John Richard Rice

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Hello, new here. I have been an IFB for 30 years. I used to idolize JRR. I often say that I attended the university of the SOL. But I have to agree with the criticism of his book on predestination. I was displeased with it many years before I converted to 5 points. I was so displeased with it that I pulled it from our church library.

As great as the man was for his fundamentalism, this work appeared to be hastily done, and a revision certainly was in order, but it never came, much to my disappointment. For a more articulate treatment of the issue, see David Cloud's work at wayoflife.org. Cloud makes the same theological errors, but it's a "cleaner" treatment.

J.D.

J. D., you have written graciously. We can disagree and still respect each other in the Lord. What I am objecting to from Rippon are his slanders, not his opinions, which he is entirely welcome to have. Regardless of Rippon's accusations, I have never said on the Baptist Board nor anywhere else that no one should disagree with my grandfather.

Having said that, I hope you are disagreeing with the actual book and not Rippon's representation of it, which pulls much out of context. So, what are you disagreeing with?

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Rippon, the cry of mis-understood calvnist has gone on since calvin. Even back then people still layed claim that calvinism led to God being the author of sin, etc. yet even to this day the same charges are laid by people who hear calvinism and reject it. Maybe it is the words used?!

Hi Tim,

I know almost nothing about John R. Rice, so this is really off topic, but I just wanted to point out that old errors are still errors. The fact that for centuries people have been drawing erroneous conclusions about what Calvinists believe proves nothing except that they are probably getting their information from the wrong sources. </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever I have studied this for over 2 years now. Ther are as many different kinds of calvinist as there are any other denominaion. Everyone has thier own view on it.
It really gets hard when everytime you debate one and they don't have an answer or you pt out where logically thier thought is heading you get the trump card played. "It is clear you don't know anything about calvinism." I do see the contradictions and I do understand calvinism as well as a lot of calvinist. I don't know what the answer is too this delima but it appears that only those who are calvinist know what calvinist teaches and all others do not. That says something. Although I am sure we would disagree on what that says.
I am not really as anti calvinist as I appear on here, my pastor is one, but I do tire of many not being able to debate honestly or qouting someone that they don't understand themselves and trying to make it agruement from that.
From your side, I understand, you see things different then I just stated, However you seem to be one of the more rational ones on here at times. I will be if dealt with that way but the last couple of guys I dealt with did indeed claim God the author of seen.

 

[Rippon]

JOJ , ease up . Your grandfather's quote was just a funny aside that I included for a breather . They were not gnashing ON him with their teeth . They were gnashing AT him with their teeth . The wrong prepostion can make a big difference .

As for my example of Fosdick -- yes he was a big-time liberal . Your grandfather was not as liberal as he . But Robert Reymond in his Systematc Theology ( page 702 ) says the following : It may come as a shock to the Arminian who espouses the doctrine of universal atonement ... that his view of the accomplishments of Christ's atoning work is no better than the view of the liberal theologian , but it is a sober fact nevertheless .

Reymond goes on to say that with liberals -- Christ died for no man . With respect to Arminians -- Christ died for all men . He states that in neither view does Christ's death per se pay the penalty of anyone's sin . In both theologies people determine whether or not they will become Christians . ( An act of their will ) . Reymond says : This is tragic , for Christ's atoning death is emptied of its intrinsic worth by both systems and the Pelagian principle looms large in both ..

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
JOJ , ease up . Your grandfather's quote was just a funny aside that I included for a breather . They were not gnashing ON him with their teeth . They were gnashing AT him with their teeth . The wrong prepostion can make a big difference .

John R. Rice was directly quoting the KJV here, which has "on" and not "at." So you make fun of him. And no, I won't ease up until you (1) Stop slandering my grandfather, calling him a liar and a liberal, etc., and (2) learn some Christian graciousness in dealing with entirely orthodox views with which you disagree.

As for my example of Fosdick -- yes he was a big-time liberal . Your grandfather was not as liberal as he . But Robert Reymond in his Systematc Theology ( page 702 ) says the following : It may come as a shock to the Arminian who espouses the doctrine of universal atonement ... that his view of the accomplishments of Christ's atoning work is no better than the view of the liberal theologian , but it is a sober fact nevertheless .

And Rippon's slander continues, as he calls the view that the atonement is unlimited "liberalism."

 

[Rippon]

Correct me if I am wrong , but didn't JRR meet with Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary near the end of his life ? It is my understanding that Rice received a new slant on things , yet it was too late for him to do much about it .

But back to Rice's book . It is littered with falsehoods . To demonstrate his errors is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel . You don't have to be much of a detective . An honest Arminian would acknowledge this .

Let's start with the Table of Contents . Chapter 10 ( he uses Roman Numeral x) is entitled " The Harm Done By Hyper-Calvinism Heresy " . ( That kind of invective was common from from his pen .)

On page 6 -- " The hyper-Calvinistic heresy is particularly appealing to the carnal nature , unwilling to have the heartbreak , the burden for soul winning ... " ( As I have aptly demonstrated before --- he was lying . )

Still on page 6 -- " But extreme Calvinism , the teaching that some people , by the foreordained plan of God, are predestined to be lost , that their destinies were settled before they were born , is a wicked heresy contrary to the Bible , that dishonors God , and has done incalculable harm . " ( So , does he cite any verses that Calvinists use to support their views ? Does he then give his alternative rendering with sound exegesis ? Nah , he just makes nasty assertions instead . It is so much easier . )

On page 7 : " Note some of the foolish statements of hyper-Calvinists . It has been said that ' there are babes in Hell not a span long ... " ( You know -- you have to be careful who Rice quotes . Arch-Arminian John Wesley said that about Calvinists . No Calvinist said such drivel . But Rice did not care about the truthfulness of his claims . His goal was simply to give his biased , imbalanced opinion on matters that he hoped would cause people to reject what he thought were wrong views . Of course to achieve that he had to do some things that evidenced a lack of integrity . I guess he thought that the means justify the ends . )

On page 14 he goes on to say that Calvinism " means that this doctrine was formulated by Calvin , and those who hold it get it from him Calvin . And their statement of faith follows exactly and literally every doctrinal position of Calvin . " ( Did you know that many Reformed folks are not Presbyterian ? There is not only one statement of faith among Calvinists . But why do I point that out ? It's just another example of Rice's insightful research . The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't follow every particular of Calvin's . I'm with Spurgeon in that he said he agreed in the main with Calvin . )

On page 16 he calls Dr. Loraine Boettner " a narrow-minded , warped sectarian . " ( Just let that small-minded charge be reflected upon regarding that godly scholar . )

Also on page 16 he speaks of " Cadvin's " doctrine of predestination . ( It might as well be Cadvin -- Rice was rather adept at distorting Calvin's views as he was in convoluting Scripture . )

On page 19 he waxes eloquent ... " hyper-Calvinism is a philosophy developed by men and depending on fallible logic and frail human rerason, with the perversion of some Scriptures , and the misuse of other Scriptures , and the total ignoring of still other Scriptures . " ( So , Rice had impeccable logic , healthy human reasoning , and expert exegetical abilities I suppose ? Therefore he was a far better interpreter of Scripture ?! )

On page 20 he says : " It is true He definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time ... " ( If you think God only determines SOME events and not ALL events , then your God is not the omnipotent Lord of the Bible . )

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Whatever I have studied this for over 2 years now. Ther are as many different kinds of calvinist as there are any other denominaion. Everyone has thier own view on it.
It really gets hard when everytime you debate one and they don't have an answer or you pt out where logically thier thought is heading you get the trump card played. "It is clear you don't know anything about calvinism." I do see the contradictions and I do understand calvinism as well as a lot of calvinist. I don't know what the answer is too this delima but it appears that only those who are calvinist know what calvinist teaches and all others do not. That says something. Although I am sure we would disagree on what that says.
I am not really as anti calvinist as I appear on here, my pastor is one, but I do tire of many not being able to debate honestly or qouting someone that they don't understand themselves and trying to make it agruement from that.
From your side, I understand, you see things different then I just stated, However you seem to be one of the more rational ones on here at times. I will be if dealt with that way but the last couple of guys I dealt with did indeed claim God the author of seen.

Hi Tim,

I don't dispute what you say about the number of different Calvinists with different views on issues or different ways of expressing their beliefs. That can be frustrating, but it happens everywhere though. You can find people in every group who disagree on most any belief, whether it's a major doctrine or a minor point of practice.

Almost 150 years ago some Calvinists wrote this:

"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."

I think that's as good a summary of the issue as I have ever read. I do wish they had more directly addressed the issue of whether this makes God the "author of sin", but I think in their wording ("decreed or permitted") the answered the question. Also note that they held to two distinct ideas as true - first, God's providence over all creatures and all events; and second, "the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."

Now you might argue that one cannot reasonably hold to both of these ideas as true, but I think they would respond (and I would agree) that the Scriptures affirm both and that's why we must affirm both. Whether you or I or any other finite mortal can understand how both of these ideas can be true is beside the point. I doubt any finite mortal can fully grasp the infinite, much less explain the infinite.

So this is why I get a little uptight when people argue against Calvinism as if it inescapably leads to fatalism (or worse). Our forefathers answered those questions and so do we.

From what I know of John R. Rice, he was a fine Christian gentleman and an excellent leader in the fundamentalist movement of his day. I do wish he had shown a better understanding of the Calvinism with which I am familiar, but I don't know who he knew or to whom he was responding, so it's probably foolish (at best) to hold a grudge against him. If he was wrong then God has forgiven him and so I must also.

 

[Rippon]

Whatever , I agree . Despite his grave errors he is in glory now . But he still garners a great deal of respect for his writings . Though absent on this earth , his earthly writings persist . They should be dealt with and not swept under the rug . The Lord's honor , and the honor of His Word must be given the highest priority .

And so I continue in pointing out his published errors . We must be Bereans .If people didn't take even Paul's word for something -- why not John R. Rice ? In Korea I have held Berean Korean classes . That has a ring to it , doesn't it ?

On page 20 he says : " How strange that , after 1,400 years of Christianity , practically no one had understood the Bible to teach Calvin's doctrine of predestination until he formed the philosophy . " [ Give me a break . You flunked church history , didn't you ? Bede ( d.735), Gottschalk ( d.868 ) , John Tauler ( d. 1361 ) , Thomas Bradwardine ( d.1349 ) , John Wycliffe ( d.1384 ), John Huss ( d.1414 ) , William Tyndale ( d.1536) , and Luther ( d.1545 ) all held the same view of predestination . There is no philosophy behind it . There are biblical proofs for the doctrine . ]

On page 21 : " Who can find these five points listed in the Bible ? Where does the Bible indicate that there are any definite and exclusive five points as a foundation for theology ? " ( They're not " listed " as such in the Bible any more than the doctrine of the Trinity is set forth in that way , for example .But all the points are there in the Scripture . )

On page 41 : " The atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross paid for the sins of every poor sinner ever born ! " ( Did He pay for the sins of those in Hell and those going there ? If as you maintain all sins are paid for then there will be no punishment for all . And that is not true . )

On page 54 : " When God commands people to repent , He makes it possible for them to repent . " ( Well , He is not going to refuse any that come to Him , but no one will come to Him unless the Father gives them to Christ . The command of God to repent is not negated by the inability of those the Father has not drawn . )

On page 57 : " The fact that God says ' whosoever ' means that all can will to come to Him . ( " How can a universe of ' won't ' come ? -- B. B. Warfield )

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Whatever , I agree . Despite his grave errors he is in glory now . But he still garners a great deal of respect for his writings . Though absent on this earth , his earthly writings persist . They should be dealt with and not swept under the rug . The Lord's honor , and the honor of His Word must be given the highest priority .

Hi Rippon,

I think you've made your point, so maybe it would be better to let it rest. Just my opinion.

 

[Benjamin]

Quote by Rippon:
Still on page 6 -- " But extreme Calvinism , the teaching that some people , by the foreordained plan of God, are predestined to be lost , that their destinies were settled before they were born , is a wicked heresy contrary to the Bible , that dishonors God , and has done incalculable harm . " ( So , does he cite any verses that Calvinists use to support their views ? Does he then give his alternative rendering with sound exegesis ? Nah , he just makes nasty assertions instead . It is so much easier . )

That is just a bit hypocritical don’t you think?!

Quote by Rippon:
On page 20 he says : " It is true He definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time ... " ( If you think God only determines SOME events and not ALL events , then your God is not the omnipotent Lord of the Bible . )

Earlier quote by Rippon:
Who gave Rice the right to smear as he did with such stridency ?

Quote by JohnofJapan:
For Rice's view on Calvinism, unfiltered by Rippon's prejudice and prejudging, see http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/hyper.html This is not the book Rippon is ripping, which is not on the Internet nor in print anymore, but will give you an chance to make your own judgements on Rice's teaching.

Well, decided to see what all the hubbub was about so went to the link JoJ; kind of ticked me off!--could have saved me a lot of work if I had known there was such a man rebuking the falsities of Calvinism. While searching for more last night I listened to his sermon “When Skeletons Come Out of the Closet” –that was great!
http://www.baptistfire.com/gospel/rice.shtml

I must say your Grandfather has renewed some of my hopes in the Baptist denomination. I sure would have loved to have had the opportunity to sit at the kitchen table with that man!

 

[Rippon]

Well Benjamin , I think you need to listen more to what Rice said .

How could I feel toward God , if I should find out that when He said , " whosoever will " he did not mean that , because He had made men so that many of them could not repent if they would ? How would I feel toward the Saviour if I found that , though He professed to die for the sins of the whole world , He had already consigned some people to Hell with no chance to repent , no matter how much they wished to do so ? ( page 58 )

[ You have so many false premises here - I can't address them all . Suffice it to say it does not matter how you would feel toward the Lord , creature that you are . He does justly and we should not question His ways . He owes no one anything . We are worms of the dust . Who are you O man ! ]

So if we can show that the Bible teaches that men do resist the grace of God , do resist the moving and conviction of the Holy Spirit , we have proved that extreme Calvinism is simply not true , that it is unscriptural , a man-made philosophy contrary to the Bible . ( page 69 )

[ Irresistable grace refers to God's power of effectual calling to the elect alone ( see Ro. 8:30 ) . Of course many will reject Him and resist the Holy Spirit -- that does not negate I.G. ]

Rice quotes 1 Cor. 15:22 " For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive . " Every poor sinner is bought by the blood of Jesus . ( page 71 )

[ No , only those , as the verse says , who are IN CHRIST . ]

" But how could it be wrong for a man to reject Christ , if he had no power to accept Him ? How could God bring a lost sinner to judgment for his sins and his Christ-rejection if the man had no choice ? Don't you see that the very nature of right and wrong , as taught in the Bible and proceeding from God Almighty , makes it so that God cannot coerce the human soul on these matters ? " ( page 77 )

[ You as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ do not know Bible basics . A man is condemned for his sins . Since a man loved his sins -- it was his choice .It was his volition to do what he wanted to do . Hell is his rightful destiny . God is not culpable . Man is to blame . Your thoughts are too man-oriented . ]

 

[Rippon]

There is no essential difference between the unbelieving fatalism of Calvinists and the fatalism of Moslems or other heathen people . Essentially Calvinism would teach that there is no real right and wrong , no moral responsibility for men and women . Essentially Calvinism would teach that the laws of sowing and reaping , of rewards and punishments , are not valid , honest laws . All the fundamental doctrines involved in sowing and reaping , in praying and getting the answer , in winning souls or leaving them to go to hell because of our cold , compassionless hearts -- I say these basic fundamentals are denied by Calvinism . Yes , Calvinism is a moral impossibility in the light of Bible doctrine . ( page 81 )

[ Notice his nonsense ? Now how fair of a representation is that ? This is a man you respect for knowing Bible doctrine ? I don't see any Calvinist lying down on a busy highway saying that the will of God will be done -- if I live or die . Calvinists don't tempt the Lord in this manner . You have so much bias against Calvinism that you make up things out of whole cloth and borrow wives' tales as well . ]

Rice quotes Ro. 9:11-13 and then says regarding the twins " Neither was predestined to be saved , and neither was predestined to be lost . " ( page 86 )

[ Absolutely false ! Doesn't Romans 9 :22 and 23 mean anything to you ? And especially verse 13 which you quoted is critical . It says that God loved Jacob ( destiny Heaven ) and hated Esau ( destiny Hell ) . ]

It is not that predestination causes people to trust Christ and be saved . No , they are only predestined to be saved because God knows that they will put their trust in Christ . ( page 90 )

[ But predestination does cause people to trust Christ and be saved . You are so very , very wrong . look at Acts 13:48 and note the order -- " All who were appointed ( ordained , predestined ) for eternal life believed . " It is not the other way around as the rice bible would have it . ]

[ The election of Christians ] is not the cause of their being saved . ( page 91 )

[ But on page 89 he quoted Spurgeon approvingly who said : " ... if you believe in Christ you are one of His elect , and it is because he elected you that you come to believe in Him; it is because he chose you that you are led to desire him and made to accept Him . " Amen brother Charles ! ]

 

[Rippon]

Rice quotes B.B.Warfield regarding verses 11 and 12 of Romans 9 .

We are pointed illustratively to the sovereign acceptance of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael , and to the choice of Jacob and not of Esau before their birth and explicitly told that in the matter of salvation it is not of him that wills , or of him that runs , but of God that shows mercy , and that He has mercy on whom He will , and whom He will He hardens ; we are pointedly directed to behold in God the potter who makes the vessels which proceed from His hand each for an end of His appointment , that he may work out His will upon them . It is safe to say that language cannot be chosen better adapted to teach predestination at its height .

Then Rice says : You will understand that Warfield is here particularly teaching the predestination taught by Calvin and by the Westminster Catechism ,including the doctrine of " reprobation , " the doctrine that some are predestined to be damned . ( page 28 )

[ Look at the Warfield quote again . Warfield is teaching pure biblical truth . Where is philosophy , and man-made theory ? Warfield was being true to God's Word . BBW is not evasive . He does not twist Scripture into saying the opposite of its meaning . Rice needed to learn from Warfield . ]

 

[Rippon]

Rice quotes from Herman Hoeksema's book " Whosoever Will " .

That work is absolutely divine . Man has no part in it , and cannot possibly co-operate with God in his own salvation . In no sense of the word , and at no stage of the work , does salvation depend upon the will or work of man , or wait for the determination of his will . In fact , the sinner is of himself neither capable nor willing to receive that salvation . On the contrary , all he can do and will is to oppose , to resist his own salvation with all the determination of his sinful heart . But God ordained and prepared this salvation with absolutely sovereign freedom for His own ,His chosen ones alone , and upon them He bestows it , not because they seek and desire it , but in spite of the fact that they never will it , and because he is stronger than man , and overcomes the hardest heart and the most stubborn will of the sinner .

Rice says " That is not evangelical Christianity ... " ( page 11 ) .

[ Rice is right ! It is not Evangelical Christianity . Mainstrean Christianity and Fundamentalism have diverged from biblical truth in a number of respects . And Arminianism is a major culprit . Review Hoeksema's words . You are catching a rare glimpse of a preacher who told the biblical truth . ]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Correct me if I am wrong , but didn't JRR meet with Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary near the end of his life ? It is my understanding that Rice received a new slant on things , yet it was too late for him to do much about it .

You are wrong, JRR did not meet with Van Til near the end of his life. And he did not receive a new slant on things. His message did not change, and his emphases did not change.

Originally posted by Rippon:
But back to Rice's book . It is littered with falsehoods . To demonstrate his errors is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel . You don't have to be much of a detective . An honest Arminian would acknowledge this .

And again you are slandering, insinuating that John R. Rice was an Arminian and was not honest. He was not an Arminian and he was honest. Or I'm not sure, you may be insinuating that anyone who does not agree with you is a dishonest Arminian. Either way, it is slander.

To the gentle readers of this thread, let me make clear what I mean by slander here. I am not using the word in a pejorative sense but in the technical, forensic (legal) sense. If you publicly call me a liar, especially in print, you are legally slandering me and I may sue you.

So, if John R. Rice were alive, he could sue Rippon for the things Rippon has said about him. Not that he would-John R. Rice chose not to answer personal attacks, basing this on Isaiah 54:17, "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD."

Here is how Rippon originally called my grandfather a liar, complete with his little space between his words and his punctuation. (The link is given in my first post on this thread.) "I looked at his work called : " Hyper-Calvinism : a False Doctrine " . It is littered with untruths and evidences no concern with facts . He says that anyone believing in the propositions known as TULIP is a hyper-Calvinist . That is just so much nonsense . He knew it was but he put out these " publications " nevertheless ."

So, imagine the court case, if you will.
Lawyer: "So, Mr. Rippon, you say John R. Rice is a liar?"
Rippon: "Yes, he is. He tells lies in his book."
Lawyer: "And how do you know he is telling lies?"
Rippon: "Well, I happen to know exactly what John R. Rice knew in his heart, so I know that what he wrote was a deliberate lie, because I know it was, because he had to know better!"
Judge: "Guilty of slander as charged!"


[ February 23, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: John of Japan ]

 

[John of Japan]

Actually I am sad about this, not angry. When I first saw Rippon posting on the Baptist Board I thought, "Hey, someone else in my neck of the world. Maybe we can fellowship." If Rippon had not chosen to slander and insult my grandfather over and over, but had approached the issue with Christian respect and graciousness, I would have been glad to interact with him about the book he is quoting. However, he has chosen a path which I will not go down.

Note here the sarcastic insults Rippon has written in this thread against my grandfather, in addition to his slander. I have not corrected Rippon's idiosyncratic punctuation. (Note that when he says "you" he is trying to carry on a dialogue with John R. Rice.)

Rippon has said:
He had a tabloid-style to his writing , much like Armstrong . (He compares Rice to a complete heretic here--JOJ.)

What a joke ! I KNOW you are misrepresenting Calvinism .

Still the semi-sovereign God of Rice . Even Ben Franklin was stronger here . (Rippon is saying that Rice was worse than a deist, someone who doesn't believe God intervenes AT ALL in the affairs of earth.)

You are denying Scripture

What Bible are you reading ? That is a ridiculous statement . And you preach ?

How nice of you to concede God some power .

Do you believe this guy ?

He made some charges up out of whole cloth .

The God he believed in was weak and at man's command , not the sovereign ( O how he hated that word ! ) (Not true--JOJ)

He didn't bother to check out the truth .

There is a lack of integrity there .

He was not fair .

In his classic he rarely intersected with the truth .

Was he only lying when he made his wild assertions ? Or was he speaking out of ignorance ? Perhaps there were a combination of factors involved .

To continue to lie and lump is sinful . To perpetuate falsehood is wrong . One who insists on saying things which distort reality is lying .

Does he then give his alternative rendering with sound exegesis ? Nah , he just makes nasty assertions instead . It is so much easier .

But Rice did not care about the truthfulness of his claims .

His goal was simply to give his biased , imbalanced (sic) opinion on matters that he hoped would cause people to reject what he thought were wrong views . Of course to achieve that he had to do some things that evidenced a lack of integrity . I guess he thought that the means justify the ends .

Rice was rather adept at distorting Calvin's views as he was in convoluting Scripture .

Give me a break . You flunked church history , didn't you ?

You have so much bias against Calvinism that you make up things out of whole cloth and borrow wives' tales as well .

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Benjamin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Quote by Rippon:
Still on page 6 -- " But extreme Calvinism , the teaching that some people , by the foreordained plan of God, are predestined to be lost , that their destinies were settled before they were born , is a wicked heresy contrary to the Bible , that dishonors God , and has done incalculable harm . " ( So , does he cite any verses that Calvinists use to support their views ? Does he then give his alternative rendering with sound exegesis ? Nah , he just makes nasty assertions instead . It is so much easier . )

That is just a bit hypocritical don’t you think?!

Quote by Rippon:
On page 20 he says : " It is true He definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time ... " ( If you think God only determines SOME events and not ALL events , then your God is not the omnipotent Lord of the Bible . )

Earlier quote by Rippon:
Who gave Rice the right to smear as he did with such stridency ?

Quote by JohnofJapan:
For Rice's view on Calvinism, unfiltered by Rippon's prejudice and prejudging, see http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/hyper.html This is not the book Rippon is ripping, which is not on the Internet nor in print anymore, but will give you an chance to make your own judgements on Rice's teaching.

Well, decided to see what all the hubbub was about so went to the link JoJ; kind of ticked me off!--could have saved me a lot of work if I had known there was such a man rebuking the falsities of Calvinism. While searching for more last night I listened to his sermon “When Skeletons Come Out of the Closet” –that was great!
http://www.baptistfire.com/gospel/rice.shtml

I must say your Grandfather has renewed some of my hopes in the Baptist denomination. I sure would have loved to have had the opportunity to sit at the kitchen table with that man! </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, Benjamin. Welcome to the John R. Rice fan club--though he would have thought a fan club to be frivolous.

 

[EdSutton]

Hello, John. I have only a couple of things to say. (Unfortunately, brevity is not my strong suit!) The best friends of my late father and mother were The late Mr. and Mrs. Homer Rice, as well as great friends of me. Homer was a distant cousin of Dr. John R. Rice, and was also related to David Rice, who was known as the 'Father of Presbyterianism' in KY, and whose school, Rice Academy, became the genesis of what became Kentucky, now Transylvania, University, and his grandson, Rev. Nathan Rice who became a well known preacher, as well. Just out of curiosity, would you have any knowledge of how or if Dr. John R. and Dr. Bill Rice would have been related to, or descended from David Rice?

I have a humerous comment about Dr. John R. Rice. One of my former pastors, just recently retired, at 70 because of health issues, used to fairly often refer to two individuals, John R. Rice and H. A. Ironside; as "Old JohnR.Rice", whose name he could somehow roll all into one word, and "Old Dr. Aarhnn-side" over the years. I jokingly once told him, "You were my pastor for eight years, before I figured out that 'Old' was NOT the first name of either Dr. John R. Rice or Dr. H. A. Ironside." I was a subscriber to both the 'Sword' and 'Christian Beacon' for probably a good ten years, until I decided that, as a farmer, I simply was not reading them enough to justify the subscription cost, and did not renew either, after about 10 yr. for the CB and 12 for the 'SoTL'. I always enjoyed the 'Sword', even though I doubt I would have agreed with every single word, then or now.

 

[EdSutton]

Finally, I got to meet Dr. John R. Rice, one time, over 35 years ago. This was during 'spring break' at the Florida Bible College, where I attended. Five, count 'em, five- students from the school, ages from 19 to 23 or so, arrived completely unannounced at the STL offices and wanted to see the place, and hopefully get to meet Dr. Rice. He was in his office working on the paper. It was early afternoon, like 2 PM. He stopped what he was doing, and met with us, and talked to us 'briefly'-for about 5 to 6 hours until about 7 or 8 PM that evening. Looking back, I guess he didn't get a lot of sleep, that night, for he still had 3 or four hours of work to do on the paper. Basically, he said that the work would keep, and that it was more important to meet with us. One of those five individuals, Ron Seecharan, who is of Indian descent, even as we speak, is in India. He and another close friend from my days at FBC, have been doing a month of evangelistic 'campaigns', and Dr. Seecharan is the founder and President, today, of Solid Rock International Ministries, which with SR Bible College and Seminary, trains Indian nationals for the ministry. I'd suggest that Dr. John along with one Jerry Morgan, late of the five students, are getting a wee bit of the rewards, and certainly are smiling in approval from glory.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for sharing these stories with me, Ed. I laughed at the first and then was very moved by the second. John R. Rice always had a great burden for students. Whenever he visited a college he would set up his book table and give all students a 50% discount.

John R. Rice was not in the book business for money. He lived on his loved offerings. He did not receive a penny from the 200 plus books and pamphlets he wrote, but all of that money went right back into the ministry. He used to joke about that, "Millions of dollars have gone through these hands, but thank God, none of it stuck!"

Would that more Christian authors thought that way!

 

[Bob Dudley]

Hi JoJ. Just wanted to let you know how your grandfather touched my life as well. In the 70’s I attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, MI. While there I was introduced to your grandfather. I even belonged to the John R. Rice Society while I attended there. Through the years I also got to hear his predecessor, Curtis Hutson, preach. I’ve read and listened to several sermons from both great men of God. Since then I have gotten to know Shelton Smith, the current editor of Sword of the Lord. Because of your grandfather’s book “The Golden Path to Successful Personal Soul Winning” and the SOTL’s Soul Winners’ Club I have been able to see thousands of souls won for the kingdom. Your grandfather’s legacy lives on. I wish God would raise more great men like him! He was a humble man who wanted nothing but to do God’s will and reach the lost with the gospel.