III. The Reformed View of Biblical Inspiration and Authority
The Reformed tradition offers a biblically grounded and historically consistent view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Rooted in confessional standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), the Reformed understanding emphasizes the primacy of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, the role of translations, and the doctrine of preservation through God’s providence. This section examines how these principles stand in stark contrast to the claims of Peter Ruckman’s King James Onlyism.
A. Confessional Standards on Scripture
The Reformed view of Scripture begins with a commitment to the inspiration of the original autographs, as articulated in confessional documents. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8) affirms,
“The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”
This statement highlights three key principles:
- Immediate Inspiration is limited to the autographs and authentic apographs.
- Preservation is a providential act of God, ensuring the reliability of the transmission of the original texts throughout history.
- Authority resides in the authentic texts, not in translations.
By contrast, Ruckman’s assertion that “The AV 1611 English corrects the errors in the Greek manuscripts” (The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 78) rejects the foundational Reformed principle that the authentic apographic texts, sometimes called original texts as the Reformers saw no distinct difference between the two, alone are inspired and authoritative.
The confessions also recognize the value of translations but emphasize their derivative authority. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1:8) states,
“[Scripture] being translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come…that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner.”
Translations are vital for conveying God’s Word to all people, but they are subject to and measured against the original texts. Ruckman’s claim that “The King James Bible is the final revelation of God’s words to man” (The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 17) directly contradicts this principle.
B. The Role of Translations in Reformed Theology
The Reformed tradition highly esteems faithful translations, acknowledging their role in disseminating God’s Word. However, these translations are not inspired or inerrant in themselves. John Calvin, for instance, praised the Geneva Bible for its faithfulness while acknowledging that all translations are human efforts subject to error.
Ruckman, on the other hand, asserts that the KJV not only preserves but perfects God’s Word. He writes, “God revealed things in the English of the KJV that He chose not to reveal in the Greek or Hebrew texts” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9). This view elevates a single translation above the original texts, a position entirely foreign to the Reformed tradition.
Additionally, Ruckman dismisses the role of textual criticism in preserving Scripture, declaring, “The Alexandrian Cult’s goal is to undermine faith in God’s Book, the KJV” (Alexandrian Cult Series, p. 2). By rejecting the necessity of evaluating manuscript evidence, Ruckman undermines the providential means through which God has preserved His Word, as recognized by the Reformed confessions.
C. Theological Issues with Ruckmanism
Ruckman’s theological innovations not only conflict with Reformed orthodoxy but also raise significant biblical and logical concerns. First, his claim that the KJV contains “advanced revelation” introduces a new phase of inspiration, implying that God’s Word was incomplete until 1611. This directly contradicts Jude 3, which speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” emphasizing the finality of God’s revelation in the apostolic era.
Second, Ruckman’s dismissal of the original languages undermines the doctrine of biblical inspiration. By stating, “Never use the Textus Receptus to settle anything; THE BOOK [KJV] will settle it” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9), Ruckman denies the primacy of the Greek and Hebrew texts, which are the very words God breathed out (2 Timothy 3:16).
Finally, Ruckman’s insistence on the exclusivity of the KJV addresses a legitimate concern about the divisive impact of modern translations within the church. His claim that “Modern versions are tools of the devil designed to replace God’s true Word” (The Mythological Septuagint, p. 23) rightly identifies the corrupt origins of many modern translations and the resulting fragmentation they have caused in the church. These translations, often produced by committees influenced by naturalistic textual criticism, represent what can be considered “evil fruit” from corrupt theological trees. This has led to confusion, doctrinal inconsistency, and division among believers.
However, Ruckman’s reasoning for addressing this problem is itself unbiblical. His elevation of the KJV to an inspired status and his dismissal of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as inferior to the KJV undermines the very foundation of biblical authority. Instead of promoting unity through fidelity to the original texts and their faithful translation, Ruckman’s approach replaces one error with another, creating unnecessary strife and drawing attention away from the ultimate authority of God’s Word as preserved in the authentic Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. This contrasts with the Reformed emphasis on unity through adherence to the truth of Scripture, grounded in the inspired and providentially preserved original texts.
Conclusion of Section III
The Reformed view of biblical inspiration and authority is firmly grounded in Scripture and articulated in historical confessions. It upholds the primacy of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as the divinely inspired Word of God, the value of translations as derivative and faithful representations of those texts, and the providential preservation of Scripture throughout history. Ruckman’s King James Onlyism, while addressing legitimate concerns about the doctrinal instability and division caused by modern translations, departs significantly from these principles. His elevation of a single translation to a position of ultimate authority, combined with his rejection of the primacy of the original languages and the introduction of the unbiblical concept of “advanced revelation,” undermines the biblical and confessional foundation of the Christian faith.
While Ruckman is correct to critique the divisive impact of modern translations, which often emerge from theologically compromised methodologies and promote confusion within the church, his solution replaces one error with another. By attributing inspired and corrective authority to the KJV, he shifts the focus from the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts, the true foundation of scriptural authority. In the next section, we will critically evaluate why Ruckman’s claims are both unbiblical and theologically untenable, even as they rightly highlight the dangerous fruit of modern textual criticism.
IV. Evaluating Ruckmanism Against the Reformed View
Peter Ruckman’s King James Onlyism departs radically from Reformed orthodoxy in its understanding of inspiration, authority, and preservation. This section evaluates his claims against the Reformed view, demonstrating the biblical, theological, and logical inconsistencies inherent in Ruckmanism.
A. Misuse of Scripture
Ruckman frequently appeals to passages such as Psalm 12:6–7 to argue for the divine preservation of the King James Version. He claims, “The words of the LORD are purified seven times, culminating in the AV 1611” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 12). This interpretation, however, misrepresents the biblical text. Psalm 12:6–7 states, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” The passage refers to the purity and enduring nature of God’s promises, not a specific translation.
The Reformed tradition understands this verse to affirm the reliability of God’s Word in general, as preserved through His providence. By applying it narrowly to the King James Version, Ruckman isolates the passage from its context and imposes a meaning foreign to the biblical text.
Additionally, Ruckman argues that translations like the KJV are superior to the original languages, asserting, “The King James Bible corrects the original Greek and Hebrew” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 8). This claim contradicts the biblical doctrine of inspiration, which teaches that God’s Word was “breathed out” in the original autographs (2 Timothy 3:16). Translations, while valuable, do not carry the same inspired status as the original texts.
B. Logical and Theological Problems
Ruckmanism’s theological framework introduces several inconsistencies.
- Inspiration of Translations:
By claiming that the KJV is inspired and possesses “advanced revelation,” Ruckman implies that God’s Word was incomplete prior to 1611. He writes, “God revealed things in the English of the KJV that He chose not to reveal in the Greek or Hebrew texts” (The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible, p. 17). This notion contradicts the biblical teaching of the sufficiency and finality of Scripture, as emphasized in Jude 3: “The faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” - Rejection of the Original Languages:
Ruckman’s dismissal of the Greek and Hebrew texts as secondary to the KJV undermines the doctrine of inspiration. He asserts, “Never use the Textus Receptus to settle anything; THE BOOK [KJV] will settle it” (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 9). This view conflicts with the Reformed understanding that the original autographs, as the words directly inspired by God, are the ultimate standard of truth. - Sectarian Division:
Ruckmanism fosters unnecessary division within the church by rejecting other translations outright. Ruckman declares, “Modern versions are tools of the devil designed to replace God’s true Word” (The Mythological Septuagint, p. 23). This combative rhetoric alienates Christians who use other faithful translations, contradicting the biblical call for unity within the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:3).
C. Consequences of Ruckman’s View
The practical and theological consequences of Ruckmanism are significant.
- Undermining Scriptural Authority:
By elevating the KJV above the original texts, Ruckman shifts the basis of biblical authority from God’s inspired Word to a human translation. This undermines the very foundation of sola scriptura, which rests on the authority of the original Scriptures. - Promoting Doctrinal Error:
Ruckman’s claim that the KJV contains “advanced revelation” introduces new doctrines not found in Scripture. This creates a theological framework that is more akin to the Roman Catholic veneration of the Latin Vulgate than to Protestant principles. - Isolation and Sectarianism:
Ruckmanism isolates its adherents from broader theological discussions and scholarship. By labeling textual critics and users of modern translations as “apostates” and “Jesuit-inspired liars” (The Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 105), Ruckman discourages meaningful engagement with the global Christian community.
Conclusion of Section IV
Ruckmanism’s elevation of the King James Version above the original texts, coupled with its combative rejection of modern scholarship, represents a significant departure from the biblical and Reformed understanding of Scripture. By misinterpreting key passages, introducing the concept of inspired translations, and fostering division within the church, Ruckmanism undermines the authority, clarity, and sufficiency of God’s Word. In the following section, we will examine why Ruckman’s claims are unbiblical and offer a biblical and confessional response to his errors.
Excellent article. If I may push back a little, modern versions consistently questions what God says as well as produce “chopped and screwed versions” of the Lord’s Word. It is very well known that modern versions cannot stand up to scrutiny as the KJB nor the versions prior to.
Since the versions prior to it include the Tyndale, upon which 80% was included in the KJV, and the Geneva is also a faithful translation of the authentic texts, you are in error there. Modern versions merely reflect the critical texts which were produced by Enlightenment philosophy which is unbiblical. Either way, Ruckman’s position that the AV is advanced revelation is just as unbiblical as the philosophy which produced modern versions. Neither position is consistent with Scripture. Furthermore, the AV is only authoritative because it accurately reflects the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was translated. Therefore, those texts are our ultimate authority. We know there content through translation but the translation does not replace them. It merely reflects them in English.