John Richard Rice

In another thread I mentioned having read and marked extensively JRR's book : " Predestined for Hell ? No ! " I will quote some elections from his booklet and put my original remarks at that time in parenthesis . He usually just called Calvinists hyper-calvinists and heretical . I am not calling him one .He regularly states things that Calvinists are said to believe but none have said . He had a tabloid-style to his writing , much like Armstrong . But judge for yourselves .

I am convinced that Whitefield and Spurgeon were both influenced , by the pressure of Arminian theology in their day , to call themselves Calvinists , although neither was in actual practice and emphasis . ( You couldn't be more wrong . And in the 20th century Arminianism is not running rampant ? ) pages 6&7

Some will think we have misrepresented Calvinism . But ... we are very carefully giving the meaning ... ( What a joke ! I KNOW you are misrepresenting Calvinism . ) page 10

This doctrine insists that we need not urge a man to turn to Christ ( Nonsense . Preaching , exhorting , urging sinners to repent and turn to the Lord for salvation is a main thrust of Calvinism . Read sermons of Calvinists . Read Church history . )page 11

... God in mercy , elects some men to do certain tasks ... ( How weak and inadequate a view . )page 24

The Bible has no doctrine of ' reprobation , ' and the Bible does not use that word , nor any word like it , in reference to predestination . It is a human word for a human conception . ( Much like the charge JW's make against the doctrine of the Trinity . Well , just cut out Jer. 6:30 from your KJ Bible . )page 24

[ Abraham ] had the same chance for salvation that every other man has . He was no more elected to be saved than others are foreordained to be saved . ( Again , " chance " has nothing to do with God or salvation . It is a fiction . If you are saying Abraham was not elected you're just plain ignorant . Ur of the Chaldeans was a was a heathen land -- idols a-plenty -- God deliberately chose him out of those multitudes . Don't deny plain Scripture ! )page 31

God does plan ahead in the affairs of men and works things according to His will .( Still the semi-sovereign God of Rice . Even Ben Franklin was stronger here . And besides , the Bible says " ALL things " . ) page 31

Esau could have been saved , possibly was saved -- we don't know . No one is predestined to be saved or predestined to be lost . ( You are denying Scripture -- predestined to be lost : Pro. 16:4 , Ro. 9:22 ; 2 Cor. 11:15 , 1 Thess. 5:9 , 1 Pe. 2:8 ,4:17 , 2 Pe. 2:3 ,3;7 , Jude 4 ) page 32

... the Lord Jesus wanted to save the whole world ... ( " wanted to " ... but failed ? !! His sovereign will is not crossed . If He willed the salvation of everyone -- everyone would be saved . Everyone is not saved -- because He did not will it .) page 41

 

Continuing ...

God arranged that every person who should ever live could be saved if he would . ( If he would ? Nobody can will themself to be saved . Christ came to secure salvation for His elect -- He did not merely make it possible either . ) page 44

[ After quoting 1 Cor. 15:21,22 ] This Scripture plainly teaches that as all men potentially became sinners by Adam's sin , so all that are ever born are potentially made alive in Christ . ( What amazing dexterity of the hands you have ! ) page 47

Do you believe God is a crooked God who demands that men repent who cannot repent , and then damns them for not doing what they cannot do ? ( He is a just God . Their obligation is not lessened by their inabliity . John Legg says in The Footsteps Of God == " Pelagius believed that God would be unjust to command what man could not perform . So man must be free and able to repent , obey and be holy . Grace is limited to making known to man his duty and encouraging him in performing it ." ) page 53

We are told that Esau was a man who missed out on God's election ... it was not a matter of salvation at all . ( Romans 9:13 ,22 say otherwise ) page 59

The Bible does not picture God as having some people selected for salvation and others selected for damnation . ( What Bible are you reading ? That is a ridiculous statement . And you preach ? ) page 62

 

God may decide some matters for men but never moral matters of right and wrong . ( How nice of you to concede God some power . However , the Scriptures are much more emphatic about His supremecy and the fact that He does change man's hearts and will . Too many Scriptures are against you . ) Page 67

... gnashed on him with their teeth ( ! ) page 69

I speak not now of the taint in our carnal nature .... ( It is much more serious than a mere " taint " . Did Christ die for faults ? ) page 71

... the blood of Christ has purchased people for salvation who do not take salvation . ( Then they are not really purchased or bought by the Lord ! The only people purchased for salvation are His elect -- acts 20:28 ) page 72

But knowing that some men sometimes choose wrongly ... ( Come on ! ) page 75

But the ability to fall was in the very nature of man . ( I never thought of that as an " ability " . That's funny ! )page 76

The Bible ... never says that God is an absolute unlimited sovereign . ( Do you believe this guy ? Start with Daniel and Isaiah to become aware of the real Lord of the Bible . ) page 79

God is love and love limits absolute sovereignty . ( Huh ? )page 80


These are just a sampling of John R. Rice statements . I would rather uphold God's honor rather than any man's .

 

JOJ , I , of course did not know that JRR was your grandfather . I am sure he was a kind loving man . I am certain he believed he was doing God's will .

But it would be hard for you to remain objective about his theology . If one differs from him you think that one is in error .

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 . 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 ?

 

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 . On page 11 of his book he stated " This doctrine insists that we need not urge a man to turn to Christ . " I said that was nonsense , I still insist that it is . JOJ , ask your Calvinist friend if Calvinists think we should not urge people , plead with them, implore and command them in the Name of the Lord to repent , believe and turn to the Lord . Your grandfather's statement ( and he said it more than once ) was not true .

Another thing that I said was nonsense was his stance that anyone believing in TULIP was a hyper-calvinist . That is rubbish . Was Spurgeon a hyper-calvinist then ? Do you know or acknowlege a cleavage between hyper-calvinism and calvinism ? Do you care ? Or is it just easier to lump us all in together for your convenience ? There is a lack of integrity there . Your grandfather was respected by many in the Fundamentalist camp . Many followed his wild assertions whole , without examination . You loved him -- he loved you . He did many nice things . But you can't allow your affection for him to cloud your mind . Honesty is called for . Many are raised with a certain church background . And they accept wholehearedly all that that group believes .But there comes a time for truth's sake when a reckoning will take place among those who desire to be conformed to Scripture . These folks will want to meet with others of like mind . Their tradition has to yield to that of something more biblical .

Not once in your grandfather's book did he mention the Gospel Standard folks . Many of them are godly and there is a lot of good teaching . However they , and likemined people deny duty faith and a free proclamation of the gospel ( among other doctrinal deviations ). They are hypercalvinists . 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 ) . If he didn't know the facts he should not have gone into print on the subject . But that hasn't stopped Dave Hunt and others . Your anger over calling your grandfather on his sins should not stop you from some conceding the truth of my points .

I will address his Scripture twisting in future posts . One thing at a time . I am not saying it is easy to accept , but your integrity is on the line here .