S. “The testimony of the Scriptures to themselves” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Vol. 2. R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon, et al, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996 reprint, p. 92)
This one is not from The Fundamentals, but written by one of the contributing authors from another source:
Second, they know that no one believes that the transcribers, translators, and revisers were inspired. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is simply this: The original writings, ipsissima verba, came through the penmen direct from God; and these gentlemen are only throwing dust into the air when they rail against verbal inspiration and attempt to disprove it by pointing out the apparent errors and discrepancies of the authorized and revised texts. (Munhall, L. W. The Highest Critics Vs. the Higher Critics. New York: Revell, 1892, pp. 20-21)
Although we favor the KJV and the Byzantine manuscripts and believe in defending them properly, true apostasy is not determined by differences of opinion regarding manuscripts or Bible versions. Otherwise, our Fundamentalist forefathers, who sometimes quoted the Revised Version approvingly, and did not believe in inspired or inerrant translations, were actual apostates, while deludedly believing they were fighting real apostasy, and thereafter deceived several generations into thinking they were taking bold stands against apostasy, all while being apostates themselves. We must not rewrite history by turning heroes into villains! But this is what Ruckman essentially has done.
Since J. Frank Norris, in spite of his notable contribution in building one of the largest churches in America, was arguably the most controversial of the early fundamentalists, it should be no surprise that Ruckman focuses an inordinate amount of attention on him. Ruckman will occasionally praise someone like W. B. Riley, C. I. Scofield; however, in his History of the New Testament Church, in chapters dealing within the timeframe of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, he is silent about many of the key men and their contributions. In said chapters there is nothing about the Niagara conferences, the publishing of The Fundamentals, the role of William Jennings Bryan in “the trial of the century” in fighting evolution, etc. As glaring as these omissions are regarding watershed moments in the history of the church, it suggests such omissions were likely intentional.
Our Fundamentalist forefathers wrestled with the issue of the original manuscripts in a physical form no longer with us. Here is an example from Munhall, who was one of the writers for The Fundamentals. The following was written under the context of those who “rail against verbal inspiration and attempt to disprove it”
But some say, “Since we do not have the original writings, what is the use of insisting upon the doctrine of verbal inspiration?” I answer, there are two sufficient reasons: First, If the original writings were not inspired of God verbally, then we have no Word of God. Second. Is there no difference between an inexact copy of an inerrable record and a faulty copy of an uncertain record? I think there is. (Munhall, L. W. The Highest Critics Vs. the Higher Critics. New York: Revell, 1892, p. 21)
L.W. Munhall (1843-1934), whom we just quoted, contributed to The Fundamentals and even preached for J. Frank Norris.
In the following quote, Ruckman portrays Fundamentalism as if it consisted of filth and sleaze:
We will stick with the Book: you stick with “frisking for Roscoes,” and the “contracts” and the “squealers,” and the junkies, pimps and prostitutes of Fundamentalism. Obey your Cape; respect your godfather. We go with the Book. (“The Christian Mafia” Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Jan. 1992, p. 17. Bold added for emphasis.)
Ruckman’s bitter criticism of fundamentalist historic position is not limited to the Bible versions issue, as the following quote reveals:
No one in the Old Testament was saved by “looking forward” to anything. That is an apostate’s cliché for claiming that Old Testament and New Testament salvation are identical, which they are not. They are not and never will be. That is why there are TWO testaments. Didn’t you read John 1:17? (See comments on Rom. 10:5–6 in that commentary.) In these matters, the “historic position” of all “Fundamentalists” since 1800 is HERESY. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of John. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2005, p. 48)
Conclusion
Even if Ruckman would have never criticized the earliest fundamentalist leaders who took a bold stand for the faith, his views directed at modern fundamentalists when applied to the fundamentalist forefathers would make them apostate. That is because Ruckman considers the questioning of even one word in the KJV the very definition of apostasy, and by such criteria the earliest fundamentalist leaders would be guilty.
For the most part, the first generations of fundamentalist leaders were fairly united and fought against the apostates and not against each other. J. Frank Norris, although he built a large work, unfortunately started a trend of going not only after apostates, but also against fundamentalists with which he disagreed, doing so with the same vigor as against the heretics. Ruckman took this even further, and to top it off, added his cultic teachings.
If our forefathers had capitulated to modernism instead of taking a bold stand, our nation could have been engulfed with apostasy, and Ruckman and many reading this may have never heard the gospel. Yet Ruckman tragically mocks historical positions that fundamentalists have stood for and often refers to its leaders with some of the worst pejoratives imaginable. Christian, beware!