Replies

Peter Ruckman is not welcome even among many of his fellow independent, KJV only, fundamentalist Baptists. However, his views regarding the fate of the ten “lost” tribes agree with those of evangelical and liberal historians. I suspect he is not comfortable agreeing with scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary or Harvard University, but facts are facts. The British-Israelite theories are largely built on coincidences, for instance, that the various “Dan” place names in Europe, such as the Danube River, derive from the tribe of Dan or that the Saxons of England and Germany are actually "(I)saac's sons". The most likely scenario is that of the ten tribes' intermarriage with other Jews or members of surrounding pagan nations and their consequent disappearance.

I am not a defender of every single particular position of Dr. Ruckman.

That he agrees with Dallas Theo. with regard to Israel is certainly not a discomfort to Dr. Ruckman, I'm sure. He agrees, with grace, with many on many Biblical subjects, who don't agree with him on others. Such is the case with most of us. I use books to develop teaching materials from which I must scrub some sections from my consideration, like any teacher does. Dr. Ruckman would do the same. His bookstore has a wide range of books (probably even some from Dallas), and carrying them does not suggest that he endorses every expression of teaching in every book.

There are a couple of areas of teaching on which I would not jee-haw with Dr. Ruckman at all. I labor with some graduates of his institute who didn't either swallow everything he taught. They are good strong men and good servants of the Lord, I'll say that. I still recommend his books to discriminating readers for their general value.

I am in general fellowship with preachers who would never have Dr. Ruckman in their pulpits, but many of them have his books in their libraries — and use them.

I am using a Theology (book) even now that is chock full of quotes from Louis Chafer (Dallas), to develop a three-year theology course for Chinese men. I dare say that Dr. Ruckman has read it and could probably tell us what is on most of the pages from memory. I will leave most of the quotes from Dr. Chafer in tact in the lessons, ‘cause they are right and good.

I'm also using some material from Dr. Ruckman and a dozen other sources as well.

I have been in some question-answer sessions where Dr. Ruckman was the one answering the questions. I have seen antagonists go after him on many issues. What impressed me is that he always responded with grace and with reserve. They were unusual and surprising sessions.

I went back and read your post again, and am thinking that you have perhaps taken from my posts that I don't believe in the restoration of Israel (which Chafer did and Ruckman does; I don't know about Harvard[!]). I am in agreement with the general theological positions of Louis Chafer, including that on the future restoration of Israel, and firmly believe that Israel will be the head and not the tail among the nations. I am not a purveyor of British-Israelism, neither were the editors of THINGS TO COME (London, 1894-1915).