John R Rice vs. Jack Hyles

[AVL1984]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I have lived in Murfreesboro, TN for nearly 27 years now. I was here often during my teen years since we came through here while on vacation, and our church went to the BRR for camp. I know that JRR WAS NOT KJVO, in spite of what others have said. He supported the ASV, I believe. I had personally heard him quote from it several times. I know many who knew him who have said the same thing, including one of his daughters who lived in Augusta, GA when my family moved there. She looked through a book of Christian Poetry I was writing and gave me some assistance on what areas I should develop and change. She told me her father was not a KJV only person, though he did greatly support the KJV. I believe the KJVO movement gained steam AFTER JRR passed away. I know that many people started to fall that ideology.
Now, as far as I can recall, and from all the messages I have on tape and in print of JH, he preached from the KJV. Most of the students I know who graduated from or attended HAC/FBCH stated that as far as they recalled, JH was KJVO. I know when he was preaching at MBBC (now MBU) in Watertown, Wisconsin while he was still on the board of the college, preached only from the KJV. I don't know if it was just for show, of if he really held that position.

 

[John of Japan]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I have lived in Murfreesboro, TN for nearly 27 years now. I was here often during my teen years since we came through here while on vacation, and our church went to the BRR for camp. I know that JRR WAS NOT KJVO, in spite of what others have said. He supported the ASV, I believe. I had personally heard him quote from it several times. I know many who knew him who have said the same thing, including one of his daughters who lived in Augusta, GA when my family moved there. She looked through a book of Christian Poetry I was writing and gave me some assistance on what areas I should develop and change. She told me her father was not a KJV only person, though he did greatly support the KJV. I believe the KJVO movement gained steam AFTER JRR passed away. I know that many people started to fall that ideology.
Now, as far as I can recall, and from all the messages I have on tape and in print of JH, he preached from the KJV. Most of the students I know who graduated from or attended HAC/FBCH stated that as far as they recalled, JH was KJVO. I know when he was preaching at MBBC (now MBU) in Watertown, Wisconsin while he was still on the board of the college, preached only from the KJV. I don't know if it was just for show, of if he really held that position.

I'm the second grandson of John R. Rice, and have written a new biography of him, due to come out in August of this year. I have a whole chapter on John R. Rice and Jack Hyles which will answer these questions. You are correct that JRR was never KJVO. In fact, in his book I Am a Fundamentalist, in the chapter "Be a Fundamentalist But Not a Nut," he calls Peter Ruckman a nut for believing the KJV is "advanced revelation," etc.

Here is a sample quote from JRR on the KJV: “The scholar and the preacher would do well to have the American Standard Version at hand and to consult it when necessary, but generally would do well, we think, to use the King James Version in the pulpit, in memory work, and in class teaching, since it is actually the translation of the mass of people. And the beauty of its language is not equaled in other translations, we think.” (Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible. Sword, 1969, p. 383.)

As for Jack Hyles, he was originally not KJVO. In his book from 1967, Let's Study the Revelation, Hyles not only clarified the KJV from the Greek, he even corrected the KJV! However, I've had several fundamentalist leaders tell me they felt Hyles changed after JRR died, and I believe that to be true. He definitely became a Ruckmanite after JRR died, as can be seen from several of his books. Sample quote: "This preacher [referring to himself] believes that those preserved words are in the Bible that I hold in my right hand at this very moment—the King James Bible. I have more respect for the person who says that one of the false Bibles contains the very words of God than for the person who says only the original contains the very words of God.” (Jack Hyles, Enemies of Soulwinning, Hyles Publications, 1993, p. 44). Thus in my view Hyles actually turned against his mentor and father-figure, John R. Rice.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are correct. Jack would never have gone against John R. Rice while he was alive. JRR was clearly not KJV-Only, as you well know (just mentioning it for others who might not know), endorsing the American Standard Version. He was roundly attacked for that by such underwhelming sources as Herbert F. Evans in Dear Dr. John: Where is my bible? (sic) and often by the ever-nasty Peter Ruckman.

In 1970, when Ruckman published his first major book, JRR had already taken the position that “A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible,” in his 1969 book, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible (p. 377). He further wrote, “The scholar and the preacher would do well to have the American Standard Version at hand and to consult it when necessary, but generally would do well, we think, to use the King James Version in the pulpit, in memory work, and in class teaching, since it is actually the translation of the mass of people. And the beauty of its language is not equaled in other translations, we think” (ibid, p. 383).

Would he have approved of the Nas then?

 

[John of Japan]

Would he have approved of the Nas then?

I suppose so, though I don't know of him ever using it or touting it.

 

[Yeshua1]

As far as the translation methods of those two versions, he would not have opposed them, since he preferred literal versions. he did like the ASV, but was already old when the NASV came out, so I'm not aware that he ever commented on it. He was, of course, long dead when the ESV appeared.

Sorry to say, he was not well informed in the area of textual criticism, so he makes some mistakes in that discipline in his book Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. So he did not approach the translation issue from that angle.

So he would probably have agreed with me then that more important to have a formal and literal approach to translations , instead of what Greek texts were used as the textual basis!

 

[Yeshua1]

To answer the OP more directly, Jack Hyles was a dispensationalist, but JRR was not. JRR occasionally mentioned Scofield positively in his writings, but made it clear a number of times that he was not a dispensationalist. In particular, he objected to the idea that the church started at Pentecost, and believed that OT saints are included in the church.

Sounds like a form of Covenant theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose so, though I don't know of him ever using it or touting it.

The nas/Asv seems to be the one modern versions even many for the TR/MT seem to approve of for use among modern versions!

 

[AVL1984]

I'm the second grandson of John R. Rice, and have written a new biography of him, due to come out in August of this year. I have a whole chapter on John R. Rice and Jack Hyles which will answer these questions. You are correct that JRR was never KJVO. In fact, in his book I Am a Fundamentalist, in the chapter "Be a Fundamentalist But Not a Nut," he calls Peter Ruckman a nut for believing the KJV is "advanced revelation," etc.

Here is a sample quote from JRR on the KJV: “The scholar and the preacher would do well to have the American Standard Version at hand and to consult it when necessary, but generally would do well, we think, to use the King James Version in the pulpit, in memory work, and in class teaching, since it is actually the translation of the mass of people. And the beauty of its language is not equaled in other translations, we think.” (Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible. Sword, 1969, p. 383.)

As for Jack Hyles, he was originally not KJVO. In his book from 1967, Let's Study the Revelation, Hyles not only clarified the KJV from the Greek, he even corrected the KJV! However, I've had several fundamentalist leaders tell me they felt Hyles changed after JRR died, and I believe that to be true. He definitely became a Ruckmanite after JRR died, as can be seen from several of his books. Sample quote: "This preacher [referring to himself] believes that those preserved words are in the Bible that I hold in my right hand at this very moment—the King James Bible. I have more respect for the person who says that one of the false Bibles contains the very words of God than for the person who says only the original contains the very words of God.” (Jack Hyles, Enemies of Soulwinning, Hyles Publications, 1993, p. 44). Thus in my view Hyles actually turned against his mentor and father-figure, John R. Rice.

Thanks, John. Most of my interaction with Hyles was between 1976 and 1984, and he did have a huge change in his viewpoint of Scriptures during that time. I do know that in one message I listened to, and I had made not of it, that JH, why quoting Scriptures, quoted almost word for word the passage being preached on, from the NASB. I remember that, though I don't have access to my notes (they're all locked up in my file cabinet being stored until my office is once again set up) and that was truly a shock to me. The only reason I recall it is that a former associate pastor of the church I grew up in gave my mother a copy of the NASB when he came from Central Seminary in Minneapolis, saying that it was more correct. Later on, this same preacher wrote a book and a whole set of commentaries in relation to the KJVO position. So, I've had to deal with KJVO vs. non-KJVO nearly all my life. Personally, I'm KJV preferred, because that is what I grew up with, but I'm not KJVO as I once was when I first was introduced to Christ. I agree with you that Hyles turned against his mentor. I met and talked with JRR many times, and always found him to be a Godly, pleasant man. I'm glad to make your acquaintance here on the forums. May you have great success with your book. May you have great success with your book! I look forward to buying a copy.

 

[John of Japan]

Sounds like a form of Covenant theology!

No, historic premillennial.

 

[John of Japan]

So he would probably have agreed with me then that more important to have a formal and literal approach to translations , instead of what Greek texts were used as the textual basis!

His writings do not reveal much research into textual criticism.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, historic premillennial.

I hold to that for eschatology, just with framework of Covenant theology!

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks, John. Most of my interaction with Hyles was between 1976 and 1984, and he did have a huge change in his viewpoint of Scriptures during that time. I do know that in one message I listened to, and I had made not of it, that JH, why quoting Scriptures, quoted almost word for word the passage being preached on, from the NASB. I remember that, though I don't have access to my notes (they're all locked up in my file cabinet being stored until my office is once again set up) and that was truly a shock to me. The only reason I recall it is that a former associate pastor of the church I grew up in gave my mother a copy of the NASB when he came from Central Seminary in Minneapolis, saying that it was more correct. Later on, this same preacher wrote a book and a whole set of commentaries in relation to the KJVO position. So, I've had to deal with KJVO vs. non-KJVO nearly all my life. Personally, I'm KJV preferred, because that is what I grew up with, but I'm not KJVO as I once was when I first was introduced to Christ. I agree with you that Hyles turned against his mentor. I met and talked with JRR many times, and always found him to be a Godly, pleasant man. I'm glad to make your acquaintance here on the forums. May you have great success with your book. May you have great success with your book! I look forward to buying a copy.

Very interesting. If you would rather not say the preacher's name who wrote the book and the commentaries, would you mind sending me a PM with it?

Glad to make your acquaintance, too.

When it comes out, my biography of JRR will be available from On to Victory Press: John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the Twentieth Century | On to Victory Press

 

[John of Japan]

Very interesting. If you would rather not say the preacher's name who wrote the book and the commentaries, would you mind sending me a PM with it?

Glad to make your acquaintance, too.

When it comes out, my biography of JRR will be available from On to Victory Press: John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the Twentieth Century | On to Victory Press

For anyone tuning in late, this book has a whole chapter on the relationship between John R. Rice and Jack Hyles. Such questions are answered as:

What caused a rift in the relationship at the end of Rice's life?
What did Rice write to Hyles in that case?
How did Hyles answer the first letter from Rice, and what did the second letter say?
Did Hyles change after the death of Rice?
How radical did Hyles get on the KJV issues?
What did Hyles send to First Baptist supported missionaries in the middle of his scandal?
What did Hyles think of Rice, his mentor and father figure, after some years had passed since Rice's death?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks, John. Most of my interaction with Hyles was between 1976 and 1984, and he did have a huge change in his viewpoint of Scriptures during that time. I do know that in one message I listened to, and I had made not of it, that JH, why quoting Scriptures, quoted almost word for word the passage being preached on, from the NASB. I remember that, though I don't have access to my notes (they're all locked up in my file cabinet being stored until my office is once again set up) and that was truly a shock to me. The only reason I recall it is that a former associate pastor of the church I grew up in gave my mother a copy of the NASB when he came from Central Seminary in Minneapolis, saying that it was more correct. Later on, this same preacher wrote a book and a whole set of commentaries in relation to the KJVO position. So, I've had to deal with KJVO vs. non-KJVO nearly all my life. Personally, I'm KJV preferred, because that is what I grew up with, but I'm not KJVO as I once was when I first was introduced to Christ. I agree with you that Hyles turned against his mentor. I met and talked with JRR many times, and always found him to be a Godly, pleasant man. I'm glad to make your acquaintance here on the forums. May you have great success with your book. May you have great success with your book! I look forward to buying a copy.

I have had some KJVO state that MV destroy the doctrines of the Bible, but still waiting to see where the Esv and Nas " changed/watered down theology"

 

[AVL1984]

For anyone tuning in late, this book has a whole chapter on the relationship between John R. Rice and Jack Hyles. Such questions are answered as:

What caused a rift in the relationship at the end of Rice's life?
What did Rice write to Hyles in that case?
How did Hyles answer the first letter from Rice, and what did the second letter say?
Did Hyles change after the death of Rice?
How radical did Hyles get on the KJV issues?
What did Hyles send to First Baptist supported missionaries in the middle of his scandal?
What did Hyles think of Rice, his mentor and father figure, after some years had passed since Rice's death?

I know I'm interested in reading your book I have the "evidence" from Vic N. and the book by Voyle Glover on the Hyles case (I've been offered over $2,500 for that book by some FBCH people who'd like nothing more than to see it burned) and several other letters from people who were associated with JH. But, I'm not the same person I was 20 years or so ago, and am not going to be the judge of JH, DH, or anyone else. That's the Lord's position. I just know that I got rid of many of my JH books out of disgust, but found others a couple of years later and held onto them. God can use anyone for His own glory, even a dirty vessel. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, as my Grandfather used to say.

 

[John of Japan]

I know I'm interested in reading your book I have the "evidence" from Vic N. and the book by Voyle Glover on the Hyles case (I've been offered over $2,500 for that book by some FBCH people who'd like nothing more than to see it burned) and several other letters from people who were associated with JH. But, I'm not the same person I was 20 years or so ago, and am not going to be the judge of JH, DH, or anyone else. That's the Lord's position. I just know that I got rid of many of my JH books out of disgust, but found others a couple of years later and held onto them. God can use anyone for His own glory, even a dirty vessel. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, as my Grandfather used to say.

That's how I end the chapter--I can't write "Ichabod" over any man's ministry. That is up to God. My purpose in writing that particular chapter was to add to the historical data. For example, I was a missionary to Japan, and Hyles sent out cards to all the missionaries they supported demanding complete support for all his ministries. (I didn't sign it.) But in my book I spend very little space on that particular scandal. Delving into all of that would defeat my purposes in writing the book.

P. S. I have the books by Vic and Voyle also. Tell me more about the big bucks they are offering for those. (Just kidding.)

 

[agedman]

As you know, I was at Miller Road when DH was “discovered.” The destruction of marriages and damage to the name of Christ was and is extremely problematic especially when FBC of Hammond has yet to publicly do what is right.

JH knew it all, and he perpetrated fraud by denying his son had problems when questioned by the pulpit committee. He lied over and over. Later covered up horrible sin, because how could he rebuke his children when they all knew he had taken another man’s wife!

John, I thank you for not going into the whole sordid mess. It is best though for I have not a single ounce of respect left for that man.

I want to add one small item.

JH problem did not start in Hammond. Prior to Hammond he was the pastor of Miller Road Baptist Church. He suddenly was called to Hammond. There were a few who knew they rest of the story. A man does not just one day scheme to take another man’s wife. Becoming involved with a married woman is the best way to keep things secrete.