Just look at the title “The Sword of the Lord ….and of John R. Rice.” Um, a little pretentious maybe? A title that, well without that reference to Mr. Rice, ought to be reserved for the Holy Scripture?
Interesting for me on several fronts. First, I owe a great debt to John R Rice as he was God’s messenger who introduced my grandmother to Christ at a tent meeting in Waterloo, Iowa. He had his idiosyncrasies (as we all do) and was a product of his times, but we should honor his work and his memory. Sadly, his paper has been hijacked by a cadre of strange men who dishonor their founder and promote heresy.
Oliver B Greene was another interesting character. While I never met him, for a number of years I worked out of what used to be his office and lived in what used to be his home (and swam in his pool). I know little about what he taught but I do know he was an honorable man who built a far reaching and effective ministry. I would not trust the Sword of the Lord to accurately or honestly reprint his writings. They are well known for “fixing” the sermons of Spurgeon and other men they feature.
I believe this article is unfair to the Sword of the Lord. I have my disagreements with the Sword of the Lord, especially since the days of John R. Rice as editor, but they do present the plan of salvation.
I think the Sword of the Lord is garbage and heresy of the worst sort. It’s dangerous, and presents a repentance-less “gospel.” Other than that, it’s a valuable and important periodical, which deserves to be read by every thinking Christian in the land.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
My first exposure to the SOTL was over 40 years ago. At the time I found it interesting how many pictures of preachers there were in the publication. In those days I was a bit of a “nit picker”. I recall that in one edition on the pages with ads for churches there were approximately 110 churches listed and nearly all had pictures of their pastor (some several years old). There were few, if any, references in the ads to Jesus Christ. In addition there always seemed to be an article or two praising some great(?) man. Their apparent man focus was a turn-off then and continues to be so today.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
….to contemplate the claims of a repentance-less “gospel” (per Brandenburg, Tyler) along with SOTL’s famous crusades on moral topics—though many of them are not (IMO) clearly specified out in Scripture. All these moral positions, but no need to repent?
If there really is no need to repent of sins, then the point of those moral positions taken by SOTL is in effect legalism—I’m OK because I’m not divorced, I don’t gamble at the racetrack, etc.. Now I don’t think anybody there would confess as much, but I’m having trouble seeing an alternative.
“The saving Gospel as to how men are to be saved is once described as ‘repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 20:21). But usually where one is mentioned as the way to salvation, the other is implied, not mentioned. Actually saving repentance and saving faith are simply two ways of saying the same thing. The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, meaning literally a change of mind. That is, a change of heart attitude. But the change is from unbelief to faith. To repent means to turn from sin. Saving faith means to turn to Christ, relying on Him for salvation. So one turns from sin in the heart to Christ, and the same saving faith turns from sin and turns to trust Christ. So to believe on Christ in saving faith and to honestly turn the heart from sin against God, to love and trust Him, is the same thing. Repentance and faith are different names for, or different aspects of, the same heart turning.”
-John R. Rice, Filled With the Sprit: The Book of Acts, A Verse-by-Verse Commentary, Sword of the Lord Publishers; 1973.
John R. Rice doesn’t sound like a heretic in his comment above. And, he wasn’t.
John R. Rice and the Sword of the Lord, up until Rice’s death in 1980, was definitely not King James Only. In fact, Rice and his Associate Editor Robert L. Sumner, fought against KJV Only in the Sword of the Lord.
It’s worth noting that the version Amazon carries has a copyright date of 2000. That said, one of the comments notes Rice’s comments on translation that “made him fall out of favor among independent Baptists.” So perhaps SOTL is using the book to pay for the KJVO stuff they’re spreading, despite it not being KJVO?
Either that, or it’s entirely possible they haven’t figured out that Rice was not KJVO. I personally knew a guy who used both the work of David Sorenson and Chick Tracts to “support” OKJV (totally different than KJVO!) theology, not quite realizing that one argues for the TR, and the other for the Old Latin. The man was quite impervious to evidence, in my opinion.
It’s worth noting that the version Amazon carries has a copyright date of 2000. That said, one of the comments notes Rice’s comments on translation that “made him fall out of favor among independent Baptists.” So perhaps SOTL is using the book to pay for the KJVO stuff they’re spreading, despite it not being KJVO?
Either that, or it’s entirely possible they haven’t figured out that Rice was not KJVO. I personally knew a guy who used both the work of David Sorenson and Chick Tracts to “support” OKJV (totally different than KJVO!) theology, not quite realizing that one argues for the TR, and the other for the Old Latin. The man was quite impervious to evidence, in my opinion.
…..that neither the “Textual Issue” nor the “Scripture” tabs of their online store list/include the John R. Rice book that is entirely about the Bible, textual issues, and translations:
Sheldon Smith, current editor of the Sword of the Lord knows well that John R. Rice and Robert L. Sumner did not believe in KJV Only. I think if he had to speak on the issue, he would say something like, KJV Only just adds another layer of protection against theological liberalism. I disagree, I just think that would be his view. But I think as much as possible, he just wants to avoid the obvious change he and Curtis Hutson made to the Sword since the death of John R. Rice.
A quote from the founding editor of the Sword:
“When we say that the Bible is inspired, we do not refer to the translations or copies but to the original autographs, written down under God’s direction.”
-John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers; 1969.
Discussion
NewLarge image of the 1st issue
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewWhere they went bad....
Just look at the title “The Sword of the Lord ….and of John R. Rice.” Um, a little pretentious maybe? A title that, well without that reference to Mr. Rice, ought to be reserved for the Holy Scripture?
Dunno what Jim has against birds….
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewRice and Greene
Interesting for me on several fronts. First, I owe a great debt to John R Rice as he was God’s messenger who introduced my grandmother to Christ at a tent meeting in Waterloo, Iowa. He had his idiosyncrasies (as we all do) and was a product of his times, but we should honor his work and his memory. Sadly, his paper has been hijacked by a cadre of strange men who dishonor their founder and promote heresy.
Oliver B Greene was another interesting character. While I never met him, for a number of years I worked out of what used to be his office and lived in what used to be his home (and swam in his pool). I know little about what he taught but I do know he was an honorable man who built a far reaching and effective ministry. I would not trust the Sword of the Lord to accurately or honestly reprint his writings. They are well known for “fixing” the sermons of Spurgeon and other men they feature.
Donn R Arms
NewI believe this article is
I believe this article is unfair to the Sword of the Lord. I have my disagreements with the Sword of the Lord, especially since the days of John R. Rice as editor, but they do present the plan of salvation.
Some of my thoughts on the Sword of the Lord:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-r-rice-and-sword-of-lo…
David R. Brumbelow
NewSword of the Lord
I think the Sword of the Lord is garbage and heresy of the worst sort. It’s dangerous, and presents a repentance-less “gospel.” Other than that, it’s a valuable and important periodical, which deserves to be read by every thinking Christian in the land.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewGreat (?) Men
My first exposure to the SOTL was over 40 years ago. At the time I found it interesting how many pictures of preachers there were in the publication. In those days I was a bit of a “nit picker”. I recall that in one edition on the pages with ads for churches there were approximately 110 churches listed and nearly all had pictures of their pastor (some several years old). There were few, if any, references in the ads to Jesus Christ. In addition there always seemed to be an article or two praising some great(?) man. Their apparent man focus was a turn-off then and continues to be so today.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
NewSee Reinventing Spurgeon
https://bigorangetruck.wordpress.com/2006/04/11/reinventing-spurgeon/
https://bigorangetruck.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/reinventing-spurgeon-2/
https://bigorangetruck.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/reinventing-spurgeon-3/
In the 3rd there is this lovely graphic:
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewBen Wright on SOTL
http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2007/03/sword-of-lord-editor-retra…
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewInteresting....
….to contemplate the claims of a repentance-less “gospel” (per Brandenburg, Tyler) along with SOTL’s famous crusades on moral topics—though many of them are not (IMO) clearly specified out in Scripture. All these moral positions, but no need to repent?
If there really is no need to repent of sins, then the point of those moral positions taken by SOTL is in effect legalism—I’m OK because I’m not divorced, I don’t gamble at the racetrack, etc.. Now I don’t think anybody there would confess as much, but I’m having trouble seeing an alternative.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewI wonder if this book has been abridged by SoTL?:
http://www.swordbooks.com/ourgod-breathedthebible.aspx
Since the SoTL is now adamantly King James-Only, it amuses me that they sell this book by John R. Rice online.
(I own this book, and JRR made it clear in the book that he adamantly was NOT King James-Only.)
NewJohn R. Rice on Repentance
“The saving Gospel as to how men are to be saved is once described as ‘repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 20:21). But usually where one is mentioned as the way to salvation, the other is implied, not mentioned. Actually saving repentance and saving faith are simply two ways of saying the same thing. The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, meaning literally a change of mind. That is, a change of heart attitude. But the change is from unbelief to faith. To repent means to turn from sin. Saving faith means to turn to Christ, relying on Him for salvation. So one turns from sin in the heart to Christ, and the same saving faith turns from sin and turns to trust Christ. So to believe on Christ in saving faith and to honestly turn the heart from sin against God, to love and trust Him, is the same thing. Repentance and faith are different names for, or different aspects of, the same heart turning.”
-John R. Rice, Filled With the Sprit: The Book of Acts, A Verse-by-Verse Commentary, Sword of the Lord Publishers; 1973.
John R. Rice doesn’t sound like a heretic in his comment above. And, he wasn’t.
David R. Brumbelow
NewRice's Sword not KJV Only
John R. Rice and the Sword of the Lord, up until Rice’s death in 1980, was definitely not King James Only. In fact, Rice and his Associate Editor Robert L. Sumner, fought against KJV Only in the Sword of the Lord.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/09/john-r-rices-sword-of-lord-…
David R. Brumbelow
NewCopyright date
It’s worth noting that the version Amazon carries has a copyright date of 2000. That said, one of the comments notes Rice’s comments on translation that “made him fall out of favor among independent Baptists.” So perhaps SOTL is using the book to pay for the KJVO stuff they’re spreading, despite it not being KJVO?
Either that, or it’s entirely possible they haven’t figured out that Rice was not KJVO. I personally knew a guy who used both the work of David Sorenson and Chick Tracts to “support” OKJV (totally different than KJVO!) theology, not quite realizing that one argues for the TR, and the other for the Old Latin. The man was quite impervious to evidence, in my opinion.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewIt's interesting.....
…..that neither the “Textual Issue” nor the “Scripture” tabs of their online store list/include the John R. Rice book that is entirely about the Bible, textual issues, and translations:
http://www.swordbooks.com/textualissue.aspx
http://www.swordbooks.com/scripture.aspx
Perhaps they figure it wouldn’t fit in very well with all of the KJVO items those tabs do pull up! =)
NewSheldon Smith, current editor
Sheldon Smith, current editor of the Sword of the Lord knows well that John R. Rice and Robert L. Sumner did not believe in KJV Only. I think if he had to speak on the issue, he would say something like, KJV Only just adds another layer of protection against theological liberalism. I disagree, I just think that would be his view. But I think as much as possible, he just wants to avoid the obvious change he and Curtis Hutson made to the Sword since the death of John R. Rice.
A quote from the founding editor of the Sword:
“When we say that the Bible is inspired, we do not refer to the translations or copies but to the original autographs, written down under God’s direction.”
-John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers; 1969.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-r-rice-and-kjv-only.ht…
David R. Brumbelow