I don't understand how Ruckmanites can emphasize and demand belief in dispensationalism. (As a former active member of a Ruckmanite church, I am well aware that they simultaneously insist on Ruckmanism and Scofield dispensationalism). Scofield, in his "Introduction - To Be Read" in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible, stated, " The discovery of the Sinaitic MS and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition."
Scofield dispensationalist theology is firmly based on the teachings of men such as those listed above, which Ruckmanites condemn as "Bible correctors" and "Alexandrian cultists," and yet Ruckmanites demand that we blindly accept the Scofield teaching or be branded as brainless compromisers and infidels.
For an example of Scofield's correction of the King James Version to bolster his dispensational theology, see page 1271 of the Old Scofield Reference Bible, which is regarded as sacrosanct by Ruckmanites, where Scofield says, "The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2:1, where 'the day of Christ is at hand' - should be, 'day of the LORD is now present.' Scofield corrected the KJV in order to promote his mistaken notion that the day of Christ and the day of the LORD are two different events.
I don't see how I can simultaneously and consistently accept and affirm both Scofield dispensationalism and Ruckmanism at the same time, and yet this is what Ruckmanism demands that we do.