How did John R Rice differ with dispensationalism? He believed in a pre trib rapture and a future restoration for the nation of Israel. He was probably what many refer today as a "modified dispensationalist". He rejected "replacement theology" so I don't think he held to covenant theology either. Someone can use a similar argument that John R Rice was not "IFB" because he rejected KJV onlyism, secondary separation, and storehouse tithing.
More from the New Independent Baptists
- Thread starter Tarheel Baptist
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
Exactly, thank you.Jrock said:
Scofield was taught as a ciricculum in Rice's Seminary, as in most of East Texas.
So he may not have been a Ruckmanite, but was certainly a Darbyist.
Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk
John R. Rice was an Historic Chiliast. An Historic Chiliast is a non-dispensational Pre-millennialist.
They usually see the beginning of the Church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament (as did Rice) and many are post-trib (as was Spurgeon).
Many deny storehouse tithing.
Among those who are or were Historic Chiliasts would include John R. Rice, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Mohler, John Piper, Francis Schaeffer, D. A. Carson, James Montgomery Boice, and Carl F. H. Henry.
They usually see the beginning of the Church/Body of Christ in the Old Testament (as did Rice) and many are post-trib (as was Spurgeon).
Many deny storehouse tithing.
Among those who are or were Historic Chiliasts would include John R. Rice, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Mohler, John Piper, Francis Schaeffer, D. A. Carson, James Montgomery Boice, and Carl F. H. Henry.
This is the first time I know of a pre trib historic premillennialist. I would agree that many see the church in the old testament so I guess in that sense Rice was a historic. Can someone direct me to Rice's books of Israel and the church?
Twisted said:
I don't get your quote. The article was dated Mar 1980; he passed away in Dec 1980.
The tithe goes into the "storehouse." In the OT that would be the Temple. In the New Testament it would be the local church. Any money given to anyone apart from the local church would not count toward the tithe.Edwards said:
Some carried it so far as to say any money sent to a mission agency instead of being given to the local church to send to the missionary did not count toward the tithe.
Of course. Rice would be fine with people sending their tithes to the Sword of the Lord.Thomas Cassidy said:
The law of the tithe says, "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S. It is holy to the LORD."
If the tithe belongs to the Lord, then it should be brought to the Lord's house.
I don't think personal greed had anything to do with JRR's position on tithing. It is more likely based on his belief that the church existed in the Old Testament and not all Jews could get to Jerusalem to leave their tithe at the Temple so they did acts of local charity instead of "storehouse tithing." He saw that carried over into the New Testament.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 989
- Reaction score
- 472
- Points
- 63
I always thought John R. Rice was basically a Scofield dispensationalist, but I was mistaken about that. I ran across this article in the Sword of the Lord, March 15, 1974 written by Rice in which he says (excerpts):
"I do not regard myself as a dispensationalist. I know that when man was in the Garden of Eden and sinless, he had a relationship to God that no one has had since the fall. But I do not see any special reason to make up a dispensation of all the time from the fall down to Abraham and make another dispensation of covenant after Abraham and then a dispensation of law later on. The truth is that God has dealt with people all through the years the same way. . . . Anybody who thinks that up to John the Baptist they needed repentance and after that they did not - they are teaching what the Bible does not teach. . . . Abraham is held up as a model of salvation for us in Romans 4.
"I do not think it is sensible to say, as the Scofield Bible notes say, before Exodus 19:3, 'grace given up for law.' God never did give up grace and the children of Israel never did accept the plan of salvation by law nor did God ever give any such plan of salvation by law.
"To call the New Testament age 'the dispensation of grace,' implies that people were saved some other way besides grace before that. . . . Grace, based on Christ's sacrifice, was available for all Old Testament saints just like for New Testament saints."
"I do not regard myself as a dispensationalist. I know that when man was in the Garden of Eden and sinless, he had a relationship to God that no one has had since the fall. But I do not see any special reason to make up a dispensation of all the time from the fall down to Abraham and make another dispensation of covenant after Abraham and then a dispensation of law later on. The truth is that God has dealt with people all through the years the same way. . . . Anybody who thinks that up to John the Baptist they needed repentance and after that they did not - they are teaching what the Bible does not teach. . . . Abraham is held up as a model of salvation for us in Romans 4.
"I do not think it is sensible to say, as the Scofield Bible notes say, before Exodus 19:3, 'grace given up for law.' God never did give up grace and the children of Israel never did accept the plan of salvation by law nor did God ever give any such plan of salvation by law.
"To call the New Testament age 'the dispensation of grace,' implies that people were saved some other way besides grace before that. . . . Grace, based on Christ's sacrifice, was available for all Old Testament saints just like for New Testament saints."
illinoisguy said:
That'll preach!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,050
- Reaction score
- 2,141
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
illinoisguy said:
Welcome to the forum!
You're right, he's obviously not a Scofieldian. Some kind of modified dispensationalist, perhaps? I was under the impression that he was a pretribulationist.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 989
- Reaction score
- 472
- Points
- 63
Yes, John R. Rice was definitely pre-tribulationist. In other ways, he did not always fit the traditional dispensationalist mold. When Israel was founded in 1948, most dispensationalists hailed that as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and a sign of the Rapture. Rice insisted that it was not a fulfillment of prophecy nor a sign of the Rapture, and he turned out to be right. I find it ironic that some IFB churches nowadays, that see themselves as heirs of the John R. Rice teachings, might not be hospitable to anyone who agrees with Rice's rejection of Scofieldism and date-setting prophetic speculation. Maybe that blind adherence to doctrinaire Scofieldism is not as big an issue as it once was - a new generation has arisen that knows not Scofield. I have been told by reliable sources that Scofieldism is no longer emphasized in the teaching at Bob Jones University and Moody Bible Institute, and that students graduating from those colleges are not indoctrinated in or familiar with the Scofield notes. If so, that is a good thing in my opinion.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 8,849
- Reaction score
- 839
- Points
- 113
Our you could choose the New, New Independent Baptist?s:
https://www.thenewifb.com/what-is-the-new-ifb
https://www.thenewifb.com/what-is-the-new-ifb
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
I've spent the last year, imploring these men, some of whom I trained, to return to Orthodoxy in the areas where the Old IFB have famously drifted into a heterodoxy.Tarheel Baptist said:
But, alas, to no avail.
They are smitten with Hyles and the Error of Balaam.
I wash my hands of it all.
I have to get well, so I can get out there and plant churches in a few needy areas, where these clowns are busy shaming the name of Christ, in every imaginable way.
Last week, a man ordained by Steve Anderson only 5 years ago, was removed for gross sins like prostitution, embezzlement, gambling and drugs.
Anathema!
Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk