Charles Spurgeon Slams John R. Rice
I was handed a book a while back written by John R. Rice. Rice was a fundamentalist icon who went to be with the Lord in 1979 or 1980. I became familiar with Rice growing up and knew him as the founding editor of The Sword of the Lord - a fundamentalist periodical which had a lot more influence in Rice's day than it has ever had since. Rice was a zealous evangelist and an innovator in salesmanship personal evangelism. What I mean by 'salesmanship' personal evangelism is the idea that personal evangelism should be approached the way a salesman approaches individuals with whom he is trying to make a sale. I was reared on this type of soul winning.
Besides the fact that I believe this form of 'soul winning' involves a dumbing down and subtle changing of the gospel message and is ultimately destructive to the Church and to individuals, I never had any problem with John Rice or his focus - that of reaching as many souls as possible for the kingdom. His zeal was commendable and he, unlike many of his descendants in fundamentalism today, actually took on liberalism the way fundamentalists are supposed to. John Rice wrote many books, most of them self-published, and influenced fundamentalism in his day perhaps in a greater way than anyone else of his generation.
But this book I was handed was horrid. It was called Predestined For Hell? No! I was somewhat familiar with the book, having perused its pages in my youth, so I knew Rice's position on predestination, but I have to admit that I was shocked at the level of distortions and outright false information contained in it.
One of the main problems with the book is that Rice knew no distinction between a Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist. He used the two terms interchangeably. Further, he viewed all persons who believed in predestination as being one of these Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist hybrid creatures so that in the caricature he paints, all those who believe in the doctrines of grace are guilty of the worst excesses of hyper-Calvinism and their hyper-Calvinism is the logical result of believing in that predestination business/heresy in the first place.
Here's one of the statements Rice makes in this book. Keep in mind that in his mind and in this book a 'hyper-Calvinist' is anyone who believes in predestination.
Rice: [Note some of the foolish statements of hyper-Calvinists. It has been said that ‘there are babes in hell not a span long,’ that is little ones who died in infancy or before birth, predestined to hell with no choice in the matter! That is wholly unscriptural.]
He gives no documentation in his book for who may have said this thing. Charity demands that we not accuse him of just making it up wholesale. One must wonder, however, if he's just quoting some arm-chair theologian who's the brother-in-law of some distant Presbyterian relative of his.
How can you quote something in a book without giving a source and claim that the one you're quoting speaks for all those who hold to a certain viewpoint and expect to have any credibility in the real world? Well, Rice apparently didn't live in the real world - he lived in the world of fundamentalism in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. Sadly, there is so little discernment left in that movement that junk like this gets a free pass.
Well, not here.
After reading that ridiculous little excerpt from his book, I ran down the following quotation from Charles Spurgeon:
[We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down? Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say, with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and, therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically. But I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions, and those unknown to me, when I say, we hold that all infants are elect of God and are therefore saved, and we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree, and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven. Our hymns are no ill witness to our faith on this point, and one of them runs thus:
"Millions of infant souls compose
The family above."
"Toplady, one of the keenest of Calvinists, was of this number. "In my remarks," says he, "on Dr. Nowell, I testified my firm belief that the souls of all departed infants are with God in glory; that in the decree of predestination to life, God hath included all whom he decreed to take away in infancy, and that the decree of reprobation hath nothing to do with them." Nay, he proceeds farther, and asks, with reason, how the anti-Calvinistic system of conditional salvation and election, or good works foreseen, will suit with the salvation of infants? It is plain that Arminians and Pelagians must introduce a new principle of election; and in so far as the salvation of infants is concerned, become Calvinists. Is it not an argument in behalf of Calvinism, that its principle is uniform throughout, and that no change is needed on the ground on which man is saved, whether young or old? John Newton, of London, the friend of Cowper, noted for his Calvinism, holds that the children in heaven exceed its adult inhabitants in all their multitudinous array. Gill, a very champion of Calvinism, held the doctrine, that all dying in infancy are saved. An intelligent modern writer, (Dr. Russell, of Dundee,) also a Calvinist, maintains the same views; and when it is considered that nearly one-half of the human race die in early years, it is easy to see what a vast accession must be daily and hourly making to the blessed population of heaven."
A more common charge, brought by more decent people,— for I must say that the last charge is never brought, except by disreputable persons,—a more common charge is, that we hold clear fatalism. . . .]
Ouch. Thanks, my old friend and distant relative. We appreciate your candor.
BTW - You may find the entire sermon from which the above statement is taken here.
I was handed a book a while back written by John R. Rice. Rice was a fundamentalist icon who went to be with the Lord in 1979 or 1980. I became familiar with Rice growing up and knew him as the founding editor of The Sword of the Lord - a fundamentalist periodical which had a lot more influence in Rice's day than it has ever had since. Rice was a zealous evangelist and an innovator in salesmanship personal evangelism. What I mean by 'salesmanship' personal evangelism is the idea that personal evangelism should be approached the way a salesman approaches individuals with whom he is trying to make a sale. I was reared on this type of soul winning.
Besides the fact that I believe this form of 'soul winning' involves a dumbing down and subtle changing of the gospel message and is ultimately destructive to the Church and to individuals, I never had any problem with John Rice or his focus - that of reaching as many souls as possible for the kingdom. His zeal was commendable and he, unlike many of his descendants in fundamentalism today, actually took on liberalism the way fundamentalists are supposed to. John Rice wrote many books, most of them self-published, and influenced fundamentalism in his day perhaps in a greater way than anyone else of his generation.
But this book I was handed was horrid. It was called Predestined For Hell? No! I was somewhat familiar with the book, having perused its pages in my youth, so I knew Rice's position on predestination, but I have to admit that I was shocked at the level of distortions and outright false information contained in it.
One of the main problems with the book is that Rice knew no distinction between a Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist. He used the two terms interchangeably. Further, he viewed all persons who believed in predestination as being one of these Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist hybrid creatures so that in the caricature he paints, all those who believe in the doctrines of grace are guilty of the worst excesses of hyper-Calvinism and their hyper-Calvinism is the logical result of believing in that predestination business/heresy in the first place.
Here's one of the statements Rice makes in this book. Keep in mind that in his mind and in this book a 'hyper-Calvinist' is anyone who believes in predestination.
Rice: [Note some of the foolish statements of hyper-Calvinists. It has been said that ‘there are babes in hell not a span long,’ that is little ones who died in infancy or before birth, predestined to hell with no choice in the matter! That is wholly unscriptural.]
He gives no documentation in his book for who may have said this thing. Charity demands that we not accuse him of just making it up wholesale. One must wonder, however, if he's just quoting some arm-chair theologian who's the brother-in-law of some distant Presbyterian relative of his.
How can you quote something in a book without giving a source and claim that the one you're quoting speaks for all those who hold to a certain viewpoint and expect to have any credibility in the real world? Well, Rice apparently didn't live in the real world - he lived in the world of fundamentalism in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. Sadly, there is so little discernment left in that movement that junk like this gets a free pass.
Well, not here.
After reading that ridiculous little excerpt from his book, I ran down the following quotation from Charles Spurgeon:
[We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down? Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say, with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and, therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically. But I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions, and those unknown to me, when I say, we hold that all infants are elect of God and are therefore saved, and we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree, and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven. Our hymns are no ill witness to our faith on this point, and one of them runs thus:
"Millions of infant souls compose
The family above."
"Toplady, one of the keenest of Calvinists, was of this number. "In my remarks," says he, "on Dr. Nowell, I testified my firm belief that the souls of all departed infants are with God in glory; that in the decree of predestination to life, God hath included all whom he decreed to take away in infancy, and that the decree of reprobation hath nothing to do with them." Nay, he proceeds farther, and asks, with reason, how the anti-Calvinistic system of conditional salvation and election, or good works foreseen, will suit with the salvation of infants? It is plain that Arminians and Pelagians must introduce a new principle of election; and in so far as the salvation of infants is concerned, become Calvinists. Is it not an argument in behalf of Calvinism, that its principle is uniform throughout, and that no change is needed on the ground on which man is saved, whether young or old? John Newton, of London, the friend of Cowper, noted for his Calvinism, holds that the children in heaven exceed its adult inhabitants in all their multitudinous array. Gill, a very champion of Calvinism, held the doctrine, that all dying in infancy are saved. An intelligent modern writer, (Dr. Russell, of Dundee,) also a Calvinist, maintains the same views; and when it is considered that nearly one-half of the human race die in early years, it is easy to see what a vast accession must be daily and hourly making to the blessed population of heaven."
A more common charge, brought by more decent people,— for I must say that the last charge is never brought, except by disreputable persons,—a more common charge is, that we hold clear fatalism. . . .]
Ouch. Thanks, my old friend and distant relative. We appreciate your candor.
BTW - You may find the entire sermon from which the above statement is taken here.
Comments