"It is either historical blindness or dishonesty to hold up John R. Rice as an exemplary Fundamentalist while chiding others for allowing the same things that he allowed."
The author is constructing his own revisionist history as he critiques others for the same. This, I suppose, is a mistaken way of winning points. The writer moves Rice out of his own time and context into our modern controversies. Who can say authoritatively what positions Dr. Rice would take today? Fifty-year-old quotes do not prove a man's thoughts on today's issues. Issues, conditions, circumstances, and attitudes change.
The non-cessationists were part, or at least fellowshipped, with Fundamentalism in earlier times. They moved easily in the Jones-Rice circle of Fundamentalism. C.M. Ward maintained his radio program on WMUU, the BJU radio station, up through the 1980's. Earl P. Paulk, pastor of the Tremont Avenue Church of God in Greenville, SC, served longtime on the BJU Board of Trustees. Most of Lee College faculty, the Church of God denominational school, were BJU alumni. A cordial relationship existed between Holmes Bible College, Lee College, and BJU. O. Talmage Spence, a Pentecostal (his father was Bishop H. T. Spence of the PHC), was a BJU alumnus and maintained close ties with BJU and a personal friendship with Dr. Bob, Jr. He and Foundations Bible College were part of the World Congresses on Fundamentalism for decades. The list goes on.
Also, these older non-cessationists were of a different mindset and beliefs from the Charismatics, Third-wave, and non-cessationists today. We cannot judge today's issues on what Dr. Rice and Dr. Jones did or did not do fifty years ago. The non-cessationists were fundamentalists and Fundamentalists by definition. After all, Fundamentalism was a kind of ecumenical movement bringing Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, et. al. into a movement of common cause against Modernism/Liberalism. Only the cardinal doctrines, which the non-cessationists accepted, were emphasized with denominational distinctiveness sublimated under common cause. Since Independent Baptists seem to have become dominant in the movement and the common enemy is less threatening, the perspective has shifted more toward Baptist doctrine within the past half century.
It is apparent that the author has an itch. The itch appears to be separation and KJVO issues and he uses the Rice stick to scratch his itch.
After writing the preceding post, while multitasking, and later reading my original post, I realized that I had not made my main points plain. My thesis is simple. A man's position on non-cessationists fifty years ago cannot be extrapolated to include today's non-cessationists. We are comparing apples and oranges. I will argue that the non-cessations of Dr. Rice's time (e.g. Earl P. Paulk, C. M. Ward, H. T. Spence, et. al.) had more in common with Dr. Rice and Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. than they do with the non-cessationists of today. The older non-cessationists believed and taught the fundamental doctrines. Who knows what most non-cessationists of today believe? We certainly don't find them teaching fundamental doctrines. Today's situation is radically different from Dr. Rice's day.
IMHO, the article had nothing significant to say except to lash out at some groups whom the author didn't like. The author cannot, I think, sustain his charge of internal contradiction because he is not making a valid comparison of like with like.
Was Rice a non-cessationist?
“I believe that the gifts of the Spirit may still be given as it pleases God. I believe there was a gift of tongues in Bible times, and there may be gifts of tongues today. We do not see many miracles, but there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God will never work any miracles in our day.”
John R. Rice, The Power of Pentecost or The Fullness of the Spirit (Wheaton: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1949), 207.
My thesis is simple. A man's position on non-cessationists fifty years ago cannot be extrapolated to include today's non-cessationists.
Wouldn't that also mean that you can't extrapolate to exclude them? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, in spite of what some people desire.
The older non-cessationists believed and taught the fundamental doctrines. Who knows what most non-cessationists of today believe?
A lot of people know what they believe because they listen to them and read them. In fact, we probably know more about what the non-cessationists of today believe than we know what the ones of former times believed. After all, with the internet and technology, it is very easy to find out. Just google them, and listen to them preach, or read their articles, or read their books. They are pretty public about it.
We certainly don't find them teaching fundamental doctrines.
Really? Your just now stated rhetorical question implied that we could not know what they believe, but now you claim to know. Where, between this sentence and the last one, did you determine this?
And which fundamental doctrine do you have in mind that they do not teach?
It is apparent that the author has an itch. The itch appears to be separation and KJVO issues and he uses the Rice stick to scratch his itch.
Actually, to the contrary, I think he is showing that Rice cannot be legitimately used to scratch certain itches. He is pointing out what Rice believed and practiced, and how it is different than some people want to think and say Rice practiced. Feel free to disagree with Rice. It might be wise. But I don't think we can deny the history, can we?
My thesis is simple. A man's position on non-cessationists fifty years ago cannot be extrapolated to include today's non-cessationists.
Wouldn't that also mean that you can't extrapolate to exclude them? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, in spite of what some people desire.
Well, if you're going to quote a guy, do it fairly and in context. If you’re going to argue with me, let me speak for myself. This is a silly argument because I never excluded present day non-cessationists. Exclude them from what? You imply that I made some logic error in excluding someone. I did not take a position, so please don’t ascribe one for me. I wrote: “Who can say authoritatively what positions Dr. Rice would take today?” Again, I said, “We cannot judge today's issues on what Dr. Rice and Dr. Jones did or did not do fifty years ago.”
The older non-cessationists believed and taught the fundamental doctrines. Who knows what most non-cessationists of today believe?
A lot of people know what they believe because they listen to them and read them. In fact, we probably know more about what the non-cessationists of today believe than we know what the ones of former times believed. After all, with the internet and technology, it is very easy to find out. Just google them, and listen to them preach, or read their articles, or read their books. They are pretty public about it.
Modern non-cessationists are known for seeking an unity in the commonality of experience. Thus, they tend to minimize doctrinal differences with an emphasis on the common experiences. Do they believe the fundamentals? You’ll find no unifying basis except their non-cessationist teachings. Most just don’t deal with basic doctrine but they seem to major on some esoteric interpretation of their experience. It is so variable that one cannot find a good, consistent systematic theology of their teachings although Rodman J. Williams, Stanley M. Horton, van Cleave, and others have tried. Additionally, there appears little connection between the academic theologies and the rhetoric from the pulpits, TV shows, and public forums.
We certainly don't find them teaching fundamental doctrines.
Really? Your just now stated rhetorical question implied that we could not know what they believe, but now you claim to know. Where, between this sentence and the last one, did you determine this?
Really, you are trying too hard to put me in a logical contradiction. Save your brains. There’s no contradiction here. One can know that he doesn’t hear a particular thing without knowing all the things that are being propagated.
And which fundamental doctrine do you have in mind that they do not teach?
You didn’t understand what I said? Overall, you just don’t hear them teaching doctrine, especially the fundamentals. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, or the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the deity of Christ, etc. is seldom, if ever, taught. They tend to focus on the gifts and the Pentecostal distinctives.
It is apparent that the author has an itch. The itch appears to be separation and KJVO issues and he uses the Rice stick to scratch his itch.
Actually, to the contrary, I think he is showing that Rice cannot be legitimately used to scratch certain itches. He is pointing out what Rice believed and practiced, and how it is different than some people want to think and say Rice practiced. Feel free to disagree with Rice. It might be wise. But I don't think we can deny the history, can we?
My main point seems to have escaped your attention. Rice, Jones, and the other older Fundamentalists accepted as fellow believers and associated with those holding non-cessationist views. These non-cessationists were Fundamentalists but most modern non-cessationists lie somewhere outside of the Fundamentalist camp; they hold many things in common with the neo-evangelical group. They do not uniformly hold to the fundamentals but their theology is a smorgasbord. Although it is difficult to know where to place them, it is apparent that they are not Fundamentalists.
Well, if you're going to quote a guy, do it fairly and in context. If you’re going to argue with me, let me speak for myself.
No intent to do otherwise.
This is a silly argument because I never excluded present day non-cessationists. Exclude them from what? You imply that I made some logic error in excluding someone. I did not take a position, so please don’t ascribe one for me. I wrote: “Who can say authoritatively what positions Dr. Rice would take today?” Again, I said, “We cannot judge today's issues on what Dr. Rice and Dr. Jones did or did not do fifty years ago.
If you are going to quote a guy, do it fairly and in context. If you're going to argue with me, let me speak for myself. My point is about Doran and the argument he is responding to. He is responding to people who cite Rice in support of certain things (cessationism and secondary separation), when historically, Rice did not support those things (as evidenced by history itself).
You responded that A man's position on non-cessationists fifty years ago cannot be extrapolated to include today's non-cessationists. Fine. That is exactly my point. If you can't extrapolate it to say that Rice would include non-cessationists (an argument that I don't think Doran made), you cannot use his argument from 50 years ago to say anything about today. But that's the contention. Certain people arguing by implication that Rice would do certain things, and Doran is saying, "Rice didn't do that when he had the chance to do it, and you can't legitimately argue that he would do that now."
Modern non-cessationists are known for seeking an unity in the commonality of experience. Thus, they tend to minimize doctrinal differences with an emphasis on the common experiences.
This is not my experience, no pun intended.
Do they believe the fundamentals? You’ll find no unifying basis except their non-cessationist teachings.
I think Reformed theology and the gospel are pretty big issues with them. They are active in the Gospel Coalition (so named because of the Gospel commitments that they share).
Most just don’t deal with basic doctrine but they seem to major on some esoteric interpretation of their experience.
Who do you have in mind? Do you have any example of this?
It is so variable that one cannot find a good, consistent systematic theology of their teachings although Rodman J. Williams, Stanley M. Horton, van Cleave, and others have tried.
Ever hear of Wayne Grudem? He is a non-cessationist who has a highly respected (and very good) Systematic Theology. Driscoll and Brashears, both non-cesssationists, have just published a Systematic Theology. I haven't read it yet, but it is available very soon.
Really, you are trying too hard to put me in a logical contradiction. Save your brains. There’s no contradiction here. One can know that he doesn’t hear a particular thing without knowing all the things that are being propagated.
Actually, there was a contradiction. You said (essentially) no one knows what they are teaching but they aren't teaching fundamentals. But how do you know they aren't teaching fundamentals if you don't know what they are teaching? That doesn't make sense. The point is that if you don't know what they are teaching, then you cannot know that they aren't teaching certain things (the fundamentals). Perhaps you just didn't think about the technicality there. I think you were probably caught up in rhetoric.
You didn’t understand what I said?
I think I did. But perhaps not. I am not beyond misunderstanding.
Overall, you just don’t hear them teaching doctrine, especially the fundamentals. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, or the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the deity of Christ, etc. is seldom, if ever, taught. They tend to focus on the gifts and the Pentecostal distinctives.
Have you ever listened to Driscoll? Piper? Mahaney? Harris? Grudem? These are some major names in modern non-cessationism. I don't listen to them much, but I have heard or read every one of these doctrines addressed by them on multiple occasions. These are issues over which they would separate over.
Rice, Jones, and the other older Fundamentalists accepted as fellow believers and associated with those holding non-cessationist views. These non-cessationists were Fundamentalists
I am not sure if they were fundamentalist or not. But Doran has said that cessationism was not a defining issue or a litmus test for fundamentalism.
but most modern non-cessationists lie somewhere outside of the Fundamentalist camp; they hold many things in common with the neo-evangelical group. They do not uniformly hold to the fundamentals but their theology is a smorgasbord. Although it is difficult to know where to place them, it is apparent that they are not Fundamentalists.
Fair enough, perhaps accurate. Perhaps not.
But you are missing Doran's point (and making some inaccurate statements along the way, I think). Doran's point is that Rice's historic positions do not match up with what Rice is being used to argue for.
It looks like RPittman is looking at the non-cessationists of TBN and Pentecostal churches, whereas Larry (and Doran, based on my understanding of his article) is looking at conservative evangelical non-cessationists. You really can't compare the two camps.
It looks like RPittman is looking at the non-cessationists of TBN and Pentecostal churches, whereas Larry (and Doran, based on my understanding of his article) is looking at conservative evangelical non-cessationists. You really can't compare the two camps.
Jason, you are exactly correct. And it was the leaders of the old-line Pentecostal churches with whom JRR associated. His opinions, no doubt, were based on these contacts. We haven't the foggiest idea of what position he would take in regard to the conservative evangelicals.
If you are going to quote a guy, do it fairly and in context. If you're going to argue with me, let me speak for myself. My point is about Doran and the argument he is responding to. He is responding to people who cite Rice in support of certain things (cessationism and secondary separation), when historically, Rice did not support those things (as evidenced by history itself).
You responded that A man's position on non-cessationists fifty years ago cannot be extrapolated to include today's non-cessationists. Fine. That is exactly my point. If you can't extrapolate it to say that Rice would include non-cessationists (an argument that I don't think Doran made), you cannot use his argument from 50 years ago to say anything about today. But that's the contention. Certain people arguing by implication that Rice would do certain things, and Doran is saying, "Rice didn't do that when he had the chance to do it, and you can't legitimately argue that he would do that now."
Larry, you making my point for me but you apparently assume that I take one side or the other of the argument. I don't. You carry my statements beyond their bare assertions. One does not imply the other. To say that you cannot extrapolate Rice's words cuts both ways. I have never said otherwise. However, this also preempts Doran's position, who goes beyond saying that we don't know Rice's position in today's context. Doran tries to establish that Rice's present day followers are using him for something against his stated position. We know Rice's views in the context of his time but we don't know how he would view the current situation. Thus, Doran cannot force an apparent contradiction between the past and present.
I am a student of practical epistemology. We don't come to our beliefs and viewpoints purely through intellectual means. Culture, situations, etc. play powerful roles. The outlook of cessationist and non-cessationist was vastly different fifty years ago. It is not comparable to today's debate. Rice's benevolent toleration and acceptance of old-line Pentecostals was common among Southern Fundamentalists; the same toleration was not extended to Charismatics. Rice may have changed his views. A man may even change his views several times during his lifetime. After all, there's early Luther, middle Luther, and late Luther depending upon what you want to prove.
Finally, I am skeptical that consistent behavior toward non-cessationist views is Dr. Doran's real target. I think the burrs in his saddle are separation and KJVO.
I enjoyed listening to O. Talmage Spence during college days.
And this week, I have enjoyed reading Grudem's Systematic Theology sitting here on my office desk. (It has been iron sharpening iron as I have been studying ecclesiology.)
Larry, you making my point for me but you apparently assume that I take one side or the other of the argument.
Not sure what that means. Your question/statement implied one side of the argument. Perhaps you were presenting it just for sake of argument, which is fine. But your implication was that we don't know what non-cessationists teach and we know that they don't teach fundamentals. (Again, that is what you actually said, which fine. It's really not a problem.) I don't want to get sidetracked on that. I was merely quoting you and responding.
Doran tries to establish that Rice's present day followers are using him for something against his stated position.
Exactly, and he does as good job of it. He shows that Rice's "stated position" is contrary to what people are using Rice to support today. We can debate what Rice would have said today. Fine. But he isn't alive today, so all we know is what he said back then. I think this is a lot more simple than you are making it.
Finally, I am skeptical that consistent behavior toward non-cessationist views is Dr. Doran's real target.
I'm not. I don't think that was his target at all. His target was people who make bad arguments by asserting that Rice held a certain position that is (1) lacking evidence and (2) contrary to what Rice actually said and did.
I think the burrs in his saddle are separation and KJVO.
Worthy burrs to be sure, but not the target of his writing, really, I don't think.