Greatest Baptist Theologian of the 20th C

[Rhetorician]

John of Japan et al,

I was reared in Nashville, TN. My home church was minimally SBC w/a Bob Jones pastor.

In the early-mid 70s we were in the bus ministry. I had a ss bus route that won probably hundreds to the Lord.

We went to all of the conferences at the time, combo, church soul winning, bus conferences, Sword of the Lord, etc. I heard Jack Hyles and "John R." as I called him speak. There seemed to be an underlying spiritual difference b/t the two men.

My wife and I also took kids to the "Bill Rice Ranch." There was a tenderness and spiritual depth to the Rice family and my Bob Jones pastor that I have yet to see or experience from any other IFBer anywhere @ anytime.

Unless you have intimate knowledge of this dear old saint of God firsthand, please do not run down his memory and reputation on any level!

sdg!

rd

 

[John of Japan]

Rhetorician, thank you for the kind words about Grandpa Rice and the family! You know, there is a really good chance we crossed paths at a Sword Conference or the Ranch.

I went to college at BJU in 1970, then TTU in 1972. I worked at the SOTL in 1977, living with my grandfather in Murfreesboro, then went on deputation at the end of that year. So I attended a lot of SOTL Conferences in the late '60's and all through the 1970's. During deputation I lived with my folks in Murfreesboro. If you were at the SOTL National Conference in Indianapolis in 1974, I was the skinny kid helping Mike Crain with his martial arts demonstration.

 

[Rhetorician]

Rippon,

As to the influence of Arthur Pink; he was also known, respected, and spent time in western KY. Dr. H. Boyce Taylor, long-tme pastor or Murray FBC, had Pink come for several (I suppose Bible Conf. type) meetings.

I think Dr. Taylor stopped pastoring there c.1932. A young and upcoming Baptist scholar was under the tuteledge of both during that time, especially Dr. Taylor. His name was Roy O. Beaman.

I came under the mentorship of Dr. Roy O. Beaman @ Mid America in the early-mid 80s. He taught me Systematic Theology and some NT.

I can remember Dr. Beaman's recounting those days when he got to spend personal time with both Taylor and Pink in his early formative years.

It seems the more I look and read on the BB the more I find I have "Baptist Roots" going out in all directions. HA!

sdg!

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

John of Japan,

Maybe you can clear up something for me concerning Dr. Rice. He always hated the "Doctrines of Grace" or Calvinism as they are called with derision? And he was strong on "once saved-always saved!"

He would use people like Charles Spurgeon who was an avowed Calvinist. He would use people from the Arminian camp as well. Both; those who believed in predestination, and those who believed you could loose your salvation; on the front page of SOTL from week to week.

Can you explain that to me? Was this not a bit inconsistent in his level of doctrinal commitment in this venue? It is always caused me to wonder?!

sdg!

rd

 

[John of Japan]

Rhetorician, I don't want to give a quick, easy answer on this, so please wait for a day or two. My wife and I just finished shoveling a couple of inches of snow, and now I'll go on "dendo" (evangelism)--and I thought I might ought to have a bulletin ready for tomorrow, and a Japanese missionary is coming in tonight. You get the picture.

God bless!

 

[Tom Butler]

Dr. Rice sounds to me like a typical 20th century Baptist. Strong on God's sovereignty, strong on salvation by grace through faith, strong on eternal security. But eachewing both the terms Calvinist and Arminian. Sort of a hybrid.

Tom B.

 

[John of Japan]

You've hit the nail on the head, Tom. And many on all sides loved him and learned from him. (I've met them.)

 

[lchemist]

James McClendon, Jr.

 

[lchemist]

Another strong candidate is C. Rene Padilla.

 

[preachinjesus]

Carl F.H. Henry

 

[MikeinGhana]

Better make our heroes dead guys fellows. That way they cannot embarrass us in their later years! Know anyone that has done that?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
Better make our heroes dead guys fellows. That way they cannot embarrass us in their later years! Know anyone that has done that?

Yes indeedy!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Candidates:
If you are measuring influence, John R. Rice--a practical theologian (not an academic) with tremendous influence through his 200 books and the "Sword of the Lord" newspaper. I've talked to pastors from many different Baptist groups who were influenced by him.

John R. Rice could not qualify as a great theologian for the simple reason that he was a dispensationalist.

I. Christ's Imminent Return Clearly Stated By Christ Himself

The Bible is full of teaching about the second coming of Christ and related events. Those of us who take the Bible literally and believe it all and are therefore premillennialists, expecting the literal, bodily, physical return of Christ and His reign upon earth are foretold in the Scriptures, have much to preach. We have the great themes of the resurrection; the rapture or meeting Christ in the air; the judgment seat of Christ; the great tribulation; the man of sin, or Antichrist; the glorious return of Christ with saints and angels; the battle of Armageddon; the restoration of the Jews to Palestine; the judgment of the living nations; the millennial reign of Christ on David's throne, etc. All these matters ought to be preached for they are clearly taught in the Bible. But, very strangely, we often neglect the greatest theme in connection with the Saviour's coming, and that is that His coming is imminent, and that every Christian is commanded to watch! watch! watch! for no man knows the day nor hour when He shall come.

Ref: http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Jesusmaycometoday.html

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Candidates:
If you are measuring influence, John R. Rice--a practical theologian (not an academic) with tremendous influence through his 200 books and the "Sword of the Lord" newspaper. I've talked to pastors from many different Baptist groups who were influenced by him.

John R. Rice could not qualify as a great theologian for the simple reason that he was a dispensationalist.

I. Christ's Imminent Return Clearly Stated By Christ Himself

The Bible is full of teaching about the second coming of Christ and related events. Those of us who take the Bible literally and believe it all and are therefore premillennialists, expecting the literal, bodily, physical return of Christ and His reign upon earth are foretold in the Scriptures, have much to preach. We have the great themes of the resurrection; the rapture or meeting Christ in the air; the judgment seat of Christ; the great tribulation; the man of sin, or Antichrist; the glorious return of Christ with saints and angels; the battle of Armageddon; the restoration of the Jews to Palestine; the judgment of the living nations; the millennial reign of Christ on David's throne, etc. All these matters ought to be preached for they are clearly taught in the Bible. But, very strangely, we often neglect the greatest theme in connection with the Saviour's coming, and that is that His coming is imminent, and that every Christian is commanded to watch! watch! watch! for no man knows the day nor hour when He shall come.

Ref: http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Jesusmaycometoday.html </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, OldRegular, you are wrong. John R. Rice was pre-trib, pre-mil, but he was definitely not a dispensationalist. He came to the pre-trib, pre-mil position through his own study based on a historical-grammatical literal hermeneutic, but he rejected dispensationalism.

For examples, read anything he wrote on ecclesiology. He believed that OT saints were included in the church, and that the church did not begin at Pentecost. For this he would cite Acts 7:38, which speaks of the "church in the wilderness." Also, I've heard him preach that the meaning of Pentecost was not the founding of the church as per Scofield, but that it was for the believers to be empowered with the Holy Spirit.

Having said this, I think your contention that a dispensationalist cannot ergo be a great theologian is extremely narrow-minded!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Having said this, I think your contention that a dispensationalist cannot ergo be a great theologian is extremely narrow-minded!

A dispensationalist cannot be a great theologian because dispensationalism is a false doctrine, ergo, that theology which is false cannot be great!

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Having said this, I think your contention that a dispensationalist cannot ergo be a great theologian is extremely narrow-minded!

A dispensationalist cannot be a great theologian because dispensationalism is a false doctrine, ergo, that theology which is false cannot be great! </font>[/QUOTE]Dispensationalism is a false doctrine because you say it is, therefore it is a false doctrine. Oh, brother.

Dispensationalism derives from a literal interpretation of Scripture. And evidently you think this is evil. That is really weird, and it brands you yourself as either not orthodox, or believing in the allegorical interpretation of Origen and the like. Or maybe just plain ignorant. Which is it?

Let me ask you: have you ever seriously studied what Dispensationalism is? Have you read the works of Ryrie, Walvoord or Pentacost? If not, don't bother me, please. I have better things to do than answer the type of theological prejudice that brands a perfectly orthodox and literal method of interpretation as "false doctrine."

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Dispensationalism derives from a literal interpretation of Scripture.

The above statement is false. Dispensationalists twist Scripture to dig themselves out of the doctrinal pit they have dug. The literal interpretation of the following two passages of Scripture shows that dispensationalism is a false doctrine and that they lie when they profess to consistently interpret Scripture literally.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

In the above passage Jesus Christ teaches one resurrection and judgment of all the dead, not multiple resurrections and judgments as the dispensationalists falsely do.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

If Jesus Christ came to establish an earthly Messianic Kingdom as dispensationalists claim then Jesus Christ could not have truthfully said: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. He did not establish an earthly Messianic Kingdom, He did not come to establish such a kingdom as the dispensationalist falsely claims.

Dispensationalism is a false doctrine, as such it does not rise to the level of theology.

I will not honor the rest of the garbage you posted with a response other than to say that dispensationalism which was invented less than 200 years ago by John Nelson Darby cannot be considered orthodox!

 

[rsr]

This is not the place to debate the merits dispensationalism. I apologize for not nipping in the bud this line of discussion, but consider it over.

If you want to debate dispensationalism, start up (another) thread in the theology forum.

Thank you.

rsr

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Erasmus:
Who do you consider the greatest Baptist theologian of the twentieth century?

You mean after me?

 

[MikeinGhana]

Yes, Mike, maybe we should have said the second greatest, huh?