John R. Rice Quotation

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LarryN, May 24, 2004.

  1. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the March 30, 1979 issue of The Sword of the Lord John R. Rice wrote & published an article entitled "Some Questions for King James Fans". In the article he makes this statement: "The doctrine of infallibilty in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives."

    I have my own ideas & opinions, but I'm interested in what some of you may believe to be these "bad motives" to which he refers. What are your thoughts?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    John R. saw the dangerous drift from 1970-1980. His compatriot, Jack Hyles, leading spokesman for ifb'dom, condemned kjvo in that same era.

    Hyles changed (and, of course, his sycophants waddled after him) but don't think John R ever would have. He had routinely used the Catholic Bible to share the Gospel and the 1901ASV.
     
  3. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    O.K., here's my opinion: Having been around in IFB circles both before & after the rise of KJVOism, I believe that the issue of the KJV was basically taken up as a focal point around which to "rally the troops". It became a smokescreen to weed out the "unloyal". (As if our loyalty should be to anyone except the Lord!)

    Jack Hyles converted to KJVOism in the early 80's (as Dr. Bob mentions) shortly after Robert Sumner's devastating article about him was published. It became one convenient way to distance the Hyles crowd from many of their critics, by allowing them to level the charge "Why, they don't even believe in THE BIBLE" (i.e.: in the perfection & exclusivity of the King James Version of the Bible.)

    I may be somewhat cynical, but I see KJVOism as nothing more than a gimmick, and a means used by some to unscrupulously exert control over the flock. Anyone outside the KJVO-wing who challenges any of the goings-on within the KJVO-wing is brushed off with something to the effect of being a "liberal MV user", or a "Bible-detractor".
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Excellent evaluation, Larry. I missed the obvious connection between Hyles immorality exposed and the rise of onlyism among the exact same crowd.

    Sadly, after Hyle's recent passing, the issue is still hot among his sycophants and cronies. Hence the gajillion posts by the deluded few on this forum . . and others dedicated to the Hyles legacy of shame.
     
  5. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may be wrong, but I thought that Sumner's article included doctrinal deviations, such as salvation only possible via incorruptable KJV seed, in addition to allegations of immorality.

    Andy
     
  6. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may be wrong, but I thought that Sumner's article included doctrinal deviations, such as salvation only possible via incorruptable KJV seed, in addition to allegations of immorality.

    Andy
    </font>[/QUOTE]You may be correct Andy, but I thought his "Incorruptible seed" stance came about a couple of years after the Sumner article. Perhaps not.
     
  7. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tried to find Sumner's original article on the web but to no avail. Anyone have a link?

    My impression is that Hyles became more outrageous after Sumner's article and that may have included movement on the KJVO issue, or maybe he was always just as outrageous but we didn't notice before.

    Andy
     

Share This Page

Loading...