John R. Rice Family Disavows Sword of the Lord Editor

So what? Neo-evanglicals are, for the most part, kind and godly people but we diagree over the practice of separation, not their persons or characters. The fact is that Joy and Elizabeth in particular have made major concessions toward neo-evangelicalism. I have a number of nice neo-evangical friends for whom I have the greatest affection but they are neo-evangleicals nonetheless!

The most frustrating thing about trying to rationally and seriously debate issues on this one or the several threads on this board is that people constantly confuse feelings with rational thought and facts.

 

No, I probably can't prove to you that they are neo-evanglicals for the following reasons:

1. You obviously don't the difference between a Fundamentalist and a New Evangelical (i.e. neo-evangelical). You need to do some study on your own--I'm not going to be your teacher and do your homework. Go back and read the boys at Fuller to get a perspective on what Henry, Ockenga, et. al. envisioned for the "new evangelicalism." Then read Lindsell's "Battle for the Bible" to find what neo-evangelicalism finally became. Next, read Chas. Woodbridge's and J. Ashbrook's little books to find the Fundamentalist position with regard to neo-evangelicalism. To understand historic Fundamentalism, read Geo. Dollar's history of Fundamentalism. After you've developed some background, perhaps we can talk.

2. Your mind is already made up and I can't change it regardless of my facts or logic.

3. You don't understand the difference between fundamentalism and historic Fundamentalism. Ask Dr. Bob Griffin; I think he can explain the difference. Historic Fundamentalism is more than merely believing the fundamental Bible doctrines or being orthodox. It is a historical movement of separatism.

4. If you are SBC (I was SBC too), then you don't understand or accept the Fundamentalism doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. Fundamentalism is at its core separatist.

5. Your position is emotional (i.e. feelings), not rational or factual. You are defending an emotional issue and I cannot change your emotions.

So, you're right! I can't prove it to you but that does not mean that it's not true.

 

Hate to inform you paid, I used to be an assistant pastor and pastor, so I DO KNOW the difference between all you've stated I don't. The problem is your too big of a pharisee and judge before you know what you're talking about. I do know all about the independent Fundamental Baptist movement, because I was raised in it and it's abusive, hypocritical atmosphere for 35 years. My position is far from emotional. I know many in the Rice family, and I can tell you that they are more separated in heart and action than most IFB I know of today, while still holding to the beliefs of JRR that one can have differences of opinion without destroying one another. Believe me, Dr. Bob and I have some of the same background, we both attended MBBC in Wisconsin and both hold to the historic fundamental position..not the added initiatives of men.

AVL1984

 

Bro. Bill, if you preach tolerance and love, then you must practice it or be found a hypocrite. What I fail to see from your post is your practice of tolerance and love for Bro. Smith with whom you disagree. You are, in fact, castigating him for castigating others. Aren't you doing the same thing? The teaching of "love your neighbor (i.e. friends) and hate your enemies" is Phariseeism, not Biblical Christianity. Doesn't Bro. Smith have the right to dot his i's and cross his t's differently from you? This may mean that he draws his line for separation in a different place from you but you must allow him this if you are to be consistent with your professed principles! Now, let's test your principles. </font>[/QUOTE]Master P, what you don't seem to get is that Shelton writes in a National Inquirer for Christians, blasting with intolerance everyone who disagrees with him on teeny weenie nonessentials, which he has the right to do so. But if I've read you right, when any of us dare to toss it right back at him, then you defend him. That's seems hypocritical to me. So, is it alright for Shelton to say what he says, and not alright for those of us on this thread who disagree? What am I missing here? and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't...never mind.

 

Bro. Bill, if you preach tolerance and love, then you must practice it or be found a hypocrite. What I fail to see from your post is your practice of tolerance and love for Bro. Smith with whom you disagree. You are, in fact, castigating him for castigating others. Aren't you doing the same thing? The teaching of "love your neighbor (i.e. friends) and hate your enemies" is Phariseeism, not Biblical Christianity. Doesn't Bro. Smith have the right to dot his i's and cross his t's differently from you? This may mean that he draws his line for separation in a different place from you but you must allow him this if you are to be consistent with your professed principles! Now, let's test your principles. </font>[/QUOTE]Master P, what you don't seem to get is that Shelton writes in a National Inquirer for Christians, blasting with intolerance everyone who disagrees with him on teeny weenie nonessentials, which he has the right to do so. But if I've read you right, when any of us dare to toss it right back at him, then you defend him. That's seems hypocritical to me. So, is it alright for Shelton to say what he says, and not alright for those of us on this thread who disagree? What am I missing here? and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't...never mind. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not trying to start a debate within a debate, but what most of the people posting on this topic don't understand is that Dr. Smith (my boss) does not sit around all day just thinking of people to fight with. Most of the statements and articles that are in the Sword are in response to hundreds of calls and letters asking him his position and opinions on different topics. If you don't agree with his stance, please don't persecute him for that. There is a great deal of pressure on this great man of God and every word he prints in the paper and books is carefully and prayerfully chosen.

 

FBCPastorsWife...does Shelton Smith attack only the issues or the people associated with the issues he doesn't like? I've seen him do both. I've seen him attack not only Southwide Fellowship, but those associated with it, though he spoke in their circles not but two or three years ago. I find his attitude the epitomy of hypocrisy. He has attacked Evangelist Tim Lee, a former Marine who lost his legs in the Vietnam War and who is on the Board of Directors for Liberty University, because he speaks at SBC functions. I'm sorry, but until Mr. Smith apologizes for his hateful attitude, I will think very little of him or of the Sword of the Lord. I don't think JRR would be very proud of him or the direction that the Sword has taken under his leadership.

 

I have worked here at the Sword since May of 2002 and I am aware of the issues that have been addressed since then. I do agree he did fellowship with many of the people associated with Southwide as did they with the Sword. There were many things that went on that many people are not aware of....telephone calls, letters and derogatory remarks made in other publications. I do know that it makes people look down on Dr. Smith, but he is not the only one that feels that way. He is simply the voice of many. I also know that there is probably irreparable damage that has been caused to the Sword through the years, but Dr. Smith has mended many relationships that were destroyed in the mid 80's and early 90's.

I have heard the wonderful testimony of Tim Lee and I know that he had a wonderful effect on people. The harsh criticism of Mr. Lee started with Curtis Hutson. I have pulled the archived articles from then and I have read some of them. At that point in time, I was not aware of any problems with him. I understand the criticism that is directed toward him now as far as his fellowship with crowds that are very liberal and lacks standards. I am not saying that he is not a man of God anymore. I am simply saying that he is very different standard wise than he used to be.

 

So, Brother Lee is only to speak in front of congregations that are IFB while Jesus Christ spoke to publican and sinners? Double standard in my estimation. It seems to me that Jesus met people where they were. It also seems to me that the Sword would rather that people who preach be in one place and the people come to them. This is a dangerous precedent to be setting. I have corresponded with Dr. Lee many times and spoken with him many times on the phone. I find that he is a Godly man who loves the Lord every bit as much as Mr. Smith alleges he himself does. I believe Mr. Smith is trying to enforce "secondary separation", which I don't seme to be able to find in the Bible. Dr. Lee is to go into ALL the world, not just the world that will make the IFB crowds and pundits happy. Seems like Mr. Smith seems to have a bit more work to do on his theology. I'm not saying Mr. Smith is incorrect in trying to set an extra-biblical standard for himself, but I do believe it is a sin when he tries to impress his notions on others. It's a good thing Dr. JRR was man enough and scriptural enough to see that there were going to be some differences of opinion, but that every little difference of opinion shouldn't be grounds for breaking fellowship or attack.

Isn't it true that Mr. Smith's problem with the Southwide Fellowship came not because of his belief that he should be separated from them, but because many there were attacked by him and he was not asked to speak for them? Isn't it true that it's more a case of "hurt feelings" other than true issues of separation? Should Mr. Smith be setting out to destroy other groups that do not agree with his viewpoints because of his own personal biases and hurt feelings? Was it also necessary for him to viciously attack the Rice daughters and cast dispersions upon them? Seems like Mr Smith is the one with the problem, not the Rice family.

 

I guess I just don't belong in the debate forum. I know that everything I say will be twisted and rejected and that hurts. I wasn't trying to start a "Dr. Smith did and didn't do" debate. I just wish people would understand what I said earlier that people want to know what he thinks. When he writes something in the Sword under Editor's Notes or maybe another article, he is simply stating his opinion. He is not trying to make an official statement for the IFB movement.

I am very sorry if I offended anyone

 

FBCPastorsWife, believe me, no one here is making you personally accountable for Mr. Smith or your employer, the Sword of the Lord. I can say however that many people do take what your boss, Mr. Smith, says as making a statement of the IFB as a whole, and many times he gives the impression of such. Many people who read the Sword will ultimately choose sides because of his attacks without full knowledge, and as you well know, a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands can be a terrible thing. It has helped to foster unbiblical militant stances against other Christians, and that is detrimental to the cause of Christ. I have met Mr. Smith several times. I used to live over on Battle Avenue in the apts owned by Farrar Bros next to the retirement apts and the electrical substation.
I know where your loyalties are, and they should be. If you were not one to be loyal to your employer, you shouldn't be there. You probably for a fact know Brother Smith far better than I. I can only go by what I've seen, and from what I've heard from his own mouth. Maybe if I knew him more personally, I would better understand his position and hold a different view of him.

No offense from you was taken on my part. If it seemed misdirected towards you, I apologize. I do know how to separate my differences with the paper from the individuals who work for it. So, now apology to me is necessary. God bless you and your husband as you continue to strive to serve the Lord, and may HE continue to build the work in Lebanon. I still, because of your humble demeanor, am inclined to visit one Sunday soon.

AVL1984

 

AVL1984, God Bless You for your kind remarks. What you say is very true. I am very loyal to the Sword for its wonderful work. One of my jobs at the end of each year is to report how many decisions to accept Christ we have received. My heart overflows with joy when I see I had a part in the publication of a paper that helped someone in their salvation decision.

And I do hope you are able to visit with us sometime. If you would like to learn a little bit about our ministry our website is www.familybaptistchurch.net

 

Bro. Bill, if you preach tolerance and love, then you must practice it or be found a hypocrite. What I fail to see from your post is your practice of tolerance and love for Bro. Smith with whom you disagree. You are, in fact, castigating him for castigating others. Aren't you doing the same thing? The teaching of "love your neighbor (i.e. friends) and hate your enemies" is Phariseeism, not Biblical Christianity. Doesn't Bro. Smith have the right to dot his i's and cross his t's differently from you? This may mean that he draws his line for separation in a different place from you but you must allow him this if you are to be consistent with your professed principles! Now, let's test your principles. </font>[/QUOTE]Master P, what you don't seem to get is that Shelton writes in a National Inquirer for Christians, blasting with intolerance everyone who disagrees with him on teeny weenie nonessentials, which he has the right to do so. But if I've read you right, when any of us dare to toss it right back at him, then you defend him. That's seems hypocritical to me. So, is it alright for Shelton to say what he says, and not alright for those of us on this thread who disagree? What am I missing here? and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't...never mind. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm not defending Bro. Shelton. He is capable of defending his own views--he doesn't need the likes of me. I'm just rebuking you for being a hypocrite and criticizing him for the very thing that you do to him.

If you disagree with the man, argue against his ideas. Don't attack him. You have made no rational attempt to refute what he has said. You just criticize him for saying it. Shame on you.

BTW, the mark of a Pharisee is their hypocrisy. Jesus said it.

 

Tis passing strange how the most loving people, at least they profess to be, can so quickly lose their cool and resort to name calling. Now, please tell me how I am a hypocrite. Where have I professed one thing and done another. Where am I a Pharisee? Show me so that I can repent and be restored to fellowship with God.

Are you really proud of this post? Did you not make innuendo and do name-calling? Do you think this is pleasing to God? And you proudly avow that you are a pastor! Would you tolerate such an attitude and spirit in your people? Is this a good example for them? Methinks your pride got in the way when I used plain talk (candidness) with you. How can one bash another in the cause of love and tolerance? This is a contradiction of word and deed.

If I am wrong, then plainly tell me. Refute my statements, if you can. I can handle it like a gentleman. Sometimes eating crow is good for your health. It helps prevent pride which is a terrible, terrible sin. God hates it, you know. But, you have no right to resort to name-calling regardless. Now deal with it like a man and a Christian or be shown to be the very thing of which you falsely accuse me.

Sir, I contend that the viciousness and rancor of your post refutes everything that you have written in regards to tolerance and love. Honestly, I have never read anything nearly so acrimonious by Bro. Smith. You were angry and lashed out against someone who disagreed with you and spoke in plain language. You did it hatefully without class or fairness. It was all sound and fury.

I still am not persuaded that you do know the difference between Fundamentalist and fundamentalist. Can you tell me? What is the Fundamentalist stance on ecclesiastical separation and how is it different from Neo-evangelicalism? What is a New Evangelical? Now, prove me wrong by showing your knowledge. Otherwise, let my charges stand unchallenged. Just saying it ain't so is worthless. Show me.

The ball is in your court. Thanks for your time.

 

Bro. Bill, if you preach tolerance and love, then you must practice it or be found a hypocrite. What I fail to see from your post is your practice of tolerance and love for Bro. Smith with whom you disagree. You are, in fact, castigating him for castigating others. Aren't you doing the same thing? The teaching of "love your neighbor (i.e. friends) and hate your enemies" is Phariseeism, not Biblical Christianity. Doesn't Bro. Smith have the right to dot his i's and cross his t's differently from you? This may mean that he draws his line for separation in a different place from you but you must allow him this if you are to be consistent with your professed principles! Now, let's test your principles. </font>[/QUOTE]Master P, what you don't seem to get is that Shelton writes in a National Inquirer for Christians, blasting with intolerance everyone who disagrees with him on teeny weenie nonessentials, which he has the right to do so. But if I've read you right, when any of us dare to toss it right back at him, then you defend him. That's seems hypocritical to me. So, is it alright for Shelton to say what he says, and not alright for those of us on this thread who disagree? What am I missing here? and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't...never mind. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm not defending Bro. Shelton. He is capable of defending his own views--he doesn't need the likes of me. I'm just rebuking you for being a hypocrite and criticizing him for the very thing that you do to him.

If you disagree with the man, argue against his ideas. Don't attack him. You have made no rational attempt to refute what he has said. You just criticize him for saying it. Shame on you.

BTW, the mark of a Pharisee is their hypocrisy. Jesus said it. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, this matter is so so simple, indeed it seems to be so simple, it's like the cieling "over your head" You are defending his elitist popery. He writes in his paper his incredible Neo-Fundamentalists views, which are Pharisaical. You defend his right to be narrowminded, but sadly you don't like it when some of us don't salute his every command. Why is he allowed to blast left and right other IFB Pastors, but we can't call him to task for his narrowness? Your double standard is fascinating. Now it's time for me to rebuke your hypocrisy of allowing for Shelton what you don't allow for his detractors.

 

Paid, you are the one who struck first with inuendo. You indeed are the hypocrite stating I did not know the difference between historic and neo-fundamentalism, etc. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. I've stated many times clearly where I stand on the Sword and Mr. Smiths attacks on the Rice daughters. You will get nowhere by using the tactics of trying to turn the defensive on my end. It is a well known fact that Mr. Smith attacks those whom don't agree with him without mercy. That was evident with his attack of the Rice Daughters and the Southwide Fellowship, and the continuation of attacks of those whom his predecessor did not like, labeling "liberal" anyone whom he didn't agree with. He has turned the Sword into nothing more than a "rag" for those hyper-fundamentalist individuals whom he could easily rally to his side against those he didn't agree with. Brother Rice did not use this method. He recognized and lived with differences without the vicious attacks. Too bad that those who followed after didn't follow in his footsteps.

 

Sir, you have added further proof to my assertions. You continue your name-calling and invective. You are digging your hole deeper and deeper. Don’t you think the people reading this thread have enough intelligence to discern your vindictiveness, rancor, and anger? I think they do.

Since you are hurling emotional drivel and cannot or refuse to argue rationally, I take my hat, mount my horse, and ride away from your emotional tirade. I will heed the advice of Proverbs 26:4. What I see in your posts is not pretty and I want no part of it.

Goodbye!

 

Bro. Bill, if you preach tolerance and love, then you must practice it or be found a hypocrite. What I fail to see from your post is your practice of tolerance and love for Bro. Smith with whom you disagree. You are, in fact, castigating him for castigating others. Aren't you doing the same thing? The teaching of "love your neighbor (i.e. friends) and hate your enemies" is Phariseeism, not Biblical Christianity. Doesn't Bro. Smith have the right to dot his i's and cross his t's differently from you? This may mean that he draws his line for separation in a different place from you but you must allow him this if you are to be consistent with your professed principles! Now, let's test your principles. </font>[/QUOTE]Master P, what you don't seem to get is that Shelton writes in a National Inquirer for Christians, blasting with intolerance everyone who disagrees with him on teeny weenie nonessentials, which he has the right to do so. But if I've read you right, when any of us dare to toss it right back at him, then you defend him. That's seems hypocritical to me. So, is it alright for Shelton to say what he says, and not alright for those of us on this thread who disagree? What am I missing here? and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't...never mind. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm not defending Bro. Shelton. He is capable of defending his own views--he doesn't need the likes of me. I'm just rebuking you for being a hypocrite and criticizing him for the very thing that you do to him.

If you disagree with the man, argue against his ideas. Don't attack him. You have made no rational attempt to refute what he has said. You just criticize him for saying it. Shame on you.

BTW, the mark of a Pharisee is their hypocrisy. Jesus said it. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, this matter is so so simple, indeed it seems to be so simple, it's like the cieling "over your head" You are defending his elitist popery. He writes in his paper his incredible Neo-Fundamentalists views, which are Pharisaical. You defend his right to be narrowminded, but sadly you don't like it when some of us don't salute his every command. Why is he allowed to blast left and right other IFB Pastors, but we can't call him to task for his narrowness? Your double standard is fascinating. Now it's time for me to rebuke your hypocrisy of allowing for Shelton what you don't allow for his detractors. </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie, your post sounds a lot like what you say Bro. Smith is writing. You know I really perused the last issue of the SOTL and I didn't find anything even close to the nastiness and mean-spiritedness contained in your post. If it's there, would someone please point it out to me?

Perhaps you should read my post again. Either you didn't understand what I said or you ignored it.

This debate, if it was ever a real one, has degenerated into a tirade and name-calling on your part. You have added nothing of substance or sense. This is not profitable or going anywhere.

So, I bid you adieu so that you can continue to stew in your own juices. I'm out of here!

 

Sir, you have added further proof to my assertions. You continue your name-calling and invective. You are digging your hole deeper and deeper. Don’t you think the people reading this thread have enough intelligence to discern your vindictiveness, rancor, and anger? I think they do.

Since you are hurling emotional drivel and cannot or refuse to argue rationally, I take my hat, mount my horse, and ride away from your emotional tirade. I will heed the advice of Proverbs 26:4. What I see in your posts is not pretty and I want no part of it.

Goodbye! </font>[/QUOTE]Good-bye! And thank the Lord. Your accusations against me are totally unfounded. You have proved yourself to be childish and boorish. Adios!

 

Sir, you have added further proof to my assertions. You continue your name-calling and invective. You are digging your hole deeper and deeper. Don’t you think the people reading this thread have enough intelligence to discern your vindictiveness, rancor, and anger? I think they do.

Since you are hurling emotional drivel and cannot or refuse to argue rationally, I take my hat, mount my horse, and ride away from your emotional tirade. I will heed the advice of Proverbs 26:4. What I see in your posts is not pretty and I want no part of it.

Goodbye! </font>[/QUOTE]Good-bye! And thank the Lord. Your accusations against me are totally unfounded. You have proved yourself to be childish and boorish. Adios! </font>[/QUOTE]What did Mr Paid say to a previous poster about not stomaching things?
I'm still amazed that he thinks Shelton can do what he does, burt somehow we can't!
"There's none so blind as those who resuse to see" (sorry, forgot the source)

 

It proves that paid has a double standard. I expected nothing less from him.