John R. Rice Family Disavows Sword of the Lord Editor

How so? Substantiate your claims. Have you ever noticed that the very pious people who are castigating Shelton Smith and David Cloud are doing the very thing of which they accuse Smith and Cloud? Only, there’s a difference. Smith and Cloud are arguing issues whereas these others attack the men—Cloud and Smith. Folks do that when they have weak arguments. Quite frankly I find your post of no consequence since you raised no new issues, added nothing to the debate, and wrote nothing with real content. Your post was simply repartee. Why don’t you answer the questions I raised, bring out new points, offer rational argument, or simply remain quiet be thought wise? I know, I know. You just wanted to put me in my place, whatever you think that may be. No, I’m not arrogant or conceited but I do believe in hard-hitting debate. It helps separate the foolish ideas from those worthy of consideration. I don’t accept the Viet Nam philosophy of a limited war. So, don’t fire the first shot if you can’t stand being hit.

:D

 

AVL- you answered for me, thanks. Mr P is pretty good at twisting things around. His type and S. Smith's elitism is somewhat new to Fundamentalism. Note he tries to say I am attemting guilt by associating him w/ Cloud. NOT TRUE! I was attempting; perhaps poorly, that his info seems to be straight from Mr Cloud, that's all! I too read David Cloud's newsletters, some are very informative, but sadly he fosters the elitism rampant in Fundamentalism. :(
Mr P seems to imply that Joy has no right to express her opinion even though she's J.R.Rice's daughter, and knew her father better than he does, Cloud, Smith, etc...because she's a woman! (like E.G. White)Bro Rice had no sons, so who else in the family can express their dismay at the current direction of the Sword?
As far as S. Smith taking the Sword in the direction he deems necessary, good for him! I still rec the Sword, despite it's elitist leanings, but I no longer in good conscience can send my monthly financial support.
BTW, my Dad stopped recieving the Sword because he had signed up for their lifetime membership subscription, then they turned around asking for more money to continue his subscription! A far better publication, and it's **free**, although they ask for contributions, is the Biblical Evangelist, edited by Robert Sumner, who's not afraid to expose the narrowness, and elitism in Fundamentalism. BTW, this is where I read Joy's article, I wasn't even aware that it appeared in Falwell's publication till I read the first post in this thread.
For those who have read the Sword for years, even since 1969, and think that the Sword is as good or better now, I'm at a loss for words. :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]You're rambling again!

 

AVL- you answered for me, thanks. Mr P is pretty good at twisting things around. His type and S. Smith's elitism is somewhat new to Fundamentalism. Note he tries to say I am attemting guilt by associating him w/ Cloud. NOT TRUE! I was attempting; perhaps poorly, that his info seems to be straight from Mr Cloud, that's all! I too read David Cloud's newsletters, some are very informative, but sadly he fosters the elitism rampant in Fundamentalism. :(
Mr P seems to imply that Joy has no right to express her opinion even though she's J.R.Rice's daughter, and knew her father better than he does, Cloud, Smith, etc...because she's a woman! (like E.G. White)Bro Rice had no sons, so who else in the family can express their dismay at the current direction of the Sword?
As far as S. Smith taking the Sword in the direction he deems necessary, good for him! I still rec the Sword, despite it's elitist leanings, but I no longer in good conscience can send my monthly financial support.
BTW, my Dad stopped recieving the Sword because he had signed up for their lifetime membership subscription, then they turned around asking for more money to continue his subscription! A far better publication, and it's **free**, although they ask for contributions, is the Biblical Evangelist, edited by Robert Sumner, who's not afraid to expose the narrowness, and elitism in Fundamentalism. BTW, this is where I read Joy's article, I wasn't even aware that it appeared in Falwell's publication till I read the first post in this thread.
For those who have read the Sword for years, even since 1969, and think that the Sword is as good or better now, I'm at a loss for words. :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]You're rambling again! </font>[/QUOTE]Would you please grow up, and stop acting like a red-neck.

 

AVL- you answered for me, thanks. Mr P is pretty good at twisting things around. His type and S. Smith's elitism is somewhat new to Fundamentalism. Note he tries to say I am attemting guilt by associating him w/ Cloud. NOT TRUE! I was attempting; perhaps poorly, that his info seems to be straight from Mr Cloud, that's all! I too read David Cloud's newsletters, some are very informative, but sadly he fosters the elitism rampant in Fundamentalism. :(
[snip]For those who have read the Sword for years, even since 1969, and think that the Sword is as good or better now, I'm at a loss for words. :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you answer for yourself? Now, just what did I twist? You seem to have miscontrued (twisted) my post pretty well. I'm not sure what info that you think I got from David. Whatever you think, you are WRONG. If it twist things, show me up and make a fool out of me. Your cliches and generalities just don't cut it. BTW, you said "his type" referring to me. Now, exactly what is my type? It seems to be a derogatory term. You don't know me. How can you judge me when you are ignorant of my ideas, beliefs, morals, thoughts, character, etc. Talk about snap judgments! It seems you are void of content, so you cast dispersions on a man's motives, character, patriotism, and manhood. This is precisely what you're doing to Cloud and Smith and now you are doing it to me. As for guilt by association, you did it again in the above post. So, keep posting and discredit yourself entirely!

 

My,my, childish name-calling! I would have thought better of you. You know, I think that Scripture must say something of this kind of thing. Now, whose's maturity are we questioning?

 

PS- Mr Smith & Mr Cloud ARE ELITISTS, and I can't speak for Mr Cloud, but I've read about every word that Mr Smith has written in the last several issues of the Sword, ever since his assinine critigue of the Southwide Batist Fellowship, where he proved he is an elitists Fundamantalist. i.e. where he declared, perhaps inadvertently he's a Baptist Pope.
Doesn't his elitist popery bother you? or someone who calls himself a Fundamentalists, and doesn't snap at attention when Mr Smith speaks? Yes, he has a right to take the Sword in any direction he so chooses, and I still believe that his own family knows where J.R. Rice would stand today, despite all the Neo-Fundamentalists rhetoric and spin.

 

I've made my share of mistakes, perhaps even in recent posting, but I beg you to take a look in the mirror. ;)

 

I was taught the plan of Salvation in a Southern Baptist church, and I was saved and baptized in a Southern Baptist Church, I resent anyone throwing innuendos at the Southern Baptists, since I know that they preach "saved by grace" just like Independents do. There are at least 4 churches in my town that preach the Gospel according to the scriptures. I am a member of the Independent Baptist Church because I am more comfortable with the old time hymnals and style of preaching, NOT because I think that Independents have the only answer.

Debbie C

 

I do subscribe to SotL because it does have SOME good material, the best of which, frankly, are the classic old reprints of articles from AGES ago. The one thing this past year that I really appreciated in their clearly less than perfect periodical was a VERY clear critique of the incredibly popular proof-texting, let's SELL the Gospel book, The Purpose Driven Life. Ack. It's what caused me to leave my former SBC church (I was TRYING to hand on like a good committed church mbr, but when leadership announced we'd ALL be doing it, that was it for me, and I HAD to leave! PTL, He led me to Hamilton Square Baptist Church here in SF!).

I'm so glad to hear of these excellent articles separateing Dr Rice's EXCELLENT ministry and testimony from some of the sad errors of SotL's stands. I remember reading one of his classic soulwinning books in which he mentioned having VARIOUS Bible versions in his library. I nearly keeled over from the difference! It reinforced my great admiration and respect for his work.

God bless!

Princess

 

What is the meaning of "elitist" in this context? What is a "Neo-Fundamentalist"? Where are Cloud and Smith wrong? Do they not have the right to air their views as well as anyone else? Where is the spirit of brotherly love and fairness on this thread? No one, and I repeat no one, has dare addressed the issue, although I have raised it repeatedly, that the attacks against Cloud and Smith on this thread are more venomous, mean-spirited, and condemning than anything that Cloud and Smith have written. Please note that those condemning Smith and Cloud have offered little rational argument, reasoning, or Scripture in support of their hateful rhetoric. It has been labeling and name calling. Shame on the perpetrators. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is all about emotions, image, clichés, and who’s who. What have Smith and Cloud said that is so bad? Quote them. Give references so that we can verify the accusation. Then, we can compare JRR’s writings with what Cloud and Smith said.

BTW, Smith’s critique of the SWBF is comparable to JRR’s critiques of the SBC at times. The SWBF has drifted from its original stance. So, let’s be honest and say it. Why should a supposedly Christian fellowship declare that they haven’t changed when they have? Are they ashamed of their changes? Is it pride? If the change is for the better, then proclaim it and substantiate it with Scripture; if for the worse, expose it and repudiate it. It seems that tradition and organizational loyalty is more important than truth! Now, this is pure popery!

Furthermore, familial relationships do not necessarily qualify one to speak for another family member. Do you really think that JRR would be in agreement, for example, with the Handfords today? It is a well-known fact that Walt Handford, and presumably his wife too, took Southside Baptist Church in G’ville, SC down a hard left turn after JRR’s demise. If in agreement, then JRR would have modified his position which he would have been free to do. All we can say is that he did not in his lifetime agree with the positions of some of his offspring today. But, people do change though. So, we cannot extrapolate someone’s view to condone or condemn an issue today when he or she is not here to deal with it. .

The bottom line is that we don’t know where JRR would be today. He could be in the Falwell camp. If so, I wouldn’t agree with him regardless of whom he was. We loved and admired JRR because of the Biblical positions that he took, not because he was Pope. JRR was wrong about a number of things including tithing, the dictation theory of inspiration, and Biblical separation. He was still a great and godly man. He was not Pope and did not pontificate his knowledge “from the chair.” Nuff said. Let the matter lie. The rest is inanity and foolishness

 

I've made my share of mistakes, perhaps even in recent posting, but I beg you to take a look in the mirror. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Then be a man and say that you were wrong. You did resort to childish name calling. Admit it. I stand by my stuff. Show me where I am wrong and I will repent. I argued strongly for my side and put my best foot forward in debate but I have not impugned your character or called you names. You, on the other hand, have labeled Cloud and Smith as “elitists”. That is saying nothing of the fact that you called me immature and a “redneck”. My retort specifically challenged your behavior and pointed out the hypocrisy. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the person when the argument is weak.

This carries negative connotations and maligns their character. Debate ideas and don’t assassinate character. To say that you may have made mistakes, admits nothing. We all make mistakes as humans but a general admission of fallibility says nothing since we are all fallible. When we confess and repent, it is a specific admission of wrong-doing and guilt. There’s humility and submission in this. This is what God requires. I presume you are a pastor from your username; you should know and practice this.

I’m open to refutation and rebuke but I have absolutely no interest in childish repartee and exchange of insults. I will not stoop. If you reply, make it substantive or don’t bother. Engage my stated (don’t presume or make inferences beyond what I said) ideas; don’t tar me with a brush of innuendo.

Thanks.

 

Check out the webpage listed previously in this thread for Joy Rice Martin’s letter criticizing the current direction of the Sword. It is interesting that Rick Warren’s appearance at Jerry F’s super conference is advertised in the sidebar. This provides a tacit association between Joy (and Joyful Woman) with Rick Warren and his purpose driven philosophy. In itself, it is a small thing but it is confusing. Are Joy and Rick in agreement of philosophy since both are associated with Jerry? Joy may not agree at all with Rick but it is confusing that they are both associated with the same person and ministry (e.g. Jerry F.) This, you see, is the whole purpose of separation—it is to give a clear distinction between truth and error. Even truth mixed with error is error, not truth.

Separation, if it is to be separation, must be clear, clean, and complete. Contra to JRR, I do not believe that Baptists and Pentecostals should be cooperating in evangelism. It does not mean that we ought to fight and blast one another, but we should not be on the same platform evangelizing since it is confusing to the new convert. Is he to go to a Baptist church or Pentecostal church? Let the Baptist evangelize. Let the Pentecostal evangelize. The purpose of separation is distinction.

Unfortunately, separation is used many times by unscrupulous people to promote themselves. They use it as an issue to tar the other guy. This is wrong. This is just as wrong as those who condemn the separatist. Let them go in peace. Let them separate; it is their prerogative. Separate from all error as you can understand the Scriptures only do it in love.

 

Like you, my family and I came out of the SBC years ago. My family had deep SBC roots. However, we became independent Baptists because of the tolerance of error and un-Scriptural teaching in the SBC. Our young men were going to seminary as Bible-believers and coming back as skeptics. Our young people were going to SBC colleges where they learned to drink and lost their morals. There are many wonderful Christian folks in the SBC but the organization has tolerated unwholesome elements and error. When I was at Furman U. (it was SBC then), a prof told me: “Yeah, I was just like you before I came to Furman. My grandfather was a Baptist preacher and my father was as Baptist preacher but now I don’t even believe in a hereafter. Just wait a couple of years until you finish Furman. You’ll think differently.”

Even with the conservative revolution in SBC ranks, there are still soft spots and error. I applaud them for the strides they have made but I can’t be one of them and endorse them. I hope they continue to progress. IMHO, the exodus of the independents helped spark the conservative movement within the SBC. Just like competition of the private and Christian schools help make the public schools better. No, the independent Baptists won’t be the only people in heaven, but I am not ashamed to be one since they hold closely to the Scriptures. If I thought someone else was closer to the truth, then I’d join them!

 

Dear Paid,
I'm truly sorry that you choose to defend the elitists attitude of Cloud and Smith. They represent in my view what's wrong w/ Fundamentalism today, as they've drawn the lines of Fellowship, way too narrow. (Did you read S. Smith's articles on separation?)Of course both these men have a right to their views, but they've taken upon themselves to narrow Fundamentalism. I'm suprised you don't see that.
I apologize for calling you a redneck. It was a "knee jerk" reaction to what you wrote from dismissing all I wrote as "rambling". My reaction came from being raised in the South (KY) and simply too many KJVO's that were arrogant, and classifeied themselves as "having all the answers", well, sorry, but I assume you were of that "type".
The reason why I have the problem w/ the elitists attitude of Cloud is an article where he said that IFB's should separate from IFB's, etc...I no longer have the aricle, and frankly do not know how to copy and paste it here on this thread, so if you know how, please do.
My problem w/ Smith's elitism came from the article he wrote about the S.B.F. slanting it's slate of preachers. I went to this event, especially since the Pope said we should not as being "True Fundamentalists", but I notice he still takes advertising dollars from H.P.B.C., a church and a Pastor which he calls compromisers.
Mr Smith rejected the "mixed bag" of speakers there, who actually have different perspectives than he does, different worship styles, etc. This alone should trouble the God-loving Fundamental Christian, that the editor of an influential Christian periodical would encourage boycotting of a fine Fellowship, a Fellowship that doesn't "major on the minors" as so many Fundamentalists do today. No, I don't agree w/ everything they do at the SBF, but if its not clearly prohibited by Scripture, then the SBF can do what they think the Spirit wants them to, and no Baptist Pope can do anything about it but express his opinion.
Dr Rice did not practice "secondary separation", as S. Smith does. As you know, Rice allowed other Fundamentalists to share the podium with him, even if they were not Baptists...S. Smith on the other hand...well, he's a demonstratably an elitists.
What I find strange is when Mr Smith critques other good IFB men and Fellowship(s), has he forgotten the problems in our own movement? Elitism, popery, KJVO, irrelevance, pettiness, close mindedness, etc, etc, etc, etc. Frankly, the modern Fundamentalists, who have strayed from the old paths of the likes of Rice, Torrey, J. Frank Norris, are so blind to their own faults, that they seem to set themselves up as mini popes, and I will not bow down before these new prophets and popes and be told that their new ways are the true ways of Fundamentalism. I long for the old Sword of the LORD, which is very different than the new one. And, BTW, I do benefit from the poems, the articles of Wallace, Pyle, etc, but the overall tone of the paper is :( .
In closing...allow me a quote from the Rice Ref Bible on Romans 14:1. "We then are to receive and have fellowship with all unsaved people who may differ on minor matters but agree on the great fundamentals of the Christian faith....This Scripture, like Psalm 119:63, teaches that as far as possible we should have fellowship with all born again Christians with whom differences are not essential ones." (Yes, this quote comes from my personal copy of Joy Rice Martin's article) I don't believe Mr Smith would agree w/ this, do you?

 

Paid, I just read your post here, after I wrote the above post, and at least I understand where you are coming from, and I am more appreciative of your views.

 

John R. Rice is quoted often in the versions forum.He has written books and articles referenceing the KJVO stance.He had other versions in his personal library and quoted from the RSV on occassion.

 

Pastor Kevin:

I agree with you and your post, however your quote of JRR's notes on Romans 14:1 is incorrect. It should say

I am sure that is what you meant to say.

 

I am sure that is what you meant to say. </font>[/QUOTE]That's embarrassing! Thanx sooooo much for the correction!
BTW, I got saved in N.C. at "The Wilds" in 1974. Are you familar w/ it?

 

How so? Substantiate your claims. Have you ever noticed that the very pious people who are castigating Shelton Smith and David Cloud are doing the very thing of which they accuse Smith and Cloud? Only, there’s a difference. Smith and Cloud are arguing issues whereas these others attack the men—Cloud and Smith. Folks do that when they have weak arguments. Quite frankly I find your post of no consequence since you raised no new issues, added nothing to the debate, and wrote nothing with real content. Your post was simply repartee. Why don’t you answer the questions I raised, bring out new points, offer rational argument, or simply remain quiet be thought wise? I know, I know. You just wanted to put me in my place, whatever you think that may be. No, I’m not arrogant or conceited but I do believe in hard-hitting debate. It helps separate the foolish ideas from those worthy of consideration. I don’t accept the Viet Nam philosophy of a limited war. So, don’t fire the first shot if you can’t stand being hit.

:D </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I can stand the hits with the best of them. You can go to Dr. Clouds website or just read his newsletters and see how divisive he is with many misrepresentations of people and subjects. They don't just attack the issues. Mr. Smith has made several personal attacks on friends of mine, including Dr. Tim Lee, an evangelist and marine who lost both of his legs in Viet Nam, calling him a compromiser for preaching in SBC churches along with IFB churches. Dr. Lee is also on the board of Liberty University. He has attacked the integrity of another friend, Dr. Larry Oats of MBBC by implying that he is misleading people, and unscriptural for writing or being part of the preface of a book written by someone who is not KJVO. You've yet to prove your point that the Sword is an acceptable newspaper going in the direction JRR would have wanted it to go. I can find no evidence of that from JRR's writings. He was far more of a man than Smith, Cloud, or any of the hyper-fundy IFB, KJVO types are. He was far more gracious, also. I think Dr. Sumners paper is far more scriptural than the Sword.

AVL1984