John R. Rice and IFB Evangelism

[evangelist6589]

I have moved and the church of my spouse is a small IFB one. They are against friendship evangelism, but seem to lean towards John R. Rice and IFB type evangelism. They do not embrace Way of the Master, however they are not opposed to it. So in other words they are big on tracts, conversations, and are not against open air preaching. What is the main difference between IFB evangelism in people like John R. Rice and Way of the Master evangelism? If Chic Tracts is an example of IFB evangelism, then I can say that they are far more condemning than WOTM and are hyper KJVO of which our church is KJV Preferred.

When I was at BJU I heard some good solid IFB pastors of people like Tom Farrow, etc… The big difference between him and Comfort was the Bible Translation issue, the issue of separation, the use of the law in evangelism, and the sovereignty of God in salvation, as Farrow seemed to be more focused on convicting people to make a decision and using guilt to do so, over using the Law to let the Holy Spirit convict and produce true converts and not false ones.

 

[evangelist6589]

Perhaps I found my answer.

http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2310

 

[annsni]

Spouse?? When did you get married?

 

[Salty]

Spouse?? When did you get married?

On his wedding day :smilewinkgrin: :love2:

 

[Winman]

Spouse?? When did you get married?

Yeah, that got my attention too. :tongue3:

And maybe I'm being picky, but you should say "wife". A spouse might be a male or female in today's world.

Of course, I am ASSUMING you married a woman aren't I? :laugh:

 

[Servent]

Why not ask his grandson JOJ

 

[RLBosley]

I have moved and the church of my spouse is a small IFB one. They are against friendship evangelism, but seem to lean towards John R. Rice and IFB type evangelism. They do not embrace Way of the Master, however they are not opposed to it. So in other words they are big on tracts, conversations, and are not against open air preaching. What is the main difference between IFB evangelism in people like John R. Rice and Way of the Master evangelism? If Chic Tracts is an example of IFB evangelism, then I can say that they are far more condemning than WOTM and are hyper KJVO of which our church is KJV Preferred.

When I was at BJU I heard some good solid IFB pastors of people like Tom Farrow, etc… The big difference between him and Comfort was the Bible Translation issue, the issue of separation, the use of the law in evangelism, and the sovereignty of God in salvation, as Farrow seemed to be more focused on convicting people to make a decision and using guilt to do so, over using the Law to let the Holy Spirit convict and produce true converts and not false ones.

From my research John R Rice seemed to be a good, godly evangelist/preacher. He preached repentance and genuineness in conversion. The problems with IFB evangelism came in with his successors and some contemporaries like Curtis Hudson, Carl Hatch and Jack Hyles. All three of which and many others who follow them have virtually tried to erase repentance from the Bible and are numbers driven and very prideful. They are one of the biggest reasons you see so much "1,2,3 pray after me" pseudo-evangelism going on.

I've listened to several of Rice's sermons and I don't remember them perfectly but I remember them to be fairly good. :thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

From my research John R Rice seemed to be a good, godly evangelist/preacher. He preached repentance and genuineness in conversion. The problems with IFB evangelism came in with his successors and some contemporaries like Curtis Hudson, Carl Hatch and Jack Hyles. All three of which and many others who follow them have virtually tried to erase repentance from the Bible and are numbers driven and very prideful. They are one of the biggest reasons you see so much "1,2,3 pray after me" pseudo-evangelism going on.

I've listened to several of Rice's sermons and I don't remember them perfectly but I remember them to be fairly good. :thumbsup:

I do not know Carl Hatch, and I was not a big fan of Jack Hyles, but Curtis Hutson was a very godly man who brought thousands to Christ.

Curtis Hutson absolutely believed repentance was essential to salvation, but perhaps not as YOU understand repentance. Here is an article he wrote on the very subject.

http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/repentance.html

I happen to agree with Pastor Hutson's definition of biblical repentance.

He was a GREAT preacher.

 

[RLBosley]

I do not know Carl Hatch, and I was not a big fan of Jack Hyles, but Curtis Hutson was a very godly man who brought thousands to Christ.

Curtis Hutson absolutely believed repentance was essential to salvation, but perhaps not as YOU understand repentance. Here is an article he wrote on the very subject.

http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/repentance.html

I happen to agree with Pastor Hutson's definition of biblical repentance.

He was a GREAT preacher.

Read it already and it's full of faulty reasoning and strawman arguments. You say you weren't a big fan of Jack Hyles, but Curtis Hutson was virtually his carbon copy.

And Carl Hatch was probably worse, just thankfully less influential:

Carl Hatch says:

I don’t ask anybody if they want to be saved. If you want a positive answer you must ask a positive question. If you want a no answer ask a no question. If you want a yes answer ask a yes question. Soul winning is positive. And in soul winning you use a lot of reverse psychology and psychology.

For instance, if you are lost and I say, “Mr. Smith, let me ask you a question. You don’t want to go to hell, do you?”

He will answer, No.

I say, “Wonderful, you want to go to heaven, don’t you?” He will say yes. I will reply, “Sure you do. Sure you do. Sure you do. Sure you do. I thank God for a man that doesn’t want to go to hell.”

Did you get that? I am reinforcing the fact that he wants to go to heaven. I’m keep everything positive.

I don’t say, “Can I show this to you?” or “Do you mind if I read the Bible to you?” That’s negative and you will probably get a negative answer. I don’t ask people; I just say, “I’m so glad you don’t want to go to hell and I will just take a minute here to show you some verses. I don’t have long and I know you don’t, either. There’s three things that you need to know. First, Jesus died for you. Isn’t that wonderful? Two, Jesus loves you. Isn’t that wonderful? Three, Jesus wants you to go to heaven. Isn’t that wonderful? And I’m so glad that you want to.”

See, I am being positive.

He may say he has a lot of questions, but unsaved people don’t have questions. Don’t get on unsaved people’s questions. Tell them that you will answer their questions later, but first you want to read a few verses of Scripture. Unsaved people don’t have questions. If you get them saved, that answers all of them.

Let me tell you how to deal with someone who has a dumb spirit who bucks getting saved. You share the gospel and get them to the point of praying the sinner’s prayer, but they stop. How do you get that type of person saved? Now, this will work in most cases. If he is a man, put your hand on his shoulder and say, “Mr. Jones, I want to have prayer for you. I’m thrilled you want to go to heaven. God has been good to you. Bow your head with me. Then I pray, “Lord, I’m so thankful for this man that doesn’t want to burn in hell. I’m so thrilled he wants to go to heaven and not take his kids to hell. I thank you for this man. And I pray you will help him to see that need.” While our heads are still bowed, I say, “Mr. Jones, if you want heaven as your home and Christ as your Saviour, pray this prayer. Lord Jesus.” And if he doesn’t repeat that and tries not to pray, I squeeze his shoulder. I use this technique. If I am dealing with the president of the bank, I take his hand and when it comes time for him to pray, I squeeze his hand. We’ve titled that the Carl Hatch squeeze. It works. If I am dealing with a woman, I ask her to put her hand on the Bible, and when it comes time to pray I just tap her hand gently. It works; it works.

Link
I've bolded the particularly atrocious sections.
This is an excerpt from a larger body of work published by David Cloud of Way of Life. Cloud is also IFB yet adamantly opposed to the easy believism of Hutson, Hyles, and Hatch (must be a theme going here...).


As a disclaimer: I think Cloud is off on several things as well, music and ultra-separatism in particular, but he has his good points.

 

[Winman]

Read it already and it's full of faulty reasoning and strawman arguments. You say you weren't a big fan of Jack Hyles, but Curtis Hutson was virtually his carbon copy.

And Carl Hatch was probably worse, just thankfully less influential:


Link
I've bolded the particularly atrocious sections.
This is an excerpt from a larger body of work published by David Cloud of Way of Life. Cloud is also IFB yet adamantly opposed to the easy believism of Hutson, Hyles, and Hatch (must be a theme going here...).


As a disclaimer: I think Cloud is off on several things as well, music and ultra-separatism in particular, but he has his good points.

Again, I do not know who Carl Hatch was, and I would never force someone to pray like this, but I have heard Curtis Hutson preach many times years ago. He was a very godly and humble man and did not use techniques like this that I ever heard of. I knew of Jack Hyles, but only saw him once, so I can't say much about him.

All I know is that Curtis Hutson believed in repentance, but perhaps not as you understand it. Many folks think repentance means to stop sinning. If that is so, then NNE has ever been saved as Curtis Hutson rightly said. To repent means to turn from a false idea, such as that you can save yourself by your own good merits, and trust in Jesus alone to save you.

Look up the word repent, the scriptures say God repented many times. If repent means to stop sinning, then you must believe God was a sinner.

No, repent means to change your mind from unbelief to belief in Jesus.

 

[RLBosley]

Again, I do not know who Carl Hatch was, and I would never force someone to pray like this, but I have heard Curtis Hutson preach many times years ago. He was a very godly and humble man and did not use techniques like this that I ever heard of. I knew of Jack Hyles, but only saw him once, so I can't say much about him.

OK. I just posted that to give you an idea of the trash that man said.

All I know is that Curtis Hutson believed in repentance, but perhaps not as you understand it. Many folks think repentance means to stop sinning. If that is so, then NNE has ever been saved as Curtis Hutson rightly said. To repent means to turn from a false idea, such as that you can save yourself by your own good merits, and trust in Jesus alone to save you.

I've never heard anyone ever say that repentance means to cease sinning. That's one of the strawman arguments constantly made by Hutson, Hyles and other Easy Believism proponents.

Look up the word repent, the scriptures say God repented many times. If repent means to stop sinning, then you must believe God was a sinner.

I've done a long study about repentance including the Greek and Hebrew words on it. By this point I could probably write a small book on it. I did write a small paper that I gave to my then IFB pastor, who rejected it out of hand.

No, repent means to change your mind from unbelief to belief in Jesus.

No it doesn't. If it did then the Father had to change His mind from unbelief to belief in His Son? Consistency man...

 

[Winman]

OK. I just posted that to give you an idea of the trash that man said.

I would be careful not to lump all men as the same.

I've never heard anyone ever say that repentance means to cease sinning. That's one of the strawman arguments constantly made by Hutson, Hyles and other Easy Believism proponents.

You must be kidding, I have heard folks say this HUNDREDS of times. Here are just a few examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT_CsUoT23E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSaqIucjFSM

I've done a long study about repentance including the Greek and Hebrew words on it. By this point I could probably write a small book on it. I did write a small paper that I gave to my then IFB pastor, who rejected it out of hand.

Well, you haven't done that good of a job if you've never heard of people teaching that repentance means to stop sinning. If repentance means to stop sinning, then no one would ever be saved, as no one completely stops sinning.

No it doesn't. If it did then the Father had to change His mind from unbelief to belief in His Son? Consistency man...

You misunderstand, repent simply means to change your mind, as when God changed his mind and did not destroy Nineveh.

Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah had preached that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown. God was not lying, he meant exactly what he said. But when all of the people of Nineveh repented of their evil and turned to God for forgiveness, God repented or changed his mind and did not destroy the city.

To repent means to change your mind, usually from a false idea, such as Jesus showed twice in Luke 13;

Luk 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Jesus twice told these people to repent or they would perish. But what did he mean by that? He meant they needed to change their view or attitude about themselves. Note how he asked in vs. 2 "Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans"? These folks thought they were righteous and safe because nothing bad had happened to them. Jesus said they must repent of this false belief and realize that because nothing bad had happened to them does not prove they were righteous. No, they were likewise sinners in danger of perishing.

Then note vs. 4 where Jesus asks, "think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt at Jerusalem?" Again, they had a false idea that bad things only happen to bad people, and that they were righteous and safe because no bad thing had happened to them. Jesus told them they must repent or turn from this false belief.

To repent means to change your mind and go in another direction of thought.

 

[RLBosley]

I would be careful not to lump all men as the same.

I don't, but they were all buddies and worked together and taught all the same things.

You must be kidding, I have heard folks say this HUNDREDS of times. Here are just a few examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT_CsUoT23E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSaqIucjFSM

Well, you haven't done that good of a job if you've never heard of people teaching that repentance means to stop sinning. If repentance means to stop sinning, then no one would ever be saved, as no one completely stops sinning.

OK Maybe I exaggerated. Perhaps it would be better to say that no one that should be taken seriously has said that. My bad.

And my study was mostly on the word/s itself and how the Bible uses it/them. I only listened to a handful of people's opinions on this issue.

And my "write a book" comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek BTW, just realized that could sound prideful.

You misunderstand, repent simply means to change your mind, as when God changed his mind and did not destroy Nineveh.

Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah had preached that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown. God was not lying, he meant exactly what he said. But when all of the people of Nineveh repented of their evil and turned to God for forgiveness, God repented or changed his mind and did not destroy the city.

To repent means to change your mind, usually from a false idea, such as Jesus showed twice in Luke 13;

Luk 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Jesus twice told these people to repent or they would perish. But what did he mean by that? He meant they needed to change their view or attitude about themselves. Note how he asked in vs. 2 "Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans"? These folks thought they were righteous and safe because nothing bad had happened to them. Jesus said they must repent of this false belief and realize that because nothing bad had happened to them does not prove they were righteous. No, they were likewise sinners in danger of perishing.

Then note vs. 4 where Jesus asks, "think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt at Jerusalem?" Again, they had a false idea that bad things only happen to bad people, and that they were righteous and safe because no bad thing had happened to them. Jesus told them they must repent or turn from this false belief.

To repent means to change your mind and go in another direction of thought.

That is part of repentance. Yes you must absolutely have that change of mind, but there must also be a change of desire and ultimately a change of action that flows from it. That is the same even with the repent used for God, He repented of what He was going to do do Ninevah, His desire to destroy them change (changed desire), and ultimately he did not destroy them(changed action).

For the human being, biblical repentance has three parts; A change of mind towards God, a change of mind away from sin, and it results in a change of life.

That's not to say repentance is the same as reformation, or fixing yourself, It is entirely in the mind but results in a change of heart and a change in life. Here is a good excerpt again from Way of Life that explains it well:

Biblical repentance as preached by John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the apostles, is A CHANGE OF MIND TOWARD GOD AND SIN THAT RESULTS IN A CHANGE OF LIFE. IT IS A SPIRIT-WROUGHT CHANGE OF MIND THAT LEADS TO A CHANGE OF LIFE. It is not a change of life. That would be a works salvation. It is a radical, Spirit-wrought change of mind toward sin and God, such a dramatic change of mind that it changes one’s actions.

....

Note the following summary of Paul’s message: “But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that THEY SHOULD REPENT AND TURN TO GOD, AND DO WORKS MEET FOR REPENTANCE” (Acts 26:20). The gospel message preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost and by Paul after Pentecost required repentance and defined that as a mindset to turn to God from evil works. Paul summarized His gospel message as “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). The gospel requires that the sinner exercise repentance toward God and faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Biblical repentance is a change of mind toward God and sin that results in a change of life. To say that it has nothing to do with one’s attitude toward sin is to throw away the Bible and nineteen centuries of Bible-believing preaching.

....

REPENTANCE IS NOT MERELY CHANGING FROM UNBELIEF TO BELIEF

The late Pastor Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church, Hammond, Indiana, who was an influential independent Baptist preacher, defines repentance to mean turning from unbelief to belief. He stated this in his 1993 book, The Enemies of Soul Winning. One chapter is titled “Misunderstood Repentance: An Enemy of Soul Winning.” He builds his doctrine of repentance largely on human reasoning: since unbelief is the only sin that sends men to Hell (so he claimed), unbelief is the only sin that must be repented of. That sounds reasonable, but it is contrary to the clear example and teaching of the Word of God. Biblical repentance as preached by John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Apostles, involved a change of mind TOWARD GOD AND SIN. Note the following summary of Paul’s gospel message: “But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and DO WORKS MEET FOR REPENTANCE” (Acts 26:20). The gospel message preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost and by Paul after Pentecost required repentance and defined that as a turning to God from evil works. Biblical repentance is a change of mind toward God and sin that results in a change of life. To say that it has nothing to do with one’s attitude toward sin is to throw away 19 centuries of Christian preaching.

Link:http://www.wayoflife.org/database/repentance.html

 

[Winman]

I don't, but they were all buddies and worked together and taught all the same things.



OK Maybe I exaggerated. Perhaps it would be better to say that no one that should be taken seriously has said that. My bad.

And my study was mostly on the word/s itself and how the Bible uses it/them. I only listened to a handful of people's opinions on this issue.

And my "write a book" comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek BTW, just realized that could sound prideful.



That is part of repentance. Yes you must absolutely have that change of mind, but there must also be a change of desire and ultimately a change of action that flows from it. That is the same even with the repent used for God, He repented of what He was going to do do Ninevah, His desire to destroy them change (changed desire), and ultimately he did not destroy them(changed action).

For the human being, biblical repentance has three parts; A change of mind towards God, a change of mind away from sin, and it results in a change of life.

That's not to say repentance is the same as reformation, or fixing yourself, It is entirely in the mind but results in a change of heart and a change in life. Here is a good excerpt again from Way of Life that explains it well:


Link:http://www.wayoflife.org/database/repentance.html

I think David Cloud might misrepresent what Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson meant by turning from unbelief to unbelief.

All men believe in something, all men are trusting in something to get them to heaven. A man may believe he is a very good person and has earned salvation in God's sight. This is not unbelief, but it is belief in one's own righteousness to save them. A person must repent, that is, turn from this false belief and trust only in Jesus Christ to save them.

The Jews believed they were going to heaven simply because they were the descendants of Abraham. This is not unbelief, it is a false belief. This is what John the Baptist told the Jews they must repent of.

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Vs. 9 shows what John the Baptist was telling these Pharisees and Sadducees that they must repent of, they must turn from the false belief that they were saved simply because they were descended from Abraham. They must realize that you cannot inherit salvation from your parents.

Many folks believe in the wrong thing. Many believe they are saved because they belong to the church, or because they were raised in a Christian family. These are false beliefs which a person must turn from to be saved, they must realize they are a lost sinner, and that their only hope is to trust in Jesus Christ alone to save them. This is biblical repentance.

 

[Iconoclast]

OK. I just posted that to give you an idea of the trash that man said.



I've never heard anyone ever say that repentance means to cease sinning. That's one of the strawman arguments constantly made by Hutson, Hyles and other Easy Believism proponents.



I've done a long study about repentance including the Greek and Hebrew words on it. By this point I could probably write a small book on it. I did write a small paper that I gave to my then IFB pastor, who rejected it out of hand.


No it doesn't. If it did then the Father had to change His mind from unbelief to belief in His Son? Consistency man...

This post is right on the money:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

This post is right on the money:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:

Wow, what a convincing argument. :laugh:

 

[ryarn]

I have moved and the church of my spouse is a small IFB one.

First of all everyone avoided the real question. Division in the house is not good.raying:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have moved and the church of my spouse is a small IFB one.

First of all everyone avoided the real question. Division in the house is not good.raying:

Then what's that foment say for Baptists as a whole:laugh:

Both he & his are both Baptists right. Both are Christian's right.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not know Carl Hatch, and I was not a big fan of Jack Hyles, but Curtis Hutson was a very godly man who brought thousands to Christ.

Curtis Hutson absolutely believed repentance was essential to salvation, but perhaps not as YOU understand repentance. Here is an article he wrote on the very subject.

http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/repentance.html

I happen to agree with Pastor Hutson's definition of biblical repentance.

He was a GREAT preacher.

Dr. Hudson absolutely did. I have his tape series from 1975 where he preached an evangelism conference in Georgia. Anyone who says otherwise about him just has no idea what they are talking about.

 

[John of Japan]

I have moved and the church of my spouse is a small IFB one. They are against friendship evangelism, but seem to lean towards John R. Rice and IFB type evangelism. They do not embrace Way of the Master, however they are not opposed to it. So in other words they are big on tracts, conversations, and are not against open air preaching. What is the main difference between IFB evangelism in people like John R. Rice and Way of the Master evangelism? If Chic Tracts is an example of IFB evangelism, then I can say that they are far more condemning than WOTM and are hyper KJVO of which our church is KJV Preferred.

When I was at BJU I heard some good solid IFB pastors of people like Tom Farrow, etc… The big difference between him and Comfort was the Bible Translation issue, the issue of separation, the use of the law in evangelism, and the sovereignty of God in salvation, as Farrow seemed to be more focused on convicting people to make a decision and using guilt to do so, over using the Law to let the Holy Spirit convict and produce true converts and not false ones.

I'll be honest, I'm pretty tired of the BB right now, so I'd decided to lay off for awhile. I've been called more names here and such in the past week then in my years previously here. But since my grandfather is referenced here, I'll do at least one post. Here are some brief notes about John R. Rice and evangelism.

1. He was for all methods, just as long as people were getting the Gospel out. So he wouldn't have been against the "Way of the Master" method unless someone said it was the only way to do soul winning. "But the end itself, soul-winning, is more important than any of the means" (The Golden Path to Successful Personal Soul Winning, by JRR, p. 83).

2. He was not for berating people, I think he would have been for people getting the Gospel out with most of the Chick tracts, but would have been against some of the phony stuff that Chick comes up with (the Johnny Todd stuff he did years ago, the Alberto stuff, the two "saved witches") and would have been against Chick's radical KJVO position.

3. He believed very strongly in compassion in soul-winning. I've heard him say that a preacher who preached against Hell without weeping was backslidden. His favorite passage was Ps. 126:5-6, and that is how he signed his name: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."

4. He believed very strongly in the power of the Holy Spirit in soul-winning, and preached about it often.

5. He was very strong on repentance. "The Greek word for repentance in the Bible simply means a change of mind; that is, a wholesale change of attitude toward sin and toward God. One who turns his heart to trust in Christ has, naturally, turned his heart away from the love of sin. How could on love the Lord Jesus Christ and long to please Him without turning in his heart away from sin, or in other words, repenting from sin?" (Dr. Rice, Here is my Question, p. 248).

6. He did not believe you have to pray in order to be saved. That is a sign of faith, not some help towards faith. So in his own soul-winning he would deal with someone using John 3 or Isaiah 53, then pray with them, but instead of asking them to pray he would say with their eyes closed and head bowed, "Won't you take my hand as a sign that you are trusting Christ?" When they did that he would pray further with them, sometimes asking them to pray a word of thanks to the Lord for saving them.

Do a search of "John R. Rice" on Youtube, and you'll find several sermons where he preaches on soul-winning.