-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John R Rice and Jack Hyles were not dispensationalists?
- Thread starter J.D.
- Start date
Thought both were strong holders to that theology?
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
@John of Japan would be able to give a pretty accurate answer here.
@John of Japan is John R. Rice's grandson and has written his biography.
Unless I am very much mistaken, he has said several times that J.R.Rice was not dispensational. Dunno about the other guy.
Unless I am very much mistaken, he has said several times that J.R.Rice was not dispensational. Dunno about the other guy.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
I don’t know what he has said but I am interested in his input.
Hey! "Great minds think alike!" We both posted the same thing at the same time!
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
I have classified John R. Rice as a historical premillennialist, but contra some of that stripe he was also pre-trib. He was definitely not a dispensationalist. He respected Scofield, but disagreed with him in his books and sermons numerous times. His number one disagreement was his belief that the church did not begin at Pentecost. Also, he included the OT saints in the church.
Following him in this belief got me in trouble when I applied to my mission board, which was dispensational. In my application, I said concerning the doctrinal statement that I did not agree that the church is "peculiar to the age of grace." They sent me to Dr. Monroe Parker, a true fundamentalist scholar, and I spent a day with him, then left convinced by his brilliant arguments that yes, the church is peculiar to the age of grace.
I then joined the board and was sent to Japan. On the way there we stopped in CA at a church, and stayed with a guy who grilled me on my theology. He ended up saying, "I'm telling your mission board that you are not a dispensationalist." I shut him up with, "They're the ones that told me that!"
Concerning Hyles, I had thought that he was a dispensationalist. I have very few books of his nowadays. I got rid of a ton of all sorts of books when we moved back to the States. However, I have the weird book by him, Enemies of Soul-Winning, in which he proved that he did not understand dispensationalism by attacking Scofield as an "ultra-dispensationalist." Hyles was nowhere near to being a theologian, so I recommend ignoring anything he said doctrinally.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
What does that mean? The church is peculiar to the age of grace? Church and grace are very different from Israel under Mosaic law, for sure.I have classified John R. Rice as a historical premillennialist, but contra some of that stripe he was also pre-trib. He was definitely not a dispensationalist. He respected Scofield, but disagreed with him in his books and sermons numerous times. His number one disagreement was his belief that the church did not begin at Pentecost. Also, he included the OT saints in the church.
Following him in this belief got me in trouble when I applied to my mission board, which was dispensational. In my application, I said concerning the doctrinal statement that I did not agree that the church is "peculiar to the age of grace." They sent me to Dr. Monroe Parker, a true fundamentalist scholar, and I spent a day with him, then left convinced by his brilliant arguments that yes, the church is peculiar to the age of grace.
I then joined the board and was sent to Japan. On the way there we stopped in CA at a church, and stayed with a guy who grilled me on my theology. He ended up saying, "I'm telling your mission board that you are not a dispensationalist." I shut him up with, "They're the ones that told me that!"
Concerning Hyles, I had thought that he was a dispensationalist. I have very few books of his nowadays. I got rid of a ton of all sorts of books when we moved back to the States. However, I have the weird book by him, Enemies of Soul-Winning, in which he proved that he did not understand dispensationalism by attacking Scofield as an "ultra-dispensationalist." Hyles was nowhere near to being a theologian, so I recommend ignoring anything he said doctrinally.
It means that the church (as the body of Christ) does not include OT saints. The church dispensation started with Pentecost in Acts 2, and does not include any saints from the dispensation of Mosaic Law, or any dispensation before that. I prefer "church age" to "age of grace" myself. There has always been grace, but not the church.
John R. Rice partly based his belief that the OT saints were part of the church on Acts 7:38 which uses ekklesia, church, for the children of Israel. Now Rice was a theologian but did not know the Greek that well, though he had taken courses at Southwestern Baptist Seminary. So he didn't realize that it could and should have been translated "assembly" there instead of "church."
The way I reasoned after meeting with Dr. Parker was that there are many things that are peculiar to the local church: believer's baptism, Sunday assembly, the Lord's Supper, the Great Commission, etc. So the church age is definitely different from other dispensations.
Last edited:
He did believe in dispensations, just not dispensationalism. Ryrie states that the sine non qua (absolutely necessary) of dispensationalism is the separation of Israel and the church. Rice did not hold to that doctrine.
So neither holding to Dispy nor Covenant Theology?
Not being a dispensationalist he was not always conversant with the doctrine. In the quote you give, he doesn't specify what notes. His book on False Doctrines has a chapter on ultra-dispensationalism, but I don't have it here. Maybe I can bring it tomorrow and give some quotes.
Correct.
Why did you go more strong Dispy views then?
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
In this sermon Rice concentrates on the "Acts 28" Bullinger, but in the area of baptism, mid-Acts dispensationalists such as O'Hair and Stam agree with Bullinger that baptism is not for this dispensation. But Rice does not mention those men in the sermon.
I kind of had to grow up and think for myself at that time in my life. I was simply accepting all that my grandfather taught without question. Interacting with the good men of the mission board, I began to rethink some things.
I was quite blessed by Dr. Monroe Parker, the director of the board and a fundamentalist evangelist and scholar (1st PhD given by BJU; also studied at Princeton). When I got in his car to go to lunch, I had to move his Greek NT which was on the seat, and it was worn to a frazzle! That impressed me. He was kind and gracious and patient with me, as were most of the the other men on the candidate committee I met with.