John R. Rice and the KJV

[John of Japan]

The other thread was closed where this was mentioned.

John R. Rice was not KJV-Only. He did use the old ASV for study, but he always preached from the KJV. Sometimes he would refer to the Greek, Hebrew, or ASV in his writings.

He thought Peter Ruckman was a "nut" (his word), and said as much in his book, I Am a Fundamentalist. (See the chapter, "...And Not a Nut." That's all I have time to post right now. My sister is visiting, and my wife is at my office door to take me home.

In case anyone doubts my authority to write about Rice, I am his grandson, and wrote the definitive biography of him.

 

[Salty]

Thanks John!

 

[Charlie24]

The other thread was closed where this was mentioned.

John R. Rice was not KJV-Only. He did use the old ASV for study, but he always preached from the KJV. Sometimes he would refer to the Greek, Hebrew, or ASV in his writings.

He thought Peter Ruckman was a "nut" (his word), and said as much in his book, I Am a Fundamentalist. (See the chapter, "...And Not a Nut." That's all I have time to post right now. My sister is visiting, and my wife is at my office door to take me home.

In case anyone doubts my authority to write about Rice, I am his grandson, and wrote the definitive biography of him.

Your grand-dad was one of the greatest men of God the world has ever seen.

My mom had several Sword of the Lord articles originally written by him.

 

[Salty]

I have a Rice study Bible which he personally autograph
(Unless he used that "special pen of Joe Biden"!)

 

[5 point Gillinist]

John R. Rice was not KJV-Only. He did use the old ASV for study, but he always preached from the KJV. Sometimes he would refer to the Greek, Hebrew, or ASV in his writings.

He thought Peter Ruckman was a "nut" (his word), and said as much in his book, I Am a Fundamentalist. (See the chapter, "...And Not a Nut." That's all I have time to post right now. My sister is visiting, and my wife is at my office door to take me home.

In case anyone doubts my authority to write about Rice, I am his grandson, and wrote the definitive biography of him.

This is odd given Jack Hyles complete 180 from the beliefs that Rice held. Having read about Rice he comes across a level-headed, Orthodox fundamentalist, while Hyles was a flaming heretic. I assume Hyle's departure from orthodoxy was after your grandfather passed? Did he have any thoughts about the matter? I ask because Hyles declared no one could be saved unless they read the KJV.

 

[John of Japan]

Your grand-dad was one of the greatest men of God the world has ever seen.

My mom had several Sword of the Lord articles originally written by him.

Thanks for the kind words. I agree!

 

[John of Japan]

I have a Rice study Bible which he personally autograph
(Unless he used that "special pen of Joe Biden"!)

I have several, and its a good thing. They can go for hundreds of dollars on the Internet!

Hmm. A Rice Reference Bible signed by Biden's special pen?? The value would go way down....

 

[John of Japan]

This is odd given Jack Hyles complete 180 from the beliefs that Rice held. Having read about Rice he comes across a level-headed, Orthodox fundamentalist, while Hyles was a flaming heretic. I assume Hyle's departure from orthodoxy was after your grandfather passed? Did he have any thoughts about the matter? I ask because Hyles declared no one could be saved unless they read the KJV.

I have had several fundamentalist leaders tell me they thought Rice held Hyles in check, and that when Rice died, Hyles went off the deep end.

Here is an excerpt from my book about Rice and Ruckman, pp. 69-70. (See the link at the bottom of my posts.)

In 1973, a “King James Only” advocate named Herbert F. Evans released a pamphlet entitled, Dear Dr. John: Where is my bible? [ sic ]. The subtitle is, “A Written Dispute with Dr. John R. Rice.” This pamphlet consisted of correspondence between my grandfather and Evans and was published without Rice’s approval, a breach of ethics, if not the law. In the Preface, Evans wrote, “I extend my deepest appreciation and thanks to the following men,” and he included Peter Ruckman in that list. Ruckman, who died in 2016, was a very intemperate man who often used childish name-calling to characterize godly preachers, Rice included. Rice referred to him as a “railer” in the language of the KJV, one from whom we should separate as per God’s command: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). Also, Rice often noted that Ruckman was “an angry man,” with whom a Christian ought not to make friends (Proverbs. 22:24).17 On his part, Rice was also not shy in firing back at “railer” Ruckman with terms not found in the Bible, such as “nut.” This word had become part of his personal lexicon, and he used it in a chapter title from I Am a Fundamentalist, “Be a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut.” In that chapter, Rice wrote, "When a Peter Ruckman sets out to say that only he and a few others in the world are right on the matter of manuscript evidence for the Bible and says that in the King James Version the translation itself was inspired of God and is without error…, and that all are modernists or hypocrites or ignorant who do not agree that the King James Version—even the translation—is inspired perfectly, then we know that that arrogant attitude, that calling of good men by bad names, shows the man cannot be trusted in doctrine."18

15 John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible, 1969), 377.
16 Ibid., 383.
17 John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible, 377.
18 Rice, I Am a Fundamentalist, 74.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is what Hyles turned out to be after Rice died (from my book, 271-272):

Hyles became increasingly more radical on this issue. “Within a few years of Rice’s death, Jack Hyles [had begun] repeating Ruckman’s arguments.”26 A Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) resolution said in 1995, “Hyles has publicly taught that (1) no one is saved apart from the King James Version of the Bible, (2) if a soulwinner uses any other version of the Bible, he is using corruptible seed, and, (3) if a person, in fact, is born again through that other version, he is ‘born again as a child of the devil.’” These beliefs of Hyles were in direct contradiction of Rice’s, whose 1947 pamphlet Sermon from a Catholic Bible has been greatly used of God to win Catholics to Christ. It was at this point in his career that Hyles rejected the fundamentalism of Rice and became radicalized completely in this area. Though strongly opposing divorce, he embraced the teachings of twice divorced Peter Ruckman 28 and reportedly gave an honorary doctorate at his 1996 Pastors’ School to twice divorced woman preacher Gail Riplinger, who wrote the nonsensical book New Age Versions.29 The advertisement for that year’s Pastors’ School had the title “The Trial of the Century! Is the King James Bible the Word of God?” His radicalization in this area led to a radicalization of his doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, in which anyone who did not agree with his position on the King James Version was not worthy of fellowship.

26 Matthew Lee Lyon, “John R. Rice and Evangelism: An Essential Mark of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019), 32.
27 Frontline (November/December 1995), 31.
28 Webmaster, “The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible.” The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the KJV, accessed on 8/4/17.
29 I have this book. As a missionary Bible translator (the Testament Japanese Lifeline New ) and New Testament Greek professor, I assert that it is impossible for even a poorly translated Bible to be used to teach New Age doctrine.
30 Lyon, 31–32.

 

[John of Japan]

This is odd given Jack Hyles complete 180 from the beliefs that Rice held. Having read about Rice he comes across a level-headed, Orthodox fundamentalist, while Hyles was a flaming heretic. I assume Hyle's departure from orthodoxy was after your grandfather passed? Did he have any thoughts about the matter? I ask because Hyles declared no one could be saved unless they read the KJV.

Rice would have completely disagreed with the post-Rice Jack Hyles in many ways. I have a whole chapter on the relationship between the two--and my own experiences with Hyles later on--in my book on Rice.

Right at the end of Rice's life a rupture between the two men started to appear, but Rice went to Heaven before it could develop much. In particular, Rice's five daughters (including my mother of loving memory) asked him to say something about how Hyles would conflate, inflate, and invent some of his sermon illustrations, so he wrote a letter to Hyles. Hyles wrote back a humble (obsequious, even) reply and promised to do better.

I debated with myself, but decided to do this, since you guys are interested. For posterity's sake, I am attaching the letters from the exchange just mentioned.

 

[Logos1560]

Hyles became increasingly more radical on this issue. “Within a few years of Rice’s death, Jack Hyles [had begun] repeating Ruckman’s arguments.”26 A Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) resolution said in 1995, “Hyles has publicly taught that (1) no one is saved apart from the King James Version of the Bible, (2) if a soulwinner uses any other version of the Bible, he is using corruptible seed, and, (3) if a person, in fact, is born again through that other version, he is ‘born again as a child of the devil.’”

Jack Hyles' new view is evident in his 1993 book entitled Enemies of Soul Winning with its fifth chapter being entitled "False Bibles--an Enemy of Soul Winning." Perhaps that 1995 resolution was in response to Hyles' teaching in this 1993 book.

In this 1993 book, Jack Hyles (1926-2001) wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). Jack Hyles asserted: “The precious seed is the King James Bible, preserved for us word-for-word” (p. 136).

In 2003 after Hyles' death, a book entitled The Need for an Every-Word Bible by Jack Hyles was published, based on Hyles' Wednesday evening series on "The King James Bible."

 

[John of Japan]

Jack Hyles' new view is evident in his 1993 book entitled Enemies of Soul Winning with its fifth chapter being entitled "False Bibles--an Enemy of Soul Winning." Perhaps that 1995 resolution was in response to Hyles' teaching in this 1993 book.

In this 1993 book, Jack Hyles (1926-2001) wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Jack Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Jack Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). Jack Hyles asserted: “The precious seed is the King James Bible, preserved for us word-for-word” (p. 136).

In 2003 after Hyles' death, a book entitled The Need for an Every-Word Bible by Jack Hyles was published, based on Hyles Wednesday evening series on "The King James Bible."

Yes, I have those two books, and you are correct about the Jack Hyles they portray.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Here is what Hyles turned out to be after Rice died (from my book, 271-272):

Hyles became increasingly more radical on this issue. “Within a few years of Rice’s death, Jack Hyles [had begun] repeating Ruckman’s arguments.”26 A Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF) resolution said in 1995, “Hyles has publicly taught that (1) no one is saved apart from the King James Version of the Bible, (2) if a soulwinner uses any other version of the Bible, he is using corruptible seed, and, (3) if a person, in fact, is born again through that other version, he is ‘born again as a child of the devil.’” These beliefs of Hyles were in direct contradiction of Rice’s, whose 1947 pamphlet Sermon from a Catholic Bible has been greatly used of God to win Catholics to Christ. It was at this point in his career that Hyles rejected the fundamentalism of Rice and became radicalized completely in this area. Though strongly opposing divorce, he embraced the teachings of twice divorced Peter Ruckman 28 and reportedly gave an honorary doctorate at his 1996 Pastors’ School to twice divorced woman preacher Gail Riplinger, who wrote the nonsensical book New Age Versions.29 The advertisement for that year’s Pastors’ School had the title “The Trial of the Century! Is the King James Bible the Word of God?” His radicalization in this area led to a radicalization of his doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, in which anyone who did not agree with his position on the King James Version was not worthy of fellowship.

26 Matthew Lee Lyon, “John R. Rice and Evangelism: An Essential Mark of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019), 32.
27 Frontline (November/December 1995), 31.
28 Webmaster, “The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible.” The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the KJV, accessed on 8/4/17.
29 I have this book. As a missionary Bible translator (the Testament Japanese Lifeline New ) and New Testament Greek professor, I assert that it is impossible for even a poorly translated Bible to be used to teach New Age doctrine.
30 Lyon, 31–32.

Thank you John for your extensive response, it is very greatly appreciated. I know very little of John Rice, but from what you've said and small bits I've read, it seems his fundamentalism is of far greater pastoral and Christ-like love and conduct than much of modern fundamentalism is today. I am most certainly going to look into your grandfather's writing.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you John for your extensive response, it is very greatly appreciated. I know very little of John Rice, but from what you've said and small bits I've read, it seems his fundamentalism is of far greater pastoral and Christ-like love and conduct than much of modern fundamentalism is today. I am most certainly going to look into your grandfather's writing.

Thanks for the good post. He occasionally got in trouble with other fundamentalists due to his friendship with W. A. Criswell and other non-IFB men. I met Paige Patterson of the SBC several years ago, and he told me that as he travelled the US he saw books by Rice in the libraries of many SBC pastors. I saw Adrian Rogers' library (moved to the library of Southwestern BTS), and he had plenty of Rice's books! In his wife's book on his ministry, Rogers is quoted as saying that Rice's book on prayer helped his ministry more than any other.

By the way, if you are Calvinist, you might be turned off occasionally by his books, but to him a hyper Calvinist was one who didn't believe in evangelism, so he loved Spurgeon, and put many Spurgeon sermons in his newspaper.

 

[JesusFan]

The other thread was closed where this was mentioned.

John R. Rice was not KJV-Only. He did use the old ASV for study, but he always preached from the KJV. Sometimes he would refer to the Greek, Hebrew, or ASV in his writings.

He thought Peter Ruckman was a "nut" (his word), and said as much in his book, I Am a Fundamentalist. (See the chapter, "...And Not a Nut." That's all I have time to post right now. My sister is visiting, and my wife is at my office door to take me home.

In case anyone doubts my authority to write about Rice, I am his grandson, and wrote the definitive biography of him.

what would he had thought then about the nasv that was coming out later after he died?

 

[John of Japan]

what would he had thought then about the nasv that was coming out later after he died?

Actually, the NASV was published in 1971, and he went to Heaven in 1980. I'm sure he knew about it, but by 1971 he was quite settled in his ways, and did not use it or write anything about it to the best of my knowledge.

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, the NASV was published in 1971, and he went to Heaven in 1980. I'm sure he knew about it, but by 1971 he was quite settled in his ways, and did not use it or write anything about it to the best of my knowledge.

He seemed to be in a good sense a Fundementalist, as not one of those of the KJVO camp, looking down on all others not using Kjv alone as suspect and not real Christians

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, the NASV was published in 1971, and he went to Heaven in 1980. I'm sure he knew about it, but by 1971 he was quite settled in his ways, and did not use it or write anything about it to the best of my knowledge.

His Sword of the Lord went to being now pretty much KJVO then under leadership when he passed?

 

[John of Japan]

His Sword of the Lord went to being now pretty much KJVO then under leadership when he passed?

Yep.

 

[John of Japan]

He seemed to be in a good sense a Fundementalist, as not one of those of the KJVO camp, looking down on all others not using Kjv alone as suspect and not real Christians

Definitely not KJVO.