What Rice Doctrines Do You differ With ?

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Satartia:
This thread reminds me of a "one trick pony"

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I don't respond to "hit and run" posters...

 

[Rippon]

I had made a request in my opening post . I wanted non-Calvinist supporters of John R. Rice to indicate either agreement with ,or denial of , the items I listed . Futhermore , I wanted an explanation as to why or why not . So far only one person has done so in a meaningful manner : CompassionateConservative .

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Please provide a source for your OP in accordance with BB copyright rules.

Thanks,
§ue

 

[Rippon]

Those items were things Rice said in his book : " Predestined For Hell ? No ! " . I put them in propositional form .

 

[EdSutton]

"I taut I taw a puddy cat!"

Tweety

 

[John of Japan]

Subtle, Ed!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have a difficult time understanding a Christian who has such vitriolic feelings toward a brother who is with the Lord.

If we want to discuss the issues that is one thing, but why pick on one man?

 

[Rippon]

Rice's views are representative of many professed Christians -- a lot of them are posters on this board .

Should there be a 50-year moratorium after someone's death before examining their views ? Aren't we allowed to name names ? If one believes that one is in error , can't we warn others that those teachings are wrong ? I think Paul did that .

I think anyone should be up for scrutiny , Finney, Pink , Sunday , Spurgeon , Warren and more .

I find it ironic . Rice's book was full of vitriol against brethren . Yet when when I cite his sentiments I am charged with the same . Ann Coulter says liberals become unglued when there is simply a recitation of their remarks . That has application here .

So are some of you suggesting that Rice did not say anything of the sort that I posted ? Was what I posted just hogwash ? Are you saying that the opposite was true ?

I am afraid what he said was not reflective of godliness . He said awful things against Warfield , Boettner , Hoeksema , Barnhouse and others , but you all will let those slurs go -- just itemizing Rice's charges are considered distasteful in your eyes .

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Rice's views are representative of many professed Christians -- a lot of them are posters on this board

Should there be a 50-year moratorium after someone's death before examining their views ? Aren't we allowed to name names ? If one believes that one is in error , can't we warn others that those teachings are wrong ? I think Paul did that .

I think anyone should be up for scrutiny , Finney, Pink , Sunday , Spurgeon , Warren and more .

I find it ironic . Rice's book was full of vitriol against brethren . Yet when when I cite his sentiments I am charged with the same . Ann Coulter says liberals become unglued when there is simply a recitation of their remarks . That has application here .

So are some of you suggesting that Rice did not say anything of the sort that I posted ? Was what I posted just hogwash ? Are you saying that the opposite was true ?

I am afraid what he said was not reflective of godliness . He said awful things against Warfield , Boettner , Hoeksema , Barnhouse and others , but you all will let those slurs go -- just itemizing Rice's charges are considered distasteful in your eyes .

I had not planned to answer Rippon at all, but I cannot let this pass. Rippon is being incredibly hypocritical here, when one looks back at what he wrote about Dr. Rice in his previous attempt at theological carpet bombing. He slandered Dr. Rice and insulted him in various and sundry ways. And he has not repented and has not apologized.

In order to give context to what Rippon is saying here (he gives absolutely no context for anything he is saying from John R. Rice's book), I will clarify how Rice was supposedly so mean to Donald Barnhouse and Lorraine Boettner

First of all, let me give you the context (which Rippon ignores) from the book he is referring to, Predestined for Hell? No! On p. 7, Dr. Rice writes (and note, this is without referring to Barnhouse by name), “A godly pastor in New Jersey told friends how he had been a wicked sinner until God in mercy convicted him and saved him; how near he had come to eternal ruin! But an arrogant and prominent hyper-Calvinist said to him, ‘Why, that time when you consciously turned to Christ was not when you were regenerated! You were saved when you were a babe in your mother’s arms, or possibly before your birth. If you are a Christian, you were predestined to be saved.’ I heard the same man tell missionaries in Japan, ‘Don’t worry about people going to Hell because you didn’t get the gospel to them, or if you had no soul-winning power. Their salvation is in God’s hands, not in yours.’ Also he said, ‘If you are saved now, there never was any danger of your going to Hell.’ You can imagine whether such teaching is helpful in making soul winners!”

The incident in Japan he is talking about happened in 1956. John R. Rice came to Japan, where he had been invited to preach in a Bible conference by TEAM missionaries. Donald Barnhouse showed up at the conference uninvited, and since he was a well-known theologian, he was given a spot on the platform. Barnhouse used this opportunity to attack John R. Rice from the pulpit!

Dr. Rice tells about this incident later in his book: “In the summer of 1956 I was in Japan, addressing some 500 missionaries of the Evangelical Missionaries Association of Japan. Dr. Donald Barnhouse came along, and was given some afternoon meetings at times when services had not been planned. And this hyper-Calvinist Presbyterian, Dr. Barnhouse, said to the missionaries in my presence, ‘If people are not saved at your mission station, do not blame yourself. Do not fret. That is not your fault. What a torment I should have if I thought the saving of souls depended upon my faithfulness! No, if God is going to save them, He will save them, and if they are lost, it is not your fault.’ Those are not the exact words, but that is the exact sentiment of his message. Again he told the missionaries, ‘If you are saved now, there never was any danger of your being lost, because God had determined to save you.’ Would you say that that kind of talk inspires missionary passion and burden for souls? It does not! Consicously or unconsciously, actively or passively, hyper-Calvinism opposes and hinders foreign missions as it hinders soul winning at home” (p. 101).

Dr. Rice (my grandfather, as most of you know) once told me in private, grinning, “Dr. Barnhouse said, ‘John R. Rice writes for idiots!’ I guess there are a lot of idiots out there since my books are selling well!” You know what, in light of the nasty things Barnhouse OFTEN said about John R. Rice, I guess Grandad actually held back quite a bit when he wrote about Barnhouse!!

Rippon also claimed that John R. Rice wrote: “Dr. Loraine Boettner was a narrow-minded, warped sectarian. Donald G. Barnhouse was much the same as the above.” You have seen exactly what John R. Rice wrote about Barnhouse, so you know Rippon is lying. However, I will admit that this is an exact quote about Boettner. Once again, however, what Rippon has not provided is context. I will give you the context so you can make your own judgement.

Frankly, I think John R. Rice was right on the money about Boettner! He wrote on pp. 15-16: “Note that Dr. Boettner, with other hyper-Calvinists, states that ‘there are really only three systems which claim to set forth a way of salvation through Christ.’ (NOTE: Earlier in the paragraph, Rice had quoted this from Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 47—John of Japan) He says, ‘Only two are held by Christians, that is Calvin’s position and Arminius’ position.’ Does not this show that Dr. Boettner, with other radical hyper-Calvinists, is either totally unaware of the vast mass of evangelical literature on this subject and the position of most orthodox Christians iln the world, or that he is so biased that he plays down the facts and omits them in this case? That is the viewpoint of a narrow-minded, warped sectarian” (Predestined for Hell? No! pp. 16-17).

One final note: John R. Rice did not say “awful things” about Warfield. He simply quoted him and disagreed with him. Rippon is lying.

 

[Rippon]

Every time you or your grandad and anyone else uses the term " Hyper-Calvinist " divorced from its true meaning gross distortion is taking place . He committed himself to print though , so the damage has been done .JRR threw around terms like that and endearing ones like " heretic " at the drop of a hat . He sad disgraceful things about Rolfe Barnard " came to utter ruin " . Nonsense . Pure tripe . Rice was on a manical venture . He was out to discredit at any cost , facts never deterred him . He reminds me of Wesley in that regard .

**Edited to remove personal attack**

[ March 28, 2006, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I disagree with her insistence that Israel give up more and more specific concessions with time-tables, etc... while she rests on the vague promises of future peace folks who have yet to produce much but terror...oh wait...wrong Rice, huh?

Carry on.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[CompassionateConservative]

Originally posted by Rippon:
so the damage has been done

Rippon, the vitriolic attitude of which you have been accused comes through undeniably in this post. If you really feel the way you do about Dr. Rice's book, then maybe you should try to suppress it - not quote it here among his friends and family. After all, it will eventually go out of print (as it may already have) and you will have nothing to worry about. By the way, I know dozens, if not scores, of people living today who throw the term "heretic" around too often as well. May I put you in contact with them so that you can be proactive in preventing any more of this "damage"?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Every time you or your grandad and anyone else uses the term " Hyper-Calvinist " divorced from its true meaning gross distortion is taking place . He committed himself to print though , so the damage has been done .JRR threw around terms like that and endearing ones like " heretic " at the drop of a hat . He sad disgraceful things about Rolfe Barnard " came to utter ruin " . Nonsense . Pure tripe . Rice was on a manical venture . He was out to discredit at any cost , facts never deterred him . He reminds me of Wesley in that regard .

So prove me wrong. Simply saying my grandfather and I are wrong makes it your word against ours.

Concerning Rolfe Barnard, you once again give no quote and no context. Rice did not mention Barnard in his book, so it is only your supposition.

If Boettner was not a hyper-Calvinist, tell me who he won to Christ, what revivals God performed through him, where in his works he promoted personal evangelism or world evangelism.

[ March 28, 2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[bapmom]

Rippon,

are you against those viewpoints you listed in your OP? and if so, are you against them because Rice was (supposedly) for them?

I believe that the reason most of us in here are unwilling to discuss this with you in this manner is because you have presented your argument as being based on whether or not John R. Rice held to these views.

In the true spirit of "Baptist independence", I don't think most of us here would believe something simply because a very famous, well-respected, and well-loved preacher held to that viewpoint.

Your OP was too vague because, as has been pointed out, you did not give context for any of your assertions. You also based them all on your assertion that John R. Rice held to them. Well, I look at the OP and say.....So? I don't remember reading anything that JRR wrote that I disagreed with.....but why is that important? It really isn't. What's important is, is it Biblical?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by C4K:
I have a difficult time understanding a Christian who has such vitriolic feelings toward a brother who is with the Lord.

If we want to discuss the issues that is one thing, but why pick on one man?

I don't know, man. I have seen plenty of vitriol towards Jack Chick, Jack Hyles, and others posted on this board...some by administrators of this board. Most of it, IMO, has been fairly justified. But, that is just my opinion. I don't think because a person is dead that we should not discuss their beliefs and agree / disagree with them, or even single them out as chief teachers in history of certain doctrines. For example, many would rightly point to Calvin and Spurgeon as prominent advocates for the Reformed view. Arminius and Robert Shank would be prominent teachers of the Free will view. I see nothing wrong with this. Why...I certainly want to have the right to criticize the false teachings of Marcion, Spong, Arminius, or whoever whether they be dead or alive. Don't you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Rippon]

A question was asked about whether I disagree with Rice just because he was holding it . Of course not . I am against false teaching regardless of who holds it .

JOJ , Dr. Loraine Boettner ( an earned doctorate , BTW )was an admirable Christian as much as that may sadden you . His books are of greatvalue . His Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination is his most famous , but his book on Roman Catholicism is a better seller . His literature and teaching was very influential . No I am not aware of any revivals he held . Your definitions of words are in need of adjustment anyway . Your meaning and mine of that word may be very different . For instance one can't " hold a revival " . Dr. Boettner's relationship with the Lord was not one for you to evaluate with your select criteria .

I have written about this before . You evacuate the ascribed meanings of words **disrespect deleted** . A hyper-Calvinist does not believe in evangelism . He says man is dead in sin so you can not preach to him . You should only preach to select audiences taht are sesible sinners etc. None of us Calvinists on this board would hold to any of that and other exta-biblical teachings . So when you and your grandfather use(d) that particular word you stand in silliness .

Get your terms and defnitions down translator-man . If you met a true Hyper-Calvinist what would you do ? What would you call him ? BTW , many are true brothers in the faith once delivered despite their errors . It's just like you and your granfather . He held to some damaging error but I believe he was indeed a saved man . But he was unrepentant and that is a concern .

And it was not just that one book that he was wrong about .His article " Hyper-Calvinism : a False Doctrine " was more of the same nonsense . I have it and I know .

Look at some theological dictionaries and info on the web about what hyper-Calvinism is . But you need not look into Fundamentalism definitions . Research the Reformed sites .

[ March 28, 2006, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rippon:
A question was asked about whether I disagree with Rice just because he was holding it . Of course not . I am against false teaching regardless of who holds it .

JOJ , Dr. Loraine Boettner ( an earned doctorate , BTW )was an admirable Christian as much as that may sadden you . His books are of greatvalue . His Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination is his most famous , but his book on Roman Catholicism is a better seller . His literature and teaching was very influential . No I am not aware of any revivals he held . Your definitions of words are in need of adjustment anyway . Your meaning and mine of that word may be very different . For instance one can't " hold a revival " . Dr. Boettner's relationship with the Lord was not one for you to evaluate with your select criteria .

I have written about this before . You evacuate the ascribed meanings of words **disrespect deleted** . A hyper-Calvinist does not believe in evangelism . He says man is dead in sin so you can not preach to him . You should only preach to select audiences taht are sesible sinners etc. None of us Calvinists on this board would hold to any of that and other exta-biblical teachings . So when you and your grandfather use(d) that particular word you stand in silliness .

Get your terms and defnitions down translator-man . If you met a true Hyper-Calvinist what would you do ? What would you call him ? BTW , many are true brothers in the faith once delivered despite their errors . It's just like you and your granfather . He held to some damaging error but I believe he was indeed a saved man . But he was unrepentant and that is a concern .

And it was not just that one book that he was wrong about .His article " Hyper-Calvinism : a False Doctrine " was more of the same nonsense . I have it and I know .

Look at some theological dictionaries and info on the web about what hyper-Calvinism is . But you need not look into Fundamentalism definitions . Research the Reformed sites .

You twisted my words. I did not say "hold a revival." And you accuse me of not knowing proper definitions???

And I did not "evaluate Boettner's relationship with the Lord." I simply asked you to prove that he was not a hyper-Calvinist, and you have not done so.

[ March 28, 2006, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[whatever]

This is really sad, all the way around. Please, brothers, Christ died for us all, but He did not die so that we could do this to one another and to our loved ones. Please let it go.

 

[Rippon]

Define Hyper-Calvinist John .