John Richard Rice

[Watchman]

Well Rippon, do you want the man to put his own grandfather down?
As for not supporting his contentions with Scripture: that charge has been issued by both sides of this issue for longer that we have been alive. Both sides do have a great deal of Scripture that they use in making their point. Is the Scriptures, therefore, at fault? Paul would say here, "God forbid!"
The problem is our perception of what God, in His Word, is saying to us.
Myself, I take Scripture quite literally, unless there is a compelling reason to not treat a certain passage literally. Doing so, Calvinism here falls short.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Why is it that some calvinist think they are the jello sheriff and will put everybody in the boxes they want them in. They will tell you you are either a calvinist or an armenian and those are your only choices.Wrong.

By the way John of Japan your secret is still safe with me.

Plain Old Bill, I knew you could keep a secret! Alas, in a situation like this I just had to let it out my own self. It may cramp folks' discussion with me a little bit on the BB, but a man has to do what a man has to do.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
...your integrity is on the line here.

My grandfather had a principle that he followed when in a doctrinal dispute. When personally attacked he would refuse to answer the personal attack, and cut off the dialogue. I will now do the same with you.

 

[Timtoolman]

Rippon
This Arminian/Calvinism issue has to be dealt with. Great truths are at stake . If you (or anyone ) thinks they can stay in a gray zone they are mistaken . John R. Rice and most professing believers today are Arminian whether they know it or not . Calvinism is the antithesis of Arminianism . It is a black and white contrast .

It is telling that nobody addressed your grandfather's words from his booklet against what he tried to characterize as Calvinism. 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 ! ) Lord of all . He constantly called Calvinists hyper-calvinists . He didn't bother to check out the truth . He had no understanding of Church History ( of which I believe all preachers should have a basic grasp ) . And Church History goes back a bit more than the times of Charles Finney and DL Moody .

Try to support his contentions with Scripture . You tell me if he was in-fact slandering up a storm in his book or not . The word " heretic " was quick to come out of his mouth against others . Do you believe his manner of presentation was God-honoring ? Do you think that someone should have a working knowledge of their subject before they go into print ? Did he make any mistakes in his book ?

Timtoolman :
Take the first par. And we start too see how human logic and reasoning go out the door. It is not black and white. Arminianism does not believe in eternal security, among other things. Calvinism has different degrees of belief also with each claiming that they are the true Calvinist. When you read Spurgeon and Calvin’s writings you will find that they not only contradict one another but themselves. Some people will argue that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist to the degree most are today. So it is NOT black and White Rippon and you do not hold any special truth!

Let’s look at #2. JohnR did not hate that word sovereignty; in fact there are many poems in his books about sovereignty of God. Truth is Rippon, Calvinist try too tell God how He is too be sovereign. JohnR let God decide that of Himself. Here is sovereignty…..believe and live, don’t and be condemn. That is God’s sovereignty spelled out in the Bible. What you cavinist have done is tell God we don’t like that in order for you too to be sovereign you must not let man have a choice. I understand in actuality you are really saying it has to be this was to fit the teachings of Calvin, but none the less you are doing this by your actions.
You go on to claim he didn’t bother to find out the truth. Let me tell you I am reading about our early fathers right now and how Calvinism came to be. Its funny but the same charges are brought up way back then that are being charged to the Calvinist now. That it makes God that author of sin, a hateful God, a respecter of persons, etc. The same charges today!!!! Maybe you Calvinist are not listening to yourselves. Words mean something and when people throw the same charges at you….maybe it’s the words your using!
And finally today most people are not Calvinist. How can such a small group claim to be so much wiser then so many. No Rippon your charges are baseless and personal. You have not tried to see the truth or you would at least admit that the argument against or for Calvinist is not just two parties. And that It has rage on for many years with great men of faith on both sides.
JohnR was a man who loved souls. I have read much about him and Spurgeon. Spurgeon was no great soul winner. Many came to the knowledge of salvation under his preaching but that happens incite of human effort anyways. The preaching of the word will not return void.
Sit back and pray for wisdom Rippon but thank God for those who have brought out much of what we have today. Keep the good and throw away the bad.

 

[Timtoolman]

Rippon:
I want to mention two times when I said " nonsense " referring to JRR . Again , he was trying to categorize all Calvinists as believing some preposterous things .

He painted with a BROAD BRUSH AND DID NOT ALLOW FOR ANY DIFFERENCES.

Investigate and see for yourself . Do not generalize . Do not put words in people's mouths or charge them with beliefs they repudiate . Do not be like your grandfather in this regard . He was not fair . He had to know of the big differences in the Calvinistic camp ( and the GS group is a small minority ) .

Timtoolman:
This is funny. Hey pot meet the kettle!

Rippon:
and most professing believers today are Arminian whether they know it or not . Calvinism is the antithesis of Arminianism . It is a black and white contrast .

Know what Rippon you have shown yourself very well. I think you should stand in front of a mirror and say those lines over again!


Foot in mouth desiase can be fixed!

 

[mima]

Gentleman; It is true Calvinism and Arminianism are total opposites when being considered in one mind. However I would like to suggest to you that while predestination, absolutely no choice, certain election, is true in God's mind it does not follow to be true in the individual's mind. The reason Calvinism is a fact in God's mind has to do with the word foreknowledge and all that that word means. On the other hand to the individual salvation is freedom of choice, total freedom to choose God or refuse God. Now the outcome of this choice is already known to God because of "foreknowledge". Perhaps before you call this heresy, or get very angry, you could possibly give it some thought. What I am saying is that God's mind and our minds or not the same. Now a word about John R. Rice. This man was a great evangelist, this man understood the power of the word of God, and this man did a great service to the Christian community. Did I agree with everything he said, absolutely not, but I knew were he was coming from because I knew his beliefs. As we talked to a man we are unlikely to change his beliefs, but with legitimate argument give shapes perhaps different shapes to what he is beliefs were before he considers our arguments.

 

[webdog]

You can't be a fence-sitter regarding the truths of Scripture . This Arminian/Calvinism issue has to be dealt with . Great truths are at stake . If you (or anyone ) thinks they can stay in a gray zone they are mistaken

You are wrong, there is no absolute "either / or".
I think it was Obi Wan Kenobi who said to Anakin in Episode III..."only the Sith think in absolute's!" (sorry, just recently finished watching Star Wars )
What you call a "gray zone"....

from www.faithalone.org

T... http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003i/badger.html
U...
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003ii/badger.html
L...
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2004i/badger.html
I...
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2004ii/badger.html
P...
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1998i/Hodges.html

 

[EdSutton]

I would say that who does or does not have integrity has been fairly well fixed in My own mind.
Ed

 

[Ransom]

Whatever Rice's other strengths were, he really dropped the ball with his polemic work on Calvinism, proving that he really had no clue what he was talking about. His continual confusion of five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism is but one of his sloppier mistakes.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

webdog,

Thanks for the link!

There is really no argument more frustrating than to convince a Calvinist that there are other alternatives besides just Arminian. They really hate the implication of the word Biblicist!

Thanks Again,
Max

 

[Plain Old Bill]

It seems to me that some make a god or demi-god out of Calvin which I am sure he would find distasteful. Calvin was a man and some of what he wrote was right and godd and some of what he wrote was not so right and not so good.I am not going to bother to get into a debate to point out all of Calvins' errors it is a waste of time and effort.
I have also read Chafer,Erickson,some Gruden,Hodge,Strong,and ryrie.While they all make very good points and have much to teach they are men also just like Calvin.So take the good and leave the rest on the side of the road.

One can be a biblicist without being a calvinist or Arminean in theology.He/she could be a Calvinist/wesleyan/Ericksonian/ryrieite/Strongian/Grudemite.Taking thier good and throwing the rest out.If any mans theology disagrees with the Bible on any point guess who has the problem?Let God be true and all men liars.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by PASTOR MHG:
webdog,

Thanks for the link!

There is really no argument more frustrating than to convince a Calvinist that there are other alternatives besides just Arminian. They really hate the implication of the word Biblicist!

Thanks Again,
Max

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
One can be a biblicist without being a calvinist or Arminean in theology.He/she could be a Calvinist/wesleyan/Ericksonian/ryrieite/Strongian/Grudemite.Taking thier good and throwing the rest out.If any mans theology disagrees with the Bible on any point guess who has the problem?Let God be true and all men liars.

Amen and amen. Well said, Plain Old Bill.

 

[Rhetorician]

JOJ,

Read your email and rsvp please.

sdg!

rd

 

[Rippon]

John R. Rice had ,( and still has ) a lot of influence over too many . Hardly any are willing to face the facts regarding his misrepresentations . In his classic he rarely intersected with the truth . But I found two examples where I agreed with him . The first is on page 49 -- " No one has a right to blame God if he goes to Hell ! " And the second example is found on page 85 -- " Men cannot blame God for their sin nor for their damnation when they insist on remaining in sin . " Amen to both wise observations .

If I was the great grandson of Harry Emerson Fosdick should I say " Hands off ! That's my great grandfather -- don't criticize him ! " His teachings as much as those of anyone else need to be evaluated .

Is Rice to be exonerated because he is someone's grandfather ? How long does he merit a free pass ? He died almost 30 years ago . His teachings have a right to be examined .

Now we have to come to some conclusions . 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 .

The memory of JRR is revered . He is highly regarded . I am certain that he did a great many honorable things in his life . But his book " Predestined For Hell ? No ! " was not an honorable production . Instead of elevating Rice how about raising truth to a more promiment status ?

In his celebrated classic he habitually calls Calvinists hyper-calvinists . He normally spurns their views as scripture-twisting , man-made , and extreme . But you say it was permissible for him to do that , he was afterall , John R. Rice . Yet if anyone dares to say that he mishandled the Word of God and told lies about Calvinism , that is tantamount to blasphemy !

The original copyright year of his book was 1958 . He was about 63 years old then . Surely at that age , being in the ministry for such a long time , he would have been privy to basic facts . He was 63 ! He wasn't 23 . Did he ever revise the contents ? Did he ever apologize for this error-filled book over the next 22 years of his life ? No .

He had to have known Ian Paisley . Paisley was a good friend of Bob Jones Jr. Paisley is an ardent Calvinist . He not only believes in the 5 points but says " and all of them are sharp ! " However Paisley is a fervent soul seeker . Did JRR consider Ian Paisley a hyper-calvinist ?

Winning souls is not antithetical to Calvinism . That is why believers in the doctrine of grace were the ones who pioneered the missionary movement of the 1790's . That's why they have had a history before and after Calvin as great evangelists/theologians /authors etc. In Puritan times you would have been hard-pressed to find an Arminian aside from 3 or so exceptions.

If someone preaches and teaches to all within earshot -- not being selective as to who his listeners are -- loves the souls of those who are outside of Christ -- believes it is the duty of all to repent and trust the Lord alone for salvation -- How can that person rightfully be called a hyper-calvinist ? Have you ever listened to Al Martin ? He is an extraordinary Reformed Baptist preacher out of the Puritan mold . He loves the Lord and has a transparent love for the lost . He extolls Christ in every sermon . Calvinism is not the same as hyper-calvinism .

I have said this before and I will say it again -- there are true h-c's . They are Gospel Standard people in England and some Primitive Baptists in the States -- plus a few other related bodies but the most extreme H-C is Brandon Kraft . True Calvinists would recoil from such .

To continue to lie and lump is sinful . To perpetuate falsehood is wrong . One who insists on saying things which distort reality is lying . There is no way around it . And those who coddle such views are as guilty as those who originated the remarks .

BTW , Donald G. Barnhouse former pastor of 10th Presbyterian Church in Philly was called an arrogant hyper-calvinist by Rice . ( see pages 7 and 101 ) . Rice also slandered Rolfe Barnard ( pages 101,102 )though not by name . Rice said Barnard came to utter ruin . Tell that disgraceful accusation to the estimated 10,000 souls that were led to the Lord through his instrumentality . Who gave Rice the right to smear as he did with such stridency ?

Back to basics . The 5 Points are not all of Calvinism . They are certainly fundamental , but not all . The truths of the entire Bible are embraced by those who love the doctrine of grace of the Lord . A minister should not be spending his time sermonizing on those biblical propositions which countered the 5 points of the Remonstrants in 1618-19 .

[ February 21, 2006, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Rippon ]

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Rippon,
I assume you took the name from Gill's protoge so one can understand your views easily and completely.Because someone disagrees with your theology or does not agree with your view of theology does not make them a liar it makes them a dissenter of your view.

I have read many of your posts. I will pray that you get a little social grace and tact.I don't expect your views to change.I don't even care if they do or not.I just hope you learn not to be so abrasive and a little more accepting of views which you do not hold. Be as kind to others as you would like them to be toward you.

 

[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?!
To say John Rice intersected with truth only twice shows your bias and calvinistic teachings. Most people do not, I repeat, do not follow the teahicngs of calvin. They can see them to not be biblical. Yet you claim to be right and smarter then many.

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

Here is an inditement on nearly every calvinist who says there are only two types of thougth in the world today. Arminian and Calvinism. Seems son you have called yourself some pretty strong things. However I think you should take some time and contemplate on em. They seem to have a ring of truth in em!

 

[whatever]

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.

 

[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.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
If I was the great grandson of Harry Emerson Fosdick should I say " Hands off ! That's my great grandfather -- don't criticize him ! " His teachings as much as those of anyone else need to be evaluated .

As I predicted in my first post, Rippon has once again slandered my grandfather, this time by comparing him to Harry Emerson Fosdick. Rice was orthodox in every way (unless you have the extremely narrow view that only the TULIP is orthodox ), planted 12 Baptist churches and saw hundreds of thousands come to Christ through his ministry. Fosdick was a notorious liberal who denied all of the fundamentals (see Erickson's Christian Theology for Fosdick's view on bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, etc.) and destroyed the Christian faith of many.

Please don't trust Rippon's excerpts from my grandfather's book. He is ripping them out of context and misrepresenting them. For just one example, in his third post Rippon mentions Scripture quoted by Rice, then puts (!) after it as if Rice had written something wrong. Here is the Rippon quote: "... gnashed on him with their teeth ( ! ) page 69." Here is Rice's original: "And this resistance against the Holy Spirit went to such length that as they heard Stephen preach, 'they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth,' and then they took him out of the city and stoned him and killed him!"

In the Rice original, he was pointing out that it is possible to resist the Holy Spirit, as Stephen said in Acts 7:51, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Rather than deal with the point Rice was making, which was that grace was not irresistible in this case, Rippon would rather quote Rice quoting Scripture and pretend that this was bad.

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.