Featured IFB Leaders On Expository Preaching

Knowing both of the men mentioned in the OP, I will make these comments.

Jack Hyles was a cult leader. He thrived on power and he is not the kind of preacher or the kind of preaching to emulate. There are still those who are blind to the teaching and character of that man.

John R. Rice was a great leader and (imo) a great scholar and theologian of balance and insight. His writing is continually being an influence across the theological spectrum even after all the time from his passing.

He and I didn't agree on some areas, but that isn't (or wasn't) unusual. Few agree with me about everything. He was a man of prayer. In fact, I have never met anyone to compare him to in that area. He had great concern for any believer who wanted to grow in wisdom in the things of God, yet was not one to spend great lengths with one who was merely trying to bask in his fame. John R. Rice had contacts and the respect of his peers in almost every area of the Baptist influence not only among the IFB world.

I will make a comment as to the general thinking of the OP.

There are those that would scorn expository preaching, and contend that it doesn't lead to "soul winning." However, what type of "soul winning" is being spoken of by those folks?

If it is "pray this prayer after me" to get to heaven when you die types, then such a comment holds very little weight.

"Growing" a "great church" isn't the goal of the witness. The believing witness seeks to proclaim the Gospel because they cannot contain the wonder and hide it from others.

There MUST be a balance of BOTH topical and expository teaching / preaching in an assembly.

Expository preaching / teaching IS found in the Scriptures.

It is exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ did in Luke 24:27:

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.​

Some will respond that that is "topical" because He didn't go verse by verse.

Actually, He did - beginning with Moses.

 

It is God who gives the increase, not man, not sermon styles. I prefer exposition to 'text and tantrum' Hyle's type sermons. Exposition is rightly handling the Word and going through a book in this manner gives the preacher direction and a long track to stay on. There is also not a thing wrong with a good topical sermon.

 

Dr. Rice was first an evangelist - he had the heart and ministry focus as an evangelist.

He was schooled at Baylor university, (back when Baylor was actually more strict with students than any fundamental school ever was) and he was the type of man who longed for souls to be redeemed.

He viewed the "sinner's prayer" as not a way to gather numbers, but as a tool to allow the believer to point to a specific time and place as the point of redemption. Besides, there is (with the appropriate use) nothing basically wrong with the "sinner's prayer."

It wasn't until many years after John R. Rice's death that Jack Hyles was exposed as the fraudulent person he turned out to be. Imo, had John R. Rice been much younger and made aware of the real character of Hyles, he would have not only rebuked him to his face, but published such a rebuke that the assemblies would know the truth.

Unlike Hyles, Dr. Rice was a man of Godly character.

 

You have misrepresented John R. Rice's position. In the first place, you left out the first part of the sentence, which said, "At the risk of being misunderstood...." So you have done exactly that, misunderstood. Note that even in your quote he said, "as it is done in most...," meaning that it can be done rightly.

He continues after your quote saying, "I know that the pastorate is required to be 'apt to teach' (1 Tim. 3:2), and that God's people ought to be taught the Word of God. But unfortunately most expository preaching is more or less a routine matter, is not aimed at particular objects" (ibid). Notice his use of the word "most" instead of all. His point was that even expository preaching ought to have a goal of changing lives and winning souls. I'm pretty sure all homiletics texts would agree on this. Just teaching the Bible without applying it is deadening.

One of John R. Rice's close friends was W. A. Criswell, who preached through the Bible and built a great church, seeing many souls saved. I have no doubt that John R. Rice approved of that kind of expository preaching.

 

Neither was a Calvinist, and both would have also rejected the label of "Arminian."

 

Yes, John R. Rice used the altar call, though it was invented by Calvinists (not Finney as is usually thought). H. Leon McBeth writes, "The separates thus devised a method of encouraging on-the-spot religious decisions, to the singing of a hymn, well before the revivals of Charles G. Finney, who is often credited with inventing the invitation" (The Baptist Heritage, p. 231).

As for "the sinners prayer," I don't know where you got the idea that John R. Rice used the sinner's prayer, but he did not. His normal method of dealing with a lost person was, after presenting the Gospel, to pray for them and then, with head still bowed, ask them to take his hand if they were now believing in Christ. He would then lead them to pray a prayer of thanksgiving for salvation. This can be clearly seen in his 1955 film, "Bringing in the Sheaves."

About revivalism, John R. Rice's top priority was the saving of souls. What's wrong with that? He was a great revivalist and I thank God for his revivalism.

 

That statement just cannot pass without a challenge. He might be commended for many things --but certainly not the above. It's just absurd. as Llloyd Streeter has said, he "was a theological train wreck."

Really? Rather, it remains in narrow confines.

 

Yes well Jack Hyles isn't a great person to go to in regards to anything biblical. He was a heretic and adulterer.

 

Agreed!

 

And he will be totally unbiased. ;-)

 

Was adultery ever proven or was he just accused?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk