What Must I Do to be Saved? John R. Rice

Baptist Renegade

Baptist Renegade

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Dec 5, 2022
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
940
Points
113
Location
Sugar Land Texas
How many of you agree with this and would use this old tract for evangelism purposes? Is there anything where you would disagree or anything you would change?

What Must I Do to be Saved? The Plan of Salvation Made Plain to Sinners from the Word of God - John R. Rice

I tried to do a "Cut and Paste" of the tract but too large to post. I guess this would be a "Strike One" in this day and age where most would hardly read past the first page but after reading, I may have to order some for distribution in our Church. I confess I have often judged John R Rice based upon the current crowd who has co-opted and hijacked the Sword!

Are there any places where John R Rice was wrong or weak in his soteriology?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
How many of you agree with this and would use this old tract for evangelism purposes? Is there anything where you would disagree or anything you would change?

What Must I Do to be Saved? The Plan of Salvation Made Plain to Sinners from the Word of God - John R. Rice

I tried to do a "Cut and Paste" of the tract but too large to post. I guess this would be a "Strike One" in this day and age where most would hardly read past the first page but after reading, I may have to order some for distribution in our Church. I confess I have often judged John R Rice based upon the current crowd who has co-opted and hijacked the Sword!

Are there any places where John R Rice was wrong or weak in his soteriology?
Click to expand...
All I know is that 'in person" he would answer this question..."Believe." It wasn't classified by him as a work, at least not in any conversations I heard him involved in. Do YOU believe he was weak in his soteriology?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Are there any places where John R Rice was wrong or weak in his soteriology?
Click to expand...
He wrote a booklet against Calvinism. I read and evaluated it on the original FFF. I remember little about it now, except that I found it very poorly reasoned. (Calling vanilla Calvinism "hyper-Calvinism," for example, was not a good way to persuade someone of his own views.) The basics of my own soteriology haven't changed since, so I'd have the same appraisal of it now, most likely.
 
AverageJoe said:
All I know is that 'in person" he would answer this question..."Believe." It wasn't classified by him as a work, at least not in any conversations I heard him involved in. Do YOU believe he was weak in his soteriology?
Click to expand...
It was my original assumption but I believe the tract to be well-written and perhaps something I may even use in the future!

As Ransom says, JRR was "Anti-Calvinistic" but a quick perusal of the tract in question does not raise anything objectionable in his Soteriology and many of his points I could see someone like John MacArthur make the very same points that Rice made in this tract.

I must confess, I am beginning a soteriology paper on the "Process of Salvation" and was thinking that Acts 16 is a good "Jumping Off" point with the simplest of "Gospel Presentations" and thinking that Rice's tract would be towing the "Easy Belivism" line (of which I would have used for "fodder") but I stand corrected! Of course it has been YEARS since I actually read it.

I think this is a good exercise of how much we actually DO AGREE once we cast a few semantics aside and just try to have some good theology! I wonder if JRR ever acknowledged such?

Ransom, can you take a perusal of the tract with your "Calvie Glasses" and let me know if you see any "red flags" popping up?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Ransom, can you take a perusal of the tract with your "Calvie Glasses" and let me know if you see any "red flags" popping up?
Click to expand...
Nothing that pops out. I'd be perfectly comfortable handing that tract out myself.

The only thing that gives me pause is the middle section where he discusses not having the right feelings to be saved, or a period of mourning over sins, and so forth. Not that I object to what he says, but I wonder what made that part necessary to put in. Seems a bit much.

I'll bet the section repentance caused a few of his contemporaries' heads to explode.
 
Ransom said:
Nothing that pops out. I'd be perfectly comfortable handing that tract out myself.

The only thing that gives me pause is the middle section where he discusses not having the right feelings to be saved, or a period of mourning over sins, and so forth. Not that I object to what he says, but I wonder what made that part necessary to put in. Seems a bit much.

I'll bet the section repentance caused a few of his contemporaries' heads to explode.
Click to expand...
I'd like to better understand the historical context of such a statement. You still had a lot of "Revivalism" going on back in his day with the old-fashioned "Mourners Bench" and I wonder if there was a legitimate concern over preachers saying you had to "Weep and Mourn" over your sin in order for God to hear you and to save you? Would this be a "Finney-esque" thing? Overall, I would say he has repentance right with his acknowledgement that it is from God and it follows regeneration. Calvinists believe that "Regeneration precedes Faith" and saying it in such a way is bound to stir up a fight. What JRR seems to be saying is that faith is synonymous with a "New Birth" which is just about saying the same thing if not splitting the proverbial "hair" over the matter. Efficacious grace IS regeneration although there may be disagreement over where it happens, it does and MUST happen!

Calvinists can get a little over-technical with their "Superior Theology" (;)) and I guess sometimes an old "Backwoods Preecher" can get things right!:cool:
 
Baptist Renegade said:
How many of you agree with this and would use this old tract for evangelism purposes? Is there anything where you would disagree or anything you would change?

What Must I Do to be Saved? The Plan of Salvation Made Plain to Sinners from the Word of God - John R. Rice

I tried to do a "Cut and Paste" of the tract but too large to post. I guess this would be a "Strike One" in this day and age where most would hardly read past the first page but after reading, I may have to order some for distribution in our Church. I confess I have often judged John R Rice based upon the current crowd who has co-opted and hijacked the Sword!

Are there any places where John R Rice was wrong or weak in his soteriology?
Click to expand...
The only thing one "must do" is be born again. And one can do as much for his second birth as he could for his first.
 
Ekklesian said:
The only thing one "must do" is be born again. And one can do as much for that as he can for his first birth.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that? Do you mean one has no choice as in a natural birth?
 
I guess if I really wanted to nitpick, I would probably re-word the following:

Jesus died for our sins, and, thank God, salvation is bought for every man in the world, if he will have it, as the free gift of God.
Click to expand...
I would change it to say that "Salvation is bought for every man who will put their faith in Christ's finished work of redemption."

I'd still pass out the tract as written though.
 
JRR definitely covered all the bases yet, he always came back to the simplicity of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He very properly defined belief and repentance, prayer and confession and gave their proper application in the conversion of the soul.

My favorite part of this tract was there was no "1-2-3 pray after me". I have seen so many (I have been guilty of this myself) corner a person into saying a prayer then rejoice that he's led someone to Christ when in reality, he's done little more than put a notch in his pistol. In fact, what passes as "soul winning" is nothing more than counting coup. Not one person that I have wrestled into saying a prayer has shown any fruit. But there are those who have simply heard the gospel from my lips that I've bumped into further down the road who were displaying a Spirit-led life.

Is this tract wordy? Yes. Could it be boiled down? Maybe. But this tract is wonderful because if someone is being prompted by the Spirit, (how else do we come to Christ?) they'll drink it in. To this point, I'll say that there are many who mistake the mere passing out of tracts for evangelism.
 
Last edited:
Huk said:
What do you mean by that? Do you mean one has no choice as in a natural birth?
Click to expand...
What I normally point out is that "No one ever asks to be born, but everyone who has been born wants to LIVE!"

As I challenged Ekk though, may be difficult to explain.
 
abcaines said:
JRR definitely covered all the bases yet, he always came back to the simplicity of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He very properly defined belief and repentance, prayer and confession and gave their proper application in the conversion of the soul.

My favorite part of this tract was there was no "1-2-3 pray after me". I have seen so many (I have been guilty of this myself) corner a person into saying a prayer then rejoice that he's led someone to Christ when in reality, he's done little more than put a notch in his pistol. In fact, what passes as "soul winning" is nothing more than counting coup. Not one person that I have wrestled into saying a prayer has shown any fruit. But there are those who have simply heard the gospel from my lips that I've bumped into further down the road who were displaying a Spirit-led life.

Is this tract wordy? Yes. Could it be boiled down? Maybe. But this tract is wonderful because if someone is being prompted by the Spirit, (how else do we come to Christ?) they'll drink it in. To this point, I'll say that there are many who mistake passing out tracts for evangelism.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of a single person I ever coerced to "Pray a Prayer" with me that ever went on to serve God or even attend Church.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
How exactly do you explain this?
Click to expand...
You have as much say in your second birth as you did in your first. And, in fact, bringing you into this world was wholly the work of others. The travail was your mother's, and it was all her's.

Bringing you into the New World was wholly the work of Christ. The travail was all His.
 
Ransom said:
The only thing that gives me pause is the middle section where he discusses not having the right feelings to be saved, or a period of mourning over sins, and so forth. Not that I object to what he says, but I wonder what made that part necessary to put in. Seems a bit much.
Click to expand...
I think he was debunking the notion that repentance was weeping over sin. He used that to contrast what genuine repentance is. Certainly a worthy subject when presenting the Gospel.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
In an evangelistic setting, how would you explain this to someone in regards to believing the Gospel? Do you even need to?
Click to expand...
I would explain it as I would a heartbeat and respiration. Involuntary actions. Whosoever will may come. But understand, it is God worketh in you to will and to do of His good pleasure.
 
Ekklesian said:
You have as much say in your second birth as you did in your first. And, in fact, bringing you into this world was wholly the work of others. The travail was your mother's, and it was all her's.

Bringing you into the New World was wholly the work of Christ. The travail was all His.
Click to expand...
Ok, not saying I disagree but I have a story for you:

I remember listening to one of John Gerstner's "Handout Theology" lectures where he mentioned a small group in his Church who were complaining that they had been "Waiting over ten years for God to grant them repentance and faith to believe!" Perhaps I heard this wrong but this really does not sit right with me! Seems perhaps they were neglecting the "Man's Responsibility" part to "Repent and believe the Gospel?"

Yes, we are "Born not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God" and we are "Born of corruptible seed by the Word of God" but we are also responsible to repent and believe the Gospel!

I have been looking around for a transcript of this and hoping I would hear the lecture again at a later date on Refnet. I didn't listen all the way through and am thinking perhaps there was a "Punch-Line" somewhere that I missed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top