What Rice Doctrines Do You differ With ?

Wow. You really have too much time on your hands.

Dr. Rice was a great man of God. Shaking his hand was like meeting Moses.

He was a great preacher, he was not a deep theologian. He was around during a time when very few fundamentalists had worked much to develop their theology. Sadly, many of them still have not done very much to develop it. And I have most everything JRR has published. Do I agree with all of it. No.

I do not agree with everything anybody has written, except of course what God has directly inspired through holy men of old.

Why you picking on John R.R.? Why not go after someone really colorful like Jack Hyles? Rice was pretty much civil most of the time. He did not rage against the brethren nearly so much as Hudson did later. So, why single him out? I doubt that most of the guys here have even heard of him, only those from a more Fundy perspective, like me at one time. Now, I would probably call myself CONSERVATIVE Evangelical who agrees with the Fundamentals of the Faith, just does not like the way most Fundys act, or preach.

 

When you put this much on one post, most of it gets lost in the confusion... imo

 

But not every issue is explained indepth so I assume that Dr. Rice's position is what you wrote. And I would say that I can agree to all of these opinions. To argue them I would need to study more but many if not all of these are right in line with my thinking.

 

rip,

Are you reading? or just writing? How long have you been making this list?

 

Instead of causing offence by directing your post at Rice why not just deal with your points direct from Scripture.

We could say much about Moody, Torrey, Spurgeon and others. But they are no longer here to defend themselves.

I seem to remember great offence being caused before by this sort of thing.

Deal with the truth as it is and leave Rice and other's out of it.

 

I wish you had a kinder spirit. You are no longer worth the time to respond to.

 

This is the first topic that I have been tempted to join in as an argument, but I will refrain or I know I will say things I regret. "The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity" Don't want my tongue flaming up here.

John R. Rice was not a perfect man but he was indeed "a man sent from God"!!!!!!!

 

rippon,

as I said in pm, let's deal with some of the issues a bite at a time, instead of in such big chunks. And, since Rice was deeply loved by many, let's not make it a personal attack on the man, but rather, let's discuss weaknesses in his theology. AND, to be sure we all have those. AND also to be sure, JRR was a great soulwinner and witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. His passion for God was unmistakeable.

Did you ever meet him, or hear him in person?

John MacArthur has probably influenced me and my ministry more than any one else, and I strongly disagree with his Lordship position! Yet the man has much to teach. I just got back from my third Shepherd's Conference and it was great. I did not agree with everything I heard, but the only time that happens is when I open the book and read it alone without any commentaries.

We were going to go and visit Saddleback again, but I realized that I would be going with a critical spirit and decided that it would not be a valuable thing for me to do in that frame of mind. I very strongly disagree with RW and PDL and say so from my pulpit, but I usually try to attack the theology, or lack thereof, rather than the man.

Just my two cents worth... or maybe even less...

 

Amen, Bro. Preach it! I'd add to your list another million or so, who no longer can defens themselves.

Someone wants to get on my case? Fine, all I can say is "Go for it!" if that makes one feel any better, or whatever.

I'm fair game; I post fairly frequently, so I will usually get the message, right or wrong, and first hand, at that. If one wants to 'get in my face' and take a 'body shot', we can, 'duke it out', so to speak, if that becomes necessary. I tend to take a somewhat dimmer view of 'drive-by shootings'.

I would sugest that there are another fairly large group, that sometimes draw responses among them, where I, at least, see this option in somewhat poorer taste. That would include individuals that are not privy to the BB. Surely, we can 'do better', than attack in absentia. I may agree or disagree with John MacArthur, Rick Warren, Robert Schuller, or any others of any stripe of the 'California crowd'. But never having been there, and never having made the effort of contact with any of those, I am not likely to engage in any sort of 'Theological sniper fire.'

For the small sum of <$.45 for a stamp and less than a buck, overall, I can write a letter. For a little more, I can make contact via phone. For a little less, I can reach most by e-mail.

Undoubtedly, however this is beyond the financial reach of many, I can only conclude, based on the number of 'free-shots', I've seen taken over the years. [I would offer that to disagree with something in print, based on .....and for .....reason, is another subject, entirely.]

But I'll agree again, overall with mnw. I see little value in "raising the dead" for the purpose of either exalting them, or burying them. They 'rest from their labors'. Let them rest; they've earned that.
In His grace,
Ed

 

For the record, it did not appear to me that the original poster was "picking on" Dr. Rice or that he was "picking on" any of Dr. Rice's views. Furthermore, many other great men of God have had quirky views, as you point out yourself. To bring them out for discussion in this forum does not say anything about how free the original poster's schedule is or is not....just for the record.

 

For the record, it did not appear to me that the original poster was "picking on" Dr. Rice or that he was "picking on" any of Dr. Rice's views. Furthermore, many other great men of God have had quirky views, as you point out yourself. To bring them out for discussion in this forum does not say anything about how free the original poster's schedule is or is not....just for the record. </font>[/QUOTE]I would agree with you. However, this is not the first time Rippon has done this with JR Rice which leads me to agree with others that Rippon is on a mission to condemn a dead man for whatever warped reason exists inside his head.

 

I deny the following:
1. Those who hold to 5-point Calvinism are hyper-Calvinists. Why? based on the modern usage of the term.

2. Adherents of 5-point Calvinism are radical heretics. Why? Most are evangelical Christians.

3. Calvinism insists that we need not urge people to turn to Christ. Why? Calvinism is personified here - a logical fallacy.

4. Donald G. Barnhouse was much the same as the above. Why? I haven't gotten this from reading Barnhouse.

5. Nobody is predestined to be saved or lost. Why? Scripture clearly teaches that there is a body of persons predestined to be saved. It does not necessarily follow, though, that Scripture teaches that a body of persons exists which is predestined to be lost.

6. Mercy in Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation. Why? Romans 9 has everything to do with the national salvation of Israel. Still, though, Paul's primary emphasis is not to argue theology here, but to answer the anticipated objection: "What about Israel?"

I affirm the following:

1. Calvinists merely reason that since God knows what will happen , then God must have ordered it . That is , Calvinists do not use scripture as the basis for their beliefs -- only fallible human reasoning. Why? I have met many Calvinists who reason in this way.

2. In the matter of salvation, the Bible has no teaching of unconditional election. Why? Because the Bible has no teaching of unconditional election on the matter of salvation.

3. The Bible never even hints that there are many people who have no ability to be saved. Why? A literal reading of Romans 1 and certain other passages, to me, at least hints in the opposite direction.

4. Calvinism represents grace as the irresistable act of God compelling a man to be saved who does not want to be saved. Why? Many of my Calvinist friends claim this.

5. God's power consists in planning ahead in the affairs of men and works things according to His will. Why? Though not limited to this, God's power does work in this way.

6. It is fair to say that someone has the same chance of salvation that every other man has. Why? With qualifications to make sure we're on the same page.... "Same chance of salvation" can be taken a few different ways.

On the other two...
I have no clue who Dr. Loraine Boettner is/was and how you're using the term "reprobation."

 

As a new member to these boards (who hasn't reviewed many previous threads), I was not aware of this. As you say, on this basis, there may be some credence to rjprince's statements. I will always be in favor of discussing a deceased person's views, but never in favor of assassinating the character of any person - alive or deceased.

 

Enough already! One need not affirm the newly labeled 6th point of Calvinism (double predestination) in order to be a Calvinist.

This is simply untrue. Cite one self-described Calvinist who has ever portrayed Jesus in this way.

God determines what is right and wrong. If His Word did teach what you claim Calvinists believe, then what you and I perceive as just, right, or wrong would become irrelevant.

 

As a new member to these boards (who hasn't reviewed many previous threads), I was not aware of this. As you say, on this basis, there may be some credence to rjprince's statements. I will always be in favor of discussing a deceased person's views, but never in favor of assassinating the character of any person - alive or deceased.

</font>[/QUOTE]Here is the first time Rippon did this.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/6114.html

Please note that Rippon is presenting these statements of what John R. Rice supposedly taught with no context, mostly if not all from a book long out of print that is not available on the internet.

 

This thread reminds me of a "one trick pony"