John, it seems to me your refusal to discuss it has nothing to do with me being an "unloving person" or whatever you ar4e trying to imply by the above comments.
No, he is saying that you have too little information to make the conclusions that you do from the book.
I've basically posted the same.
It seems to me that you will not discuss it because you are a fundamentalist (not one like me who simply stands and fights for the fundamentals of the faith). The type I have been referring to in this thread has one glaring characteristic- they DON'T debate- at least not when the scrutiny is intense.
This is really so very inaccurate of John's posts.
He answers questions, he applies Scripture and language skills, and has a history of being extremely factual.
That he now steps away from your rant is warranted. Even the OP assumes what the article does not share as the OP account, and more you have yet to document from the author the points of your rant.
Frankly, I am beginning to consider that you actually know nothing of John R. Rice, nor Andrew's actual writing.
A good example of this is your refusal to answer the questions put to you. This is what this type of fundamentalist does. He wants to preach things and have everybody accept what he says because he says it and if you WON'T accept it then he cuts you off.
John answered the questions, but you refused to acknowledge the answers because they didn't agree with your bluster.
As far as me loving my neighbor. You don't know what I do for my neighbor. There is nothing about this site that could reveal that. You don't know how many hurting people I have helped and how many tears I have shed with them. You don't know how many souls I have won, hungry people I have fed, power bills I have paid, abused children I have taken into my home- you don't know any of it.
I don't care.
We aren't comparing who is greater based on works. That is elementary.
What I have suggested is that you do your homework before you are critical of John R. Rice.
You claimed he was "narrow minded" but that was proven false.
You claimed Andrew credits the grandfather with his rebellion, but that was proven false.
You claimed that folks turn to rebellion out of rejecting the preaching of fundamentalists, but that was shown as false.
I will suggest once more. Until you actually discover the person and discuss doctrinal errors and moral failures you have no Scriptural stand to criticize.
I think it is telling that without any cause you pass judgment so easily on someone who disagrees with you.
This is another common characteristic in the ranks of the people to whom I am referring.
Really?
And YOU are not passing judgement? You are not posting extremist thinking and broad brushing?
YOU, who have misread the article and cannot post proof for the accusations?
John R. Rice and I did not agree on every thing. John of Japan and his grandfather did not agree on everything - he has posted areas as examples.
But, I never met a man who spent more time in prayer, had a greater desire that believers mature in the Scriptures, and had an enormous drive to witness to the unsaved.
You could take a few lessons from his character.
Millions flowed through his fingers and he lived what we might consider simple means. John actually used the word "frugal" if I recall correctly in another thread.
Unbelievable influence among all races of believers and among Baptists of different views, he was highly regarded, sought after, and in demand among many SBC pastors as well as IFB folks, yet would take time to visit with the humblest with as much intensity of love and concern as expressed to any other.
I am not exalting him, but reporting his some of his character and accomplishments.
You have so missed the mark as to his preaching style, and that shows how very little you really know about this issue, too.
NE has the right to be critical of what another assembly chooses as a pastor in style of preaching and leadership UNLESS there is doctrinal error and moral failure that can be documented.