I have decided that Finney was a Pelagian heretic, plain and simple.
Posted on 05/20/2006 7:39:14 AM PDT by Full Court
Why do you think Dr. Rice would be so enamored of one evangelist despite his doctrinal "loose screws", and so harsh on another evangelist because of his doctrinal "loose screws"?
I have a pamphlet by Dr. Rice on the last days. He does not seem to go deeply on what happens after the rapture.
On the other hand Curtis Hutson, current leader of the independent Baptists, is fully into Schofied's doctrine.
No problemo sister. :-)
Well, I hate to bust your bubble, but Dr. Hutson has been dead for about 11 years or so now.
As far as I know, most independent baptist don't follow Scofield.
I don't know who you are speaking of when you say he was harsh one one evangelist.
I need more details.
And the only thing I know about what you claim he thought of Finney is taken from a screwball who works for John MacArthur, himself no stranger to strange heresies.
And it's well known that the person you quoted is a MacAuthor sycophant.
a On the World Wide Web site of Phil Johnson , who is a paid employee of John MacArthur (Johnson is head of MacArthur's tape, radio, and Web ministry; has been the principal editor of MacArthur's major books over the last 15 years; and teaches courses in writing and editing at The Master's College and Seminary), is an article titled "A Defense of John MacArthur Against Accusations of Rick Miesel of Biblical Discernment Ministries." T
hough the article was "written" by Jeff Simmons of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, the note from Johnson at the beginning of the article, and the fact that it is on Johnson's Web site, are evidence that Johnson is in agreement with the contents of the article.
Therefore, many of the remarks in this response apply equally to both Johnson and Simmons. (And, considering Johnson's official position as an elder of Grace Community Church, perhaps this response applies even to John MacArthur himself.)
With Johnson's theological training (B.A. Theology[1975], Moody Bible Institute), he apparently could not do better than Simmons or he would have written the article himself. (In fact, some of the paragraphs in the article are word-for-word from Johnson' letters, emails, and memos that pre-date the late-1996 posting of Simmons' article.)
Why did Johnson have to go half way across the country to find a written reaction to all the questions I raise about John MacArthur's teachings?
With all of the professors at The Master's College and Seminary, the possibility that this is the best Johnson could do for MacArthur is a testimony that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (Shakespeare's Hamlet).
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/macarthur/macarthu.htm
Keep in mind that the Sword of the Lord newspaper was one of the first to speak out about a certain heresy that MacAuthur was preaching and Phil Johnson is the paid henchman.
Please stop changing the subject. I didn't ask you anything regarding John MacArthur, MacArthur's doctrinal beliefs, or regarding Philip Johnson or his doctrinal beliefs. You appear to be very familiar with Dr Rice's views on a great many things and people, but IMO it's odd that you're unfamiliar with his views about Charles Finney. Why is that? Let's try this a third time - I've inserted the evangelists' names for clarity, since you appear to be having a great deal of trouble understanding my question....
Why do you think Dr. Rice would be so enamored of one evangelist (Finney) despite his doctrinal "loose screws", and so harsh on another evangelist (Graham) because of his doctrinal "loose screws"?
Pinging some folks who particpated in the various "Finney" threads years ago....
"We would never have had Charles G. Finney revivals except for Finney himself, the Spirit-filled, mighty prophet of God who did the work of an evangelist."
- Dr John R. Rice, WE CAN HAVE REVIVAL NOW!, Chapter 9: "God's Way to Mass Revival"
It will just have to be odd then, because I am not familiar with any views he had towards Finney.
In fact, I don't know that he had any at all, just the word of a John MacAuthor syncopant claiming something.
That same syncopant is an avowed enemy of fundamentalism and a paid henchman for John McAuthor, who held a grudge against the Sword of the Lord for exposing his heretical teachings about the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
I don't believe he was "harsh" on Graham. He let Graham slide by with lies for a very long time, Graham took advantage of Dr. Rice's good heart.
Also, in reading that chapter, I didn't see where Dr. Rice spoke of doctrine, but of people willing to be evangelist and see souls saved.
I heard Dr. Rice in the Triple Cities campaign mentioned in the article (note my screen-name). We also had his brother Bill for a campaign in our church in Binghamton. Bill also used the song leader Harry Clarke (mentioned in the article) in his meetings. I was very taken as a young boy in the Northeast with the "cowboy" connection. As a matter of fact, I believe it was Harry Clarke that wrote a chorus entitled "Sing as you ride" that was used in the meetings.
I have decided that Finney was a Pelagian heretic, plain and simple.
Constantia Center Independent Baptist Church
THE FINNEY SEED CHURCH GOD TOOK BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, don't blame the Pentecostals...
So he want's to increase he size of his empire.
bump for later
Thanks for that great memory!
I met Dr. Rice when I was 6, and to me, he looked a bit like Howard Cosell, with the nose. I'm sorry to say that I actually said that to him. :)
Who's empire?
What a great personal testimony you have.
This is the testimony of a friend of ours.
"I was saved (1983) mostly as a result from reading a Catholic "Bible". A friend at work, Allen Kaufman (who happened to be a converted Jew), was witnessing to me. I got "religious" like so many people do. I had dabbled in drugs, drank moderately, had long hair, and listened to heavy rock. I knew these were not pleasing to God, and began giving up my vices due to the conviction Al's witness put me under. This began even before I got saved. Then, I began reading another friend, Mike's, Catholic Bible. I could speed-read and read it through in eight days. I noticed a few things that didn't seem to line up with what I had been taught in Catechism and as an altar-boy. I was still wrestling with having to belong to the "right church". I asked Mike why things in the Bible were different than the Church taught (he was a Commentator at Church). He told me that the Bible was difficult to understand and I'd get more out of his "Lectionary". It divided the scripture readings to daily portions designed to be read over three years.
Meanwhile, Al continued to be a persistent witness, but never became a "pest". He answered my questions plainly and scripturally and gave me pertinent gospel tracts. I began to notice a difference in that he answered clearly, and the Catholics didn't.
I began reading Mike's "Lectionary" and noticed that all the "controversial" passages were missing! They were in the Catholic "Bible", which nobody ever read. The Lectionary was read in Church. But because the passages were divided, you wouldn't notice what was missing unless you knew to look for it. You might read part of 1 Tim 3 in March, and not read from 1 Tim until August. Then it would pick up in the middle of Chapter 4, omitting the first three anti-Catholic verses. Nobody would notice with several months in between. Because of Al's witness, I looked for them, and they stood out like red flags and red lights with sirens! That really made me begin to doubt the Catholic Church.
I finally visited Al's church, Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle in Detroit, Michigan. The Pastor, Dr. Mitchel Bean Sr. taught more Bible in one sermon than I had learned my entire life as a Catholic (and I had been through about eight years of Catechism and was an altar boy for two or three years). I was impressed enough to want to come again. I went to the Catholic Church on Sunday morning with my sister, and went to Metro on Sunday and Wednesday evenings.
But the wall of belonging to the "true church" continued to remain a confusing hindrance. That Catholic teaching was deeply ingrained. I made several "professions of faith". It wasn't really until the day I got baptized that I came to grips with salvation being in Christ and not a church. It's so simple, but Catholics are so blinded to it. I was not consciously "rejecting" Christ, I wanted to do right, but the wall between Church and Christ was nearly impregnable.
Praise God for a man who was not willing to give up as long as I was receptive. Had Al quit witnessing I may well still be hell-bound. I'm grateful that there was enough truth in the Catholic Bible to reach my heart, but enough error to alert me to the contradictions within the Church's teachings."
Could you direct me to something that expounds on MacArthur's "error"?
***Well, I hate to bust your bubble, but Dr. Hutson has been dead for about 11 years or so now.
As far as I know, most independent baptist don't follow Scofield.***
So, what am I supposed to do with my coppies of Rice's and Hutson's booklets as they differ from each other.
And will Independent baptists now be in "limbo" as for what to believe about the end times?
And as for C. I. Scofield, THE SWORD OF THE LORD still advertized his reference bible for sale when I still subscribed several years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.