-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question about the late John R. Rice
- Thread starter Tractster
- Start date
The Sword has be no means the same influence it had some 20+ years ago. Since JRR's death in late 1980, it has become far less influential.
One BIG change would be on the issue of KJVOism.
JRR was always a very vocal opponant of KJVOism. His writings often addressed the issue (including 1969's Our God Breathed Book, The Bible), which although it really predated the real creation & onslaught of the controversy in the early 1970's clearly spelled out his belief that all faithful translations are God's Word. After the issue heated up during the 70's and became the litmus test in some IFB circles that it is today, he published an issue of the Sword in 1979 with the cover article "Some Questions for King James Fans", in which he railed against KJVOism.
Today, under Shelton Smith, the Sword itself is staunchly in the KJVO camp- which is a 180 degree turn from JRR's well-documented beliefs.
One BIG change would be on the issue of KJVOism.
JRR was always a very vocal opponant of KJVOism. His writings often addressed the issue (including 1969's Our God Breathed Book, The Bible), which although it really predated the real creation & onslaught of the controversy in the early 1970's clearly spelled out his belief that all faithful translations are God's Word. After the issue heated up during the 70's and became the litmus test in some IFB circles that it is today, he published an issue of the Sword in 1979 with the cover article "Some Questions for King James Fans", in which he railed against KJVOism.
Today, under Shelton Smith, the Sword itself is staunchly in the KJVO camp- which is a 180 degree turn from JRR's well-documented beliefs.
Thanks, Larry.
I'd love to read the articles that Rice wrote about the KJV-Only controversy.
I really enjoyed reading his biography by Viola Walden, "John R. Rice: Captain of our Team." It really blessed my soul. I've read it several times in the last couple of years.
Do you know where Curtis Hutson stood on the KJV issue?
Roscoe
Tractster,
Here's a link to a transcript of JRR's Sword article, dated March 30, 1979:
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/jrrice_some_questions_for_%20king_james_fans.html
I don't recall for sure, but I believe Hutson switched to KJVO during the 1980's, right about the time Jack Hyles did.
Here's a link to a transcript of JRR's Sword article, dated March 30, 1979:
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/jrrice_some_questions_for_%20king_james_fans.html
I don't recall for sure, but I believe Hutson switched to KJVO during the 1980's, right about the time Jack Hyles did.
Also of note: the Sword briefly (like for about a month) carried ads for the Revised Standard Version (RSV) after the full translation was published in 1952. JRR stopped carrying the ads after some fundamentalists, including Carl McIntire, complained. (The issue with the RSV revolved around it's use of "young woman" in some verses rather than "virgin" in reference to Mary, which is why it's never been accepted as a good translation by most fundamentalists.)
I have been aware of this fact for a while but I can't find my source anywhere. Other than an old Sword of the Lord somewhere, do you have a source for this claim?
Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Andy,
I saw an old copy (from 1952) of the Sword myself several years ago that contained an RSV ad. Also, here's a link that discusses the Sword carrying RSV ads:
http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_2/NonIssue.pdf
Look for footnote #13, that begins on page 174 and concludes on page 175. It's a lengthy footnote that provides a lot of the details.
Larry
Repentance? That is very interesting question for soul-winning method such as "Roman Road" tract. Puzzle me!
</font>[/QUOTE]This has been part of the "lordship vs. free grace" debate.Lordship: Repentance means turning from sin and is a requrement for salvation.
Free Grace (some leaders): Repentance means "change of mind" about Christ -- and not turning from sins. Curtis Hutson holds this view.
Some, like John R. Rice and Hutson, taught that repentance is also another term for believing.
Some Free Grace people have taught (along with John Wesley) that repentance is not needed for salvation.
Roscoe
It would be best in these debates not to set lordship and free grace against each other as if they are enemies. Lordship salvation does most certainly believe in free grace. "Free grace" itself is a redundancy; there is no other kind of grace. The so called 'free grace' movement is an unbiblical movement and they have coopted a name to which they have no right.
It would be best in these debates not to set lordship and free grace against each other as if they are enemies. Lordship salvation does most certainly believe in free grace. "Free grace" itself is a redundancy; there is no other kind of grace. The so called 'free grace' movement is an unbiblical movement and they have coopted a name to which they have no right. </font>[/QUOTE]My apologies, Larry.
I was simply using the expression that is used by the leaders in the debate. As you know, a lot of books and articles have been written on the topic.
Roscoe
P.S. Curtis Hutson even stepped into the debate and wrote a book that criticizes lorship teaching. See Sword of the Lord Publishing.
Another notable quotation from John R. Rice:
"However, I should like for you to see tonight what the Roman Catholic Bible, the newest and best translation of the Catholic Bible, has to say on several important doctrines. And, by the way, I would like to say that this is an interesting translation and it is true to the originals. You would be safe in reading it. I would not be embarrassed nor afraid at all for Protestants to have this Bible and read it. Though some of the notes in it I would not agree to, the translation itself is an honest and good translation. And the surprising and happy thing about it is that this, coming through the translation of the Latin Vulgate which was translated by St. Jerome, and our King James translation which came from the original Hebrew and Greek and copied manuscripts, come out almost word for word the same. There are a few words different, but there is no special difference in meaning when there is a slight difference in the English wording. You can put it down now that all good translations of the Bible come out alike and teach the same doctrines exactly. And a Catholic Bible can be relied upon to teach the truth, and so, of course, can the King James Version or the American Standard Version."
This is from his often preached sermon (directed at Catholics): Sermon from a Catholic Bible.
Here's a link to the whole sermon:
http://www.calvary-baptist.org/catholic.html
Can you imagine John R. Rice being permitted to preach this message in the pulpit of any militantly KJVO church today?
"However, I should like for you to see tonight what the Roman Catholic Bible, the newest and best translation of the Catholic Bible, has to say on several important doctrines. And, by the way, I would like to say that this is an interesting translation and it is true to the originals. You would be safe in reading it. I would not be embarrassed nor afraid at all for Protestants to have this Bible and read it. Though some of the notes in it I would not agree to, the translation itself is an honest and good translation. And the surprising and happy thing about it is that this, coming through the translation of the Latin Vulgate which was translated by St. Jerome, and our King James translation which came from the original Hebrew and Greek and copied manuscripts, come out almost word for word the same. There are a few words different, but there is no special difference in meaning when there is a slight difference in the English wording. You can put it down now that all good translations of the Bible come out alike and teach the same doctrines exactly. And a Catholic Bible can be relied upon to teach the truth, and so, of course, can the King James Version or the American Standard Version."
This is from his often preached sermon (directed at Catholics): Sermon from a Catholic Bible.
Here's a link to the whole sermon:
http://www.calvary-baptist.org/catholic.html
Can you imagine John R. Rice being permitted to preach this message in the pulpit of any militantly KJVO church today?