An Example of John R. Rice Denying Biblical Salvation and Corrupting Sanctification

John R. Rice is a household name in fundamentalism, substantially growing the independent fundamental baptist (IFB) churches in America and subsequently worldwide during the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. The "evangelist" Rice laid the foundation for the advent of the IFB mega-churches in the '70s, while mocking “bland, self-assured 'Bible teachers' preaching to little groups of saints,” and lumping “doctrinally sound sermons” with “entertaining sermons” that were “devoid of the anointing power of the Holy Spirit.” Doctrinally sound sermons were less important to Rice than emotional preaching to large groups of people. In 1934 Rice would start the Sword of the Lord ministry, a vehicle to spread Revivalism/Keswick/higher life error, a corrupted gospel and other man-centred philosophies, a publication we expose in two parts, here and here, and further expose Rice here, where we cover a number of other serious heresies of Rice. Though John R. Rice preached and did a lot of good (we have been edified by his book, The Home: Courtship, Marriage and Children though there are serious errors therein), boldly denouncing many of the evils of his day and in general (e.g., humanism, worldliness, liberalism, evolution, fraternal lodges, the Southern Baptist Convention, National Council of Churches, prominent liberal ministers, etc), separation from neo-evangelicals (though it was soft), appeared to remain free of any moral scandals, etc, the good does not offset the errors, especially considering many of his errors were tied into salvation and sanctification. And that brings us to this present report, Rice's response to a writer about issues in their church, published in Rice's "Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions" book.

The Question

The following question was printed in "Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions," authored by John R. Rice, a reasonable question submitted to Rice concerning professing Christians who live in sin and have no interest in Biblical things:

"We have young folks in our church who are supposed to be saved and who giggle and whisper all during church services and who say they 'just hate' church and 'can't stand' to listen to our pastor preach.  They attend movies and worldly amusements.  I feel that as pastors and Sunday school teachers we do not warn those enough who think they are saved but are not born again. Shouldn't we plead with them to go to the alter again?” (Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions, p. 76)

The Answer by Rice

The following was Rice's response to the question:

"Being saved, born again, is one thing; learning to live a consecrated Christian life is an entirely different thing. There is not any way you can judge whether people are born again except as you take their testimony that they have put their trust in Jesus Christ and depended on Him for salvation. Some of these young people indeed may not have been taught to trust in Christ.  If they were looking for "an experience," a certain kind of feeling or emotion, then they may have been misled.  But if they honestly turned their hearts to Christ and depended on Him for salvation, they were saved. Now a Christian should live a consecrated Christian life but that does not automatically follow.  People who are saved will find, like Paul, "When I would do good, evil is present with me . . . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:21,25). Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before.  Some people who have truly been born again have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and some have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits.  Some Christians have never learned to trust the Lord enough to bring tithes and offerings, and some have never learned to win souls.  When a baby is born, he is not born grown.  Being born is one thing; growing is another thing entirely. So the thing to do is to take for granted that people are saved when they trust Christ for salvation.  Then one should set out to teach them to read the Bible daily, to learn to pray about their daily needs, to confess their sins and failures and grow in grace day by day.  It is as foolish to expect young Christians to be good Christians by themselves as it is to expect a child, born in the family, to automatically be a great credit to the family without any rearing—whether they are spiritual babes or physical babes.  I assure you that unless people are taught to be consecrated Christians, taught to read the Bible and pray, they are not likely to be good Christians, even if they are truly born again.” (“Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions,” 1962, pp. 76-77, Sword of the Lord Publishers)

A Response to Rice's False Gospel, Corrupted Sanctification, Man-Centered Answer

There is so much bad teaching in what he says here, it is hard to know where to start.

On the one hand we are not surprised by Rice's answer having researched him fairly extensively and read most of his books, but on the other hand, how grossly brash and unscriptural can a man who touted "fundamentalism" get? The response from Rice was utterly preposterous. You can't find it in scripture, hence no actual scripture given, but you will find it right out of Rice chapter 37 verse 1 on how to build Carnal Man-Centred Big Camp Empires. It’s all pure man-centred fabrication made out of sheer perverted cloth. He is twisting and gouging and abusing Scripture to keep the unsaved warming the pews, increasing the numbers, filling the coffers, and raising the pulpit pedestal.

1. Rice's Advice is Wrongheaded.

The advice given by Rice in his response is wrongheaded and shows bad, corrupted judgement, for not a single of one of these people being described by the writer is saved. But Rice treats them as born again believers, and this is very typical among IFB churches of the Revivalist flavour. Each point made by the questioner is grounds for unregeneracy. NO true believer "hates church." NO true believer "can't stand pastors preaching." NO true believer keeps living after "worldly amusements." It was a great question posted by the man, one that reflects many IFB churches almost to a “t,” but so does Rice’s answer, extremely troubling and practically scripted (the perverted gospel and corrupted Keswick-type sanctification and man-centred means of establishing people as saved described by Rice is mainstay doctrine in essentially all revivalist-orientated IFB churches). In a summarized nutshell we read just about everything that has gone wrong with the IFB churches from early in the twentieth century until this day, well reflected in these few short paragraphs, both question and answer. But at least the man who wrote Rice had the discernment to know what he was seeing and hearing was contrary to Biblical salvation. One can only hope that he never took Rice' words to heart.

2. Rice Lies About the New Birth, Propagating a False Gospel.

He claimed,

"Being saved, born again, is one thing; learning to live a consecrated Christian life is an entirely different thing. . . . Some of these young people indeed may not have been taught to trust in Christ.  If they were looking for "an experience," a certain kind of feeling or emotion, then they may have been misled. But if they honestly turned their hearts to Christ and depended on Him for salvation, they were saved."

(a) One, though emotion on its own certainly does not bring forth or assure salvation, emotion is nevertheless heavily involved in both the reception of salvation, and the immediate fruit of salvation. The Bible makes this abundantly and crystal clear, and repeatedly. Emotion is one of the three faculties of man involved in repentance and salvation (the other two being the intellect and the volition). Consider some examples. The Ninevites in Jonah 3 demonstrated all three elements of repentance in their conversion, the intellect in that they believed what Jonah had proclaimed about Gods coming judgment (vv. 4-5), the volition noted in the purposeful turning away from their evil ways and violence unto God in such humble contrition that even their cattle wore sackcloth and ashes (vv. 6-8), and then the emotion noted in the sorrow for their sin exhibited in a very striking way by humbling themselves and “cry[ing] mightily unto God” (v 8), “in sackcloth and ashes” (vv. 5-6). This is what Paul the Apostle referred to in 2 Cor 7:10 when he stated,"godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation." The Ninevites had godly sorrow of their sin and wickedness, which is what true Spirit-given conviction and contrition will ALWAYS bring about, and the Ninevites happen to also be the standard of repentance and salvation, explicitly so stated by the Son of God (Lk 11:32).

The Greek word “Metamelomai” (one of three or four Greek words translated into the word repent[ance][ing] in the NT, the other three being "Epistrepho," "Metanoia" and "Metanoeo", the latter two being essentially the same word) is used for repentance seen in Matt 21:28-32, and it emphasizes regret and sorrow, the emotional faculty of man, sorrow over sin. Once the mind grasps the new Biblical definition of who I am, there is a consequential emotion that goes from the mind to the feelings, and there is godly sorrow and shame over ones sin, selfishness, idolatry, antagonistic and wicked attitude towards God (2 Cor 7:10). This aligns perfectly with what Jesus said in the beginning of the sermon on the mount, “blessed are the poor in spirit,” so you understand who you are, you are spiritually poor, spiritually bankrupt, you have nothing, so what do you do? You actually are sad then, “Blessed are they which mourn, for they shall be comforted.” So you see your condition, you see your spiritual poverty and you mourn over your lost and unrighteous condition. Every truly repentant sinner mourns over their sin when they truly understand their dead and hell-bound condition, the fear of the Lord, and the grace of God. When God grants repentance as He does to all convicted sinners (Rom 2:4), there will always be true sorrow for sin, and those that deny its necessity, do not understand either repentance or salvation. In our report "Repentance — The Foundation of Salvation," we cover what repentance actually entails, and the different Greek words for the doctrine that God used when giving the NT.

Sinners that are not taught to genuinely Biblically repent (Matt 4:17; 11:20-21; 21:28-32; Mk 1:15; 6:12; Lk 3:3-14; 5:31-32; 13:1-5; 15:1-32; 24:47-48; Ac 2:38; 3:19; 8:32; 17:30; 20:21; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:10; 2 Pet 3:9; etc), and commit/surrender to Christ (Mk. 8:34-38; 10:18-21; Lk. 14:7-35; 15:17-32; 19:12-27; Phil. 2:10-11; etc -- covered in this report) are not actually being truthfully "taught to trust in Christ" for salvation, for the foundation is completely wrong, and thus are being misled. You cannot believe without genuine repentance that involves the will, the mind and the emotion, nor believe without surrender and commitment. So what Rice was doing was in fact misleading people concerning salvation, and here in his booklet doing it publicly and specifically to another church.

It is true that repentance doesn’t require a long period of time but it’s not true that it doesn’t require sorrow as Rice states in his gospel tract "What Must I Do To Be Saved?", where we get his actual view on sorrow in repentance and salvation. There is no salvation without godly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10). In his tract Rice undermines the sorrow in repentance by creating a straw man by putting in the word “process.” 2 Cor. 7:10 says, “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation” and no man can be saved without a poor, broken and contrite heart (Matt. 5:3).

While Rice opposed sorrow in repentance, he didn't oppose other emotions in the emotional altar calls and manipulation and then other very strange perversions, like 1-2-3 pray with me quick prayerism, easy believism void of true repentance and surrender, and “soul winning” where the winners come back with 25 to 50 "saved." He also wasn't opposed to developing whole man-centred pragmatic strategies to get these "saved" into the tank. The consequence was a dovetailing into all sorts of other corruption and heresy, as noted in our previous report on Rice here.

(b) Two, the new birth is certainly an "experience," though it's almost sacrilegious to simply refer to it as an experience. It is that and much, much more. It is a supernatural miracle that produces superdramatic results, where sin and righteousness are exchanged, Christ made "to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor 5:21). Such an incredible transaction delivers a man from the power of darkness and Satans kingdom into the power of light and the kingdom of God's dear son (Col 1:13), "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor 5:17). Such a superdramatic change in a human being will bring about a lot of emotion — sorrow and mourning over their sin and affront to their Creator, joy over their salvation, unspeakable love towards the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, peace with God, hatred towards sin and error and every false way, glorifying God, etc. The man who was blind and Christ healed, immediately "followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God." (Lk 18:35-43). Such is the example of Scripture. There is no true testimony of salvation in Scripture, or outside of Scripture, that does not present in this fashion. None.

(c) Three, while rejecting elements of the gospel and thus salvation, along with the superdramatic encounter of a repentant sinner with the living God, Rice gives a very subjective answer to how someone knows if they genuinely "trust[ed] in Christ," which is, "if they honestly turned their hearts to Christ and depended on Him for salvation, they were saved." Yes dependence on God is part of believing in Him, the trust part of faith and we know without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb 11:6), but in the manner he lays out what salvation is and how salvation is determined, anyone could say they trusted Christ and depended upon Him, case closed. The world is full of such people, billions, yet only a very, very small fraction have actually been born again, and thus truly trusted in Jesus Christ. With statements such as this, even the demons have clout, for they quote Scripture (Matt 4:1-10), and "the devils also believe, and tremble." (Jam 2:19). But that is not Biblical salvation, though it will grow you big churches, big coffers and big popularity, precisely the objective of men like Rice and most of his contemporaries. No one should be shocked at the state of these churches today, with the charlatans continuing these deplorable methods of filling pews.

How would Rice or how would the questioner know whether someone had "honestly turned their hearts to Christ and depended on Him for salvation"? How would you know that?? Is salvation and its evidence confined to mere lip service? It is according to Doctor Rice, and majority of the rest of the Big Camp revivalist IFB churches who have replaced the true gospel with a placebo of easy believism and quick prayerism. Of course, if you "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom 10:9-10). That heart that genuinely converted as detailed here in Rom 9, did repent and believe in line with what Scripture teaches, for there is no other salvation (cf. Mk 1:14-15; Ac 20:21; Lk 13:1-5; Jn 3:15-16; etc) but someone from the outside looking in who cannot see the heart, i.e., all of mankind, is left with external evidence of that conversion, that is, fruit and evidence of a born again new heart and life, and its immediate. ALWAYS. This text even says it, "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness." Thus, there will be immediate evidence of that righteousness which the heart believed in, the consequence of justification and imputation. And so we see in Scripture, every single testimony of salvation is replete with immediate fruit and evidence of what transpired in the heart of that man. Explicitly we are also informed of this consequential authentication of the new birth, how we know whether a heart honestly turned to Jesus Christ and depended upon Him for salvation. Here are a few examples:

"And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." (Ac 13:52)

"Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:" (Col 1:4-6)

"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance," Paul declared "to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him" (Lk 3:8)

"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Lk 3:9)

"But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Ac 26:20)

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." (1 Jn 2:3-5)

The faith that Rice was speaking of is almost entirely confined to the mind. He adds turning of the hearts, but that could mean almost anything since he denies true Biblical repentance (e.g., "Repentance and faith are the same thing put in different words, and neither requires a long period of time, nor a process of mourning and sorrow." -- What Must I Do To Be Saved? gospel tract by John R. Rice, which has been extremely influential, selling more than 32 million copies). Since he claims that repentance and faith are the same, turning of the heart to him would more than likely be turning from unbelief to belief, which is a heretical and a gospel-perverting description of repentance that saves no one, but its very popular in revivalist-type churches. The two important elements of faith that Christ repeatedly spoke of, are completely absent from the teachings of John Rice: (1)  Follow me, and (2) Lose your life for my sake. Jesus stated this in multiple places including Matt 16:25: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it." The phrases “lose it” or “shall lose his life for my sake” are not meaningless. And we can most definitely know what Jesus is talking about. We should assume we can know, and we do know, for it is plain common sense. This is relinquishing of your will or your way for God's will and way. It dovetails with repentance. You can’t keep going your way and get to heaven. Paul addresses this amongst the idol-worshipping people of Lystra who were about to sacrificially worship Paul and Barnabas, declaring that "[God] in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Ac 14:16), calling to the people to "turn from these vanities unto the living God," (Ac 14:15). Anyone who comes after him must turn from their own way and deny himself (Matt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23). When Jesus talked about the gospel or salvation with the woman at the well in Jn 4, He told her that God the Father sought those to worship Him that worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23-24). What does worship have to do with salvation? The first act of worship is the offering of your soul to God, what Ps 23:3 and 19:7 call the restoring of the soul or converting of the soul. God takes the real you and restores you or converts you, but to do so, He must have you. He wants you. Faith offers the soul to God. This is believing Jesus is Christ and Lord.

(d) Four, what is glaringly absent in Rice's proclamation, a doctrine that rarely escaped the lips of Rice, and when it is mentioned, it's superficial and vague at best, but most often perverted and falsified almost without exception — the doctrine of repentance and everything that it comes with, which is inseparable from the true gospel/salvation. In fact, it is the very foundation of salvation. On occasion when he would mention repentance, it would be double-speak. He would say one thing favourable to the doctrine, and then in short order say something entirely contradictory to the doctrine, even to what he had previously stated. We deal with an example of this from Rice's tract on salvation in our article: Exposing the Great “Fundamentalist” John R. Rice. His true belief on repentance was that faith and repentance were the same thing, and it didn’t require sorrow. In the same booklet ("Dr. Rice... Here is My Question"), Rice creates a red herring in opposition to Biblical repentance. He states,

“When you get saved, you get saved not because you deserve it, but because you simply let God save you and because you confess your own poor sinful state and your inability to save yourself.” (p. 304)

The comment was made in the context of whether a person that is saved deserves or is worthy to be saved. First of all, it is a very anemic presentation on salvation, especially in light of what he is doing, giving this soteriology in opposition to genuine repentance, as if someone genuinely repenting in turning from his sins/self/stuff/people is attempting to become deserving of eternal life, while the one in same false humility doesn't want to repent because God might get the wrong idea that he is attempting to be worthy, and only that individual is able to be saved. It is a red herring and deflects the truth of what God requires for salvation, and what we become upon our salvation. Though no sinner truly deserves eternal life because no sinner has paid for his own sins, the Lamb of God did this, and the humbled poor contrite heart understands this (Lk 15:18-21), this however doesn't mean there aren't specific things that are required to be saved, nor that we don't become worthy when we obey the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel in responding to those conditions. The Bible commands the sinner to obey the gospel (Rom 10:16; 2 Th 1:8; 1 Pet 4:17), which is the command to be converted through repentance and faith (Matt 4:17; Mk 1:15; 6:12; Lk 3:3-14; 5:31-32; Jn 6:28-29; etc) in accordance to the details of Scripture, and those who do so, become worthy, and yea must be worthy, lest they never enter the kingdom of God. Jesus VERY clearly speaks about those who are worthy, which means deserving, repeatedly in Scripture (for instance, the following soteriological verses: Matt 10:37-38; 22:8; 10:13; Lk 20:35; 21:36). Rice says we can't deserve it, God says, we must deserve it, who is right??

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . . Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy." (Matt 10:37-38; 22:8)

"But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:" (Lk 20:35)

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (Lk 21:36)

In instructing the apostles as to response to their preaching, Jesus declared, "And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you." (Matt 10:13)

Do words have meaning? "Worthy" means worth, merit, value, and deserving. You could interchange the words "worthy" and "deserving" as synonymous. The underlying Greek word is "axios," found 41x in 39 verses of Scripture, translated mostly as "worthy" but also "meet" x 4 and "reward" and "unworthy" each once. The word can be used in both a good and bad sense, as noted in the translations. The idea of the word concerns someone who has merited anything worthy, or befitting. It is described as having the weight of another thing of like value, of equal worth, and having or showing the qualities or abilities that merit recognition in a specified way. In other words, when our obedience to the gospel and submission to Christ as wicked sinners humbled before God with a poor and contrite repentant heart, comes before heaven, this is of such great value to the Triune God (which we also know in other ways, "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth . . . there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth" Lk 15:7,10, which celebration is described using an earthly analogy by the Lord in the same chapter, vv. 22-24, concerning the younger son who "was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."- v. 32; see also Matt 19:28-30), God makes us equals with His Son concerning inheritance and glorification, which is unfathomable, yet He does, and it clearly brings worth to the new saint redeemed by the blood of Christ.

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Rom 8:17)

All the above verses (Matt 10:37-38; 22:8; 10:13; Lk 20:35; 21:36) are describing in part what it means to repent. All are soteriological passages, and there are more concerning this word "axios." The context of many of these passages is Jesus teaching and instructing the apostles what to preach and how to respond as they go out preaching the gospel/repentance (Matt 10:5-15ff.; Mk 6:12; Lk 9:6). Those that genuinely repent, turn in godly sorrow from their sin/self/stuff/people, and place their trust and faith and submission in the Lord Jesus Christ are worthy of eternal life, worthy to attend the great wedding, worthy to escape all the horrendous things coming in the Great Tribulation and to stand before the Son of man, yea worthy to obtain that world of eternal life and the new Earth and Jerusalem. Thats what God says, and He says it often, so me thinks I will believe Him. Those that won't hear the truth and obey the truth, they are not worthy, and our peace ought not to be upon it (Matt 10:13). It is as paradox. We are not worthy, every true born again believer knows that (we, like John the Baptist, aren't even "worthy to unloose" the "shoe's latchet" of the Saviour, Jn 1:27) but God says we are worthy when we are supernaturally born again and regenerated by Him, and His word overrules ours.

(e) Five, also noted in his response, and aforementioned, there is no turning, no godly sorrow, no surrender -- all elements of repentance and faith--nothing but easy believism mentioned here, with a superficial finish line. Though he alludes to the possibility that "Some of these young people indeed may not have been taught to trust in Christ," he gives no actual Biblical response to that possibility, he gives no indication as to why that might be the case (i.e., they have not repented, they refuse to repent, they love their lives and sin and world, etc), and that is damning, because none of these "young folks" are regenerate, clearly. They have prayed a prayer and made some profession of easy decisionism and easy believism, but that would be no issue with Rice, because that is what he taught for a gospel.

From his gospel tract, "What Must I Do To Be Saved?" we see Rice's rejection of Biblical repentance, in more ways than one, but especially in making repentance and faith synonymous:

"There is no record of any person in Bible times who was ever told to wait, or mourn, or weep over his sins before trusting Jesus and being saved! One who believes in Christ has repented. Repentance and faith are the same thing put in different words, and neither requires a long period of time, nor a process of mourning and sorrow.

And here:

"When you trust Him, everything else is settled, and you have repented, you have come to Christ, you have received Him, you have done everything necessary to be saved."

We won't argue the time of repentance, which is subjective and will always vary between sinners, but repentance and faith are NOT the same thing, nor has every person that claims to trust or believe in Jesus actually repented. In fact majority have not according to Scripture (e.g., Jn 2:23-25; 6:60-66), which is also the case in practically every church throughout the world today. The Bible gives us also many further examples of people that professed to "believe," but were unsaved, thus had never actually repented (e.g., King Josiah, Saul, Judas, Balaam, Demas, Simon the sorcerer, the Jews in the wilderness, etc). Very few actually repentantly believe unto the new birth, and that is a historical fact and record in Scripture (e.g., Matt 7:13-14; only eight souls among a billion in Noahs day, etc). It is almost as rare as hen's teeth. What Rice proclaims here, faith and repentance being synonymous (addressed both here in detail: Lordship Salvation is Salvation), is practically what every repentance rejector, thus true gospel rejector, ultimately believes, whether he admits it or not (many will be open in their admission today, because of the large support they get) or he has a lot of explaining to do as to why he appears to reject the doctrine of repentance, and this all in light of comments made by men to show that Rice apparently believed in Biblical "repentance" as in turning from sin (e.g., "repent literally means to have a change of mind or spirit toward God and toward sin. It means to turn from your sins, earnestly, with all your heart, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you" (Sermon by John R. Rice, "What Must I Do To Be Saved?" -- same title as his gospel tract), when in reality he really did not. The statement seems to be right, but what did he actually mean. First of all, repentance does not "literally mean to have a change of mind or spirit toward God and toward sin," -- it means a lot more than that. He is only conveniently addressing one of the three Greek words used in the NT, and one of the three Hebrew words in the OT, to define or describe repentance, while utterly rejecting two of the faculties of man involved in genuine repentance (i.e., emotion and volition, only addressing the intellect). Secondly, what he means when he says, "turn from your sins," obviously does not mean what we think it means. What he actually means is a turning from unbelief to belief evident by his statements elsewhere (as quoted above, from his tract of the same title), which would be no different than his close friend and wolf he highly promoted (Jack Hyles) and the man he picked to succeed him as Editor for the Sword (Curtis Hutson) and why IFB revivalists that utterly reject repentance will practically always quote Rice concerning the gospel and repentance. They know that he didn't believe in turning from actual moral sins and such (never described in such a fashion by him, but what true repentance actually entails), and that his definition of repentance was superficially skin deep and denied the Biblical fact that it always and immediately leads to a change of action and life, and must involve all three faculties of man. There is a reason why his teachings on repentance were vague and watered down at best, while wise enough to know that he couldn't just leave the word out of his preaching on the gospel altogether. Thus he made the doctrine appear as close to the truth as possible, while nefariously believing in a different meaning than projected. What he truly believed about repentance can be seen in his gospel tract, where time and thought are of greater capacity, and that ought to be the guide when we think of what Rice genuinely believed concerning the doctrine.

For further reading on Repentance, please see here:

• Repentance — The Foundation of Salvation

• Repentance is Not Just a Change of Mind

• Does the Bible Teach that Sinners Must Repent of Their Sin to be Saved?

• Debunking False Arguments of the False “Change of Mind” Repentance Position

• Rebutting David Cloud's "Repentance and Lordship Salvation Revisited" Article

• Repentance is a Major Element of the Gospel and Must Always Be Preached, Including Its Description

• Salvation Has Never Changed — Justification Has Always Been through Repentant Faith, by God's Grace

(f) Six, essentially Rice rejects two major components of repentance: the volitional element and the emotional element. He believes in 1/3 of the doctrine, which is no repentance at all, it's just simply an intellectual knowledge that is confined to the brain. He does speak of a turning of the heart, but it's not actually Biblical without genuine, true Bible-based repentance and surrender. “Easy-believism” is closely connected to "non-Lordship." Most lost people find it is easy for them to acknowledge that Jesus died for them. Almost no one rejects that truth. They, however, have a very difficult time with Jesus as Lord, because that involves the will, and great difficulty with repentance of sin, because that also involves the will and the emotion (Jn 3:19-21). Believing is more than intellectual assent to a group of facts. This is where repentance and Lordship salvation dovetail. Those who know what it means to turn to Jesus Christ, to count the cost, don't find that easy to do. They'd rather hang on to their life for themselves. But Jesus said, "whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt 16:25: Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25).

In his justification for the easy believism/quick prayerism heresy that he is promoting in the tract (and majority of his preaching, which led to massively inflated numbers of professions in his own church and mega churches he promoted), he claimed, and lied, "In the first chapter of John, verses 35 to 49, we see where Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathanael were all converted, one by one, immediately by faith in Christ." Neither Andrew or Simon Peter were saved in John chapter 1! Peter tells us their testimony of salvation in Christ's dialogue with the rich young ruler (Matt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28 ("Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee"), answering their own rhetorical question only a few verses prior ("Who then can be saved?"), and when did this occur? Again, Scripture is extremely clear about it: Lk 5:1-11 and Mk 1:14-20,

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him." (Mk 1:14-20)

NOTHING ABOUT THE ABOVE ACCOUNT (MK 1:14-20) HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY SUBJECT BESIDES SALVATION. NOTHING. We put that in CAPS to hammer the point. It is utterly ridiculous for compromisers, heretics and other professing Christians to corrupt these extremely easy to understand passages into something other than salvation, blowing wide open the gates of hell, which is precisely what happens when you turn salvation into something post-salvation. None of these two sets of brothers were saved at the point in Mk 1:16 or in Jn 1. Jesus is "preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God," which is to "repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mk 1:14-15). This is the gospel, it is what Jesus was preaching and He preached it to the brothers right there, calling them to forsake all and come to Him, and that is exactly what they did. And this is what Peter mentions in the dialogue with Christ on salvation and the rich young rulers refusal, in Matt 19, Mk 10 and Lk 18. It's all about salvation, as are the entire four gospels of Jesus Christ: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are NOT books about how to live the Christian life, but rather how to be born again, how to be saved, though at the same time we are also told what the evidence of salvation is, and that obviously extends into living the Christian life, but the objective of the four gospels is one: salvation. The following report goes into some detail concerning the testimonies of the apostles: The Bible Recorded Testimonies of Salvation of Some of the Apostles; Not a Call to Higher Christian Living.

(g) Seven, another element of Rice's false gospel, alluded to already, is his rejection of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is found nowhere in his writings or preachings. The Lord Jesus Christ is not Christ if the said “belief” does not acquiesce to the reign and lordship of Jesus Christ and relinquish the personal will and way. This is in essence the offering of “self” or one’s soul to God. The one believing in Jesus Christ abdicates his throne to Christ. The person who believes in Jesus is not on the throne of his own heart, but Christ is. We note this with the subject of the questioner (the "young folks"), who clearly never acquiesced to the reign and lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives, being governed solely by the own personal will and way. Scripturally, this is yet a person confined to the "natural man" (1 Cor 2:14), also called the "carnal man" in 1 Cor 3 and Rom 8. After Saul of Tarsus was converted, recounting his testimony of salvation in his epistle to the Philippians, he testified that he "suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Phil 3:8). Paul is saying that you do have to count you, your life, your achievements, your ambitions, the best of you, as loss and dung. This is the denying self of Lk 9:23; Matt 16:24; Mk 8:34; etc. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ and yourself or some other idol. Jesus can’t be put on an altar with all of a persons other gods, including himself. People might conflate this to “salvation by works,” even “front-loading works,” but works aren’t involved at all. This is just biblical faith. Saving faith is exclusive. It must be in Jesus Christ, so He must actually be Jesus Christ and faith must actually be true repentant faith, not one confined to the intellect. If He is Jesus Christ, then He is Christ and He is Lord. Christ and Lord means control and ownership. You are giving yourself up, so that He is the owner. This is the commitment and surrender of believing that is the volitional aspect of faith.

(h) Eight, along with the false repentance, Rice promoted and taught the decisionist techniques of the heretic Charles G. Finney (who rejected justification by faith alone) and was a major promoter of the Easy-Believism/Quick Prayerism false gospel and the big empty and dead numbers of professions. And Christ’s Lordship is completely missing from any salvation presentations, relegated entirely to post-salvation for sanctification, thus purveying “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4).

The true account of these things in Scripture did not fit the false gospel and empty professions and large mega churches agenda of John R. Rice, and thus he changed these passages, the testimonies of the apostles, and elements of the doctrine of salvation into something post-salvation and human pragmatism, which is utterly preposterous. He is however not alone in this. Today almost all preachers are guilty of it. The easy believist who rejects repentance and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, will twist the Scriptures to conform to his own ideas and agenda, at will. This we see repeatedly in the preachings and teachings of John R. Rice, and the people and churches he promoted. And easy-believism and quick-prayerism "free-grace" proponents love that Rice rejected Biblical repentance and Lordship salvation.

None of Rice's statement comes as a shock whatsoever, since it is public knowledge that Rice was a major promoter of quick prayerism and big numberism, i.e., the big numbers of professions that were reported in the 1970's and 1980's through this methodology. Rice promoted ungodly and blasphemous heretics like Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, who preposterously claimed to have won 750,000 people to Christ, while only 10,000 would show up faithfully for service, which dwindled down to the hundreds in the immediate years proceeding his death. There were many other “biggest and greatest” mega churches that Rice promoted in the Sword of the Lord, but Hyles and FBC were the king of them. Another example is Lee Roberson and Highland Park Baptist in Chattanooga, TN, who claimed to have baptized 63,000 people during his 40 years of pastorship in this church, who knows how many more professions on top of that (James Wigton, Lee Roberson: Always about His Father’s Business, p. 158). Yet nothing changed in this city morally, at least not for the better. Actually quite the opposite, “A fashionable, up-scale area of the city when Lee Roberson arrived in 1942, by the time he retired it had digressed into a typical ghetto-type area--with drugs, prostitution, and crime” (Wigton, p. 303). Thats what a false gospel does, masses of empty professions, unchanged lives, and zero power of God (Eph 1:19). Seeing that Roberson embraced the same perverted and power-less false gospel as Rice, this would come as no surprise. Even if 5% of the professions were true in these churches, it would be a miracle. Under Rice, the Sword of the Lord (which he started, and we expose here: Part 1, and Part 2) published Jack Hyles books on anti-repentance and easy believism/quick prayerism false gospel beginning with the horribly perverted Let’s Go Soulwinning in 1962. This book begins with the amazing account of a man getting saved without any actual understanding of the gospel and his need for conversion. The man was "converted," but he "couldn’t even spell Jesus." This great "soul-winner" "won 169 to Jesus" in his "first year." One example of the people that got "saved" was a hitchhiker who "couldn’t read, couldn’t hear, [and] couldn’t talk." What did this great and mighty "soul-winner" do to convince him of heaven and chock him down as a "soul saved"? Well he "took his Bible, pointed to the Bible, pointed to his heart, pointed to Heaven, made a motion to open your heart and let Him come in, got on his knees and began to pray. The deaf and dumb fellow got on his knees and mumbled a bit, got up with a smile of Heaven on his face, pointed to the Bible, pointed to Heaven and pointed to his heart.” And thus another statistic was penned for the great "soul winner." This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. The ignorance to the Bible and the gospel is frightening and shocking. There is not a single example anywhere in Scripture of someone getting saved without completely understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes understanding how to be saved through repentant faith and surrender to Jesus Christ. Not one.

Rice promoted this big numberism and big camp garbage to such a degree where he was publishing the false-gospel, damning-souls-to-hell books by the wolf in sheep's clothing, Jack Hyles. And that is tell-tale. Rice would publish Hyles or Hyles type of gospel messages (e.g.,"Do you want to go to heaven?!") and have a tear-out attached. If you answered yes, you were to ask the Lord to save you, tear out that card, and mail it in. The card was your assurance of eternal life. The card was like an altar call. That’s horrible heresy and further proof of Rice's perverted gospel, if you doubt what we are writing here. Rice argued that it is better to have 500 professions with 250 of those being genuine than to have 15 professions with 13 or 14 genuine. This is the pragmatic mind of a man-centered charlatan, and thus the most troubling aspect of this sort of pragmatic heresy is the mentality behind it.

In all, it is very apparent Rice embraced a corrupted, false gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and these type of examples could be multiplied. On purpose, he left out Biblical repentance and Christ' Lordship as a necessary prerequisite for justification or salvation, and corrupted what believing entails and the guarantee of immediate evidence and fruit of salvation, all of which results in a false gospel and false Jesus (2 Cor 11:4) and plenty of false professions. He neglected to preach a true gospel and didn’t care that he proclaimed a perverted one that produced more false professions than true ones. He also highly promoted wicked wolves in sheep's clothing that were Satan's instrument to damning the souls of millions of people.

Those that happily concur with Rice and love to quote him, do so because of how his perverted gospel of easy believism and "simple gospel" fits into their other heretical philosophies, such as a rejection of Biblical repentance, a rejection of Christ's Lordship, a rejection of judging (except where it's convenient for them), rejection of a changed-life that comes with salvation, and proclaiming those that question someones alleged "salvation" as "self-righteous," such as the heretic David Stewart and most other Hyles worshippers, and there is good reason for that. This ungodly false teacher and worshipper of Hyles, embraces Rice 100%, which helps in giving him latitude to heretically lie, that "Repentance has NOTHING to do with a changed life. To repent unto life is simply a change of mind from unbelief to belief." (ibid). This is what a heretic believes that agrees in perfect unison with John R. Rice.

This false gospel and false Jesus is not confined to the likes of Rice and Hyles, two buddies and peas in the same pod. It is absolutely normal amongst revivalist type IFB churches, which make up at least 75% of all IFB churches, some of which we expose here: Independent Fundamental Baptist Wolves to Beware Of, and in the above links exposing the Sword of the Lord. Majority of these churches preach a false gospel, and like Rice, pervert the gospel mainly in their false teaching and belief about repentance and who Christ is, specifically His Lordship. To proof text their position, men like Rice have to twist and wrest large number of salvation passages, turning those biblical texts that teach the gospel into something post-salvation, Christian living, or practical sanctification. 2 Pet 3:18-19 warns about this, declaring it is an error of the wicked, which are always unregenerate people:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." (2 Pet 3:16-17)

3. Rice Lies about Sanctification, Promoting Keswick-Type Two-Tiered Christianity.

It is absolutely untrue that,

“Being saved, born again, is one thing” and then “learning to live a consecrated Christian life is an entirely different thing.”

And,

"Now a Christian should live a consecrated Christian life but that does not automatically follow."

Yet another text pulled from the book of Rice. It is not true. Pure fabrication made out of sheer cloth. He used Rom 7:21 and 25 twisted out of their contextual meaning to proof text his point. Rom 7:12-25 does teach that the sanctified life is a struggle, but it doesn't teach what Rice is advancing here. Nowhere does the Bible teach that there is gap that follows salvation and sanctification, or that born again people may not live victoriously. Nowhere does the Bible teach that there are two tiers or phases to the Christian life. These are Keswick-influenced lies and errors, found nowhere in the pages of Holy Writ.

Rice's claim that new believers have to be taught and discipled before they can live a consecrated life, that is a holy and sanctified life, is absolutely false and contrary to Scripture. This reflects a powerless and changeless "salvation."

Contrary to what Rice claimed, sanctification is not just positional, it’s also practical and its immediate (also rejected by Rice). We are being conformed to the image of Christ. We obey, and then we obey more and more. We are fruitful from the moment of conversion like we read in Col 1:4-6. Only the fruitful soil is saved (Matt 13:3-23). We mortify the members of our flesh which are already crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:20; 5:24; Col 3:5-10). The smoker that doesn’t have victory over his sinning and not stopping is not overcoming. Why didn’t he stop smoking when he was allegedly saved? Had he been genuinely converted, He could've since all saved people have the victory (Rom 6), all are overcomer's (1 Jn 5:4-5). The examples given deny salvation and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Salvation delivers from both the penalty and power of sin. The truly saved, though they may give in to temptation and have a smoke after their conversion, they stop the habit after their conversion and do so with relative ease because of the freedom from the dominion of sin (Rom 6), "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:14). They turned from it and exchanged it and the rest of their sinful life for the life of righteousness and servitude to Christ. All saved people overcome, they are overcomer's at the very moment of salvation (1 Jn 2:13-14; 5:4-5; Rev 3-4), and God's chastisement helps to overcome specific issues (Heb 12:5-11; 1 Cor 11:28-32).

Rice did not take a biblical view of sanctification. He preached second blessing or keswick theology, and that comes out in his response. His book, The Fulness of the Spirit, is about sanctification and that clashes with what the Word of God teaches. How does keswick theology tie into Rice's sanctification? In more ways than one, including the corrupted gospel of easy believism, rejection of immediate fruit and evidence, "carnal Christianity," twisting and wresting salvation passages into something post-salvation, and also the following. Essentially, Keswick theology teaches that the Christian life consists of two primary crisis’s (or major turning points): justification and sanctification, both of which happen at different times in the life of the believer. Rice: first the new birth, and then some consecration at some point after, which may or may never come. After a professed salvation (which is watered down and typically false, certainly nothing better than easy believism and more often than not quick prayerism, almost always devoid of true repentance and Lordship) one must have another encounter with the Spirit, lest he or she will cease progression into holiness or the “deeper” things of God. This second encounter with the Spirit, in Keswick terminology, is called “entire sanctification,” or “the second blessing” or “filling of the Spirit,” teachings prevalent in Rice's preaching and books. This is required to enter “the abundant life” which is a “second rest,” or the "consecrated life." Struggle is seen as contrary to sanctification, for it progresses allegedly alone on faith, not works, so that that Christ can live the Christian life through the believer. This is the “victory,” the “abundant life,” the “crucified life,” the “sanctified life.” This emphasis on a second, post-salvation experience corresponds with the Pentecostal idea of the “baptism” of the Spirit. It’s important to understand that many who embrace this heretical two-tiered “Christian” “theology” do not necessary embrace the second blessing aspect. Revivalists such as Rice believe Spirit baptism is for today, subsequent to salvation, endues with power for evangelism, and may be accompanied by signs and wonders when necessary for evangelism. Rice was not alone in this egregious and heretical position, many revivalist fundamentalist ministers embrace this view, including popular ones from yesteryears such as Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, and Jack Hyles.

Keswick doctrine divorces justification completely from discipleship and sanctification (i.e. allegedly not every Christian is a disciple, not everyone is "abiding" in Christ — only some Christians are disciples, only some are abiding in Christ, those that have had the “crisis” or have “surrendered” or had a “second blessing” moment, or got "consecrated") which creates a two-tiered Christianity. Keswick theology largely minimizes and corrupts the new birth and makes the view of sanctification everything (i.e. making Christ Lord of your life, rededication, and finally deciding to become Christ’s disciple — while these things actually occur for salvation). But in so doing, they expose themselves to have never been born again, for all these things occur at salvation (and then continue on after), NOT after salvation.

Rice is 100% wrong. Every true born again believer will immediately have fruit and evidence of salvation, living the consecrated Christian life. If they don't they were never genuinely saved. There is not a single example anywhere in Scripture of anything beside this. Sanctification, i.e., consecration, does not begin at some point after salvation, when enough big boys from the big camp are able to teach the new "believer," revealing how man-centred and unscriptural their salvation plan is. Practical righteousness and sanctification ALWAYS flows from a position of justification and imputed righteousness, from the good ground (the only saved ground), and many times the Bible speaks of them as inseparable (as sampled further above: Col 1:4-6; Lk 3:8-9; Ac 26:20; 1 Jn 2:3-5). Consider a few more examples:

“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” (1 Jn 2:29)

"But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty." (Matt 13:23)

About his claim, some Christian people "have never learned to win souls," this is also bogus — every truly born again believer preaches the gospel to others, and they need not to be taught by any man, only by the Spirit of God, for it comes with the new birth, with the wise (saved), like so many other things, but this doesn't fit with the man-centred program of IFB revivalists like Rice:

The demonic of the Gadarenes: "Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him." (Lk 8:38-39)

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." (Pr 11:30)

When Saul of Tarsus received the Lord Jesus Christ, he immediately said, “What wilt thou have me to do?” (Ac 9:6). Same with Isaiah (Is 6:8), and others. Obedience and salvation is inseparable. Every truly saved is obedient to the Word of God, and immediately. Not only is this the testimony of all conversions in Scripture, it is also the written decree in Scripture.

2 Cor 5:17-20 is a perfect rebuttal against the false philosophy of man-centered ministers, who deny what occurs at salvation, and the immediate :

Salvation: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (v. 17)

Salvation and the ministry of reconciliation to all (i.e., preaching the gospel): "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;" (v. 18)

More on the ministry of reconciliation to all (i.e., preaching the word): "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (v. 19)

All are ambassadors (advocates) for Christ, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." (v. 20)

Every single true born again believer (v. 17) has received the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18b) right out of the starting blocks (vv. 17-18a), which is the ministry of preaching the gospel, and that occurs by the word of reconciliation (v. 19), i.e., the Word of God, because every one of these saints is an ambassador for Christ (v. 20). No man needs to teach this to a born again believer; it comes with the new birth and the teaching of the indwelling Spirit of God. They know it. Indeed man can and will assist with the fine details and increase knowledge in these areas, but no man needs to tell a true believer that he is to do this. The Triune God does that, in similitude to the first evangelists in the NT era, the shepherds in the fields taking care of their flocks of sheep (Lk 2), though not by some extraBiblical appearance.

When a man denies and rejects the effect of salvation, the fruit and evidence thereof, present in all true conversions, you are in fact denying Biblical salvation itself. To be wrong on salvation, is to be wrong on the effects or evidences of salvation, and vice versa. You cannot divide the two, salvation and its effect, as scripture makes abundantly clear, repeatedly. Consider a few samples. Eph 2:8-9, salvation, is inseparable from Eph 2:10, the effect of salvation. Matt 7:24b, salvation, is inseparable from Matt 7:24a- 25, the effect of salvation. This truth is everywhere in Scripture.

Rice rejected the salvation that immediately and permanently changes every person and is supernatural, dramatic and fruitful, immediately and ongoing. That is in effect to completely deny and reject the true salvation from the bible. He embraced a “salvation” that was a placebo of the real doctrine found in the Word of God. You can’t find it in the Bible, so it was figment of his imagination and the imaginations of other men centred on building big churches, empires and influence on society (e.g., Jack Hyles, Curtis Hutson, Russel Anderson, Bob Gray Sr., Michael Sullivant, Johnny Pope, Tom Wallace, etc). Many people have adapted this or a similar perverted view of this. According to Rice, people can live like the world and the devil, but be saved. To get to his heretical position, he has to pervert and wrest a lot of scripture such as Rom 7 and 1 Cor 3. This error on sanctification dovetails well with the rampant Hylesism. It all comes down primarily to an error-filled hermeneutic in which man-determined results govern the interpretation of Scripture. I say "man-determined," because the results of living by the fruit of the Spirit, being submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and the evidence of grace-producing sanctification are not among the results used by these men to judge whether their hermeneutic is correct.

4. Rice Lies About Carnal, the Victory of Salvation and the Evidence it Produces.

It is an utter lie and false statement to claim,

“Some people who have truly been born again have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and some have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits.”

And,

" Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before."

Which follows with examples of people that are saved in Rice's eyes, just not consecrated: Christians that have never "learned to trust the Lord enough to bring tithes and offerings," and Christians that "have never learned to win souls," and Christians that "have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits."

What the above people described by Rice have is not the new birth. The got religion thanks to the empty professions purveyed by men like Rice and so many more like him, but they don't have the new birth described in Scripture.

In a few sentences, John R. Rice indicts God with being a liar. What he is saying here, and God says in His Word, are two very different things, Rice's statement contradicting what God's Word says, and what salvation is.

Born again believers may struggle with temptations, but not one will "never seem to get the victory over that or other bad habits." In making this audacious claim, Rice denies massive amounts of Scripture, doctrine and the gospel itself, which is heretical and wicked, for it is purposeful (you cannot tell me that an elderly man of letters and the cloth did not know what Scripture says of this subject, found everywhere in God's Word). Rice exchanges the sound doctrine of truth for unsound experiential pragmatism. Rice says of these alleged believers (whom he labels as "truly been born again") that they are never victorious, while God's Word says ALL true born again believers are not only victorious but victorious at the very moment of the new birth, a crystal clear teaching of Scripture rejected wholly by revivalist "evangelists" like Rice, a disgrace to the actual office of evangelist (he took the title to fit his new position of editor of Sword of the Lord, but he was far removed from the actual biblical office).

“For SIN SHALL NOT HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. . . . What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? . . . For when YE WERE the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. BUT NOW BEING MADE FREE FROM SIN, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” (Rom 6:7, 14, 1-2, 20-22)

The entire chapter of Rom 6 is filled with this type of teaching, but revivalist Rice and thousands more like him reject this plain teaching of scripture for a philosophy that keeps people in bondage to the church, the system and the coffers.

You might argue, ‘are you saying that after salvation you won’t sin anymore, and have a life of perfectionism?’ Is that what the text of Scripture says? Do you believe Rom 6, and the rest of Scripture which harmonizes perfectly with this truth? No true believer has a life of perfectionism, but you are saved from the dominion of sin (Rom 6), which is the power of sin. Sin will not rule over you; you are no longer under its charge or power. Sin is never again a habitual or characteristic lifestyle anymore, and that includes tobacco, the drink, worldliness and embracing doctrinal errors and false teachings, all of which are sin as well. God’s grace is the growth agent in sanctification: increased holiness, godliness, righteousness and less sinning, which starts immediately at conversion (e.g. Col 1:4-6; Jn 14:15-24; 15:1-10; 1 Jn 3:1-10; etc), because that is the true grace of God, and all true born again believers have this grace, but you would never know that from men like Rice, who treat God's grace like a garbage can. God's “grace” is not a garbage can however. “Grace” doesn’t just keep taking all of your bad stuff and putting it in the garbage can. The true grace of God is a cleansing agent. It actually cleans your life up (Col 1:4-6; Matt 13:23). It makes you a brand new person at the very moment of conversion, which is both supernatural and superdramatic (2 Cor 5:17). It changes how you live. Grace actually puts sin to death. That is what God’s grace does. The true grace of God changes a life (Ti 2:11-14). Sin does not have dominion over you anymore (Rom 6). Sin does not characterize your life anymore (1 John). The same grace that saves (Ti 2:11) also leads, teaches, directs, helps the saint to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and unholiness, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (Ti 2:12-14).

The person described by Rice is a slave to his sin because has never died to self and genuinely repented of his sins, so he continues on unable to gain victory over his bondage, unable to overcome. Everyone is a slave to either God, or mammon and sin. When we are lost, we are slaves to sin, under its bondage, control and dominion. The sinner cannot stop sinning on his own. He is in bondage to it. He is a “servant [doulos] to sin,” (Jn 8:34) that is bondage like a slave, which is what the word doulos means. They can't stop sinning, which is the meaning of bondage. They continue in sin, because the seed does not remain in them (1 Jn 3). Someone who is a servant of sin, isn't just doing sinful acts out of his will, but he is in bondage to the corruption and can't escape it except by the grace of God, which leadeth to salvation (Ti 2:11). When we got saved, we received a new Master (Matt. 6:24), and we become slaves to Him, and all saved people are overcomer's (1 Jn 2:13-14; 5:4-5).

If professing Christians are rebels against God’s Word and refuse to obey the preaching, refuse to be faithful, refuse to separate from the world, are insubordinate to pastoral authority, it is because they are unsaved. The Bible is quite clear on this matter.

"[Christ's] sheep hear [His] voice, and [He] knows them, and they follow [Him]:" (Jn 10:27)

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn 8:47)

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Ti 1:16)

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." (1 Jn 2:3-5)

Do all saved people obey the Bible? Yes, the Bible reads exactly like that, as evident in the above passages. Read more of the same: Num. 15:39-41; De. 12:32; 13:3-4; 26:16-19; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; 1 Ki. 8:23, 57-58, 61; Ps. 18:20-30; 25:10; 40:8; 103:17-22; 128:1; Matt. 7:20-27; 12:47-50; Mk. 3:31-35; 4:21; Lk. 17:5-10; Jn. 7:16-18; 8:31-32, 51; 10:25-27; 14:15, 21-24; 15:10-14; 17:6; 2 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 10:36; Jam. 1:22-25; 2:14-26; 5:7-11; 1 Jn. 2:3-6, 15-17; 3:22-24; 5:1-3; 2 Jn. 1:5-6; Rev. 22:14-15. Does God say and command something that He doesn’t actually expect? Who are Christ’s true disciples, those truly born again? Those that “continue in my word” Jesus says (Jn 8:31). When I read Jesus saying “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Jn 14:23), I read that as exactly as it says. People that love Jesus obey Him. Those that don’t obey Him do not actually love Him. “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.” (Jn 14:24). 1 Jn 2:3-5 speaks of the same, quoted above, as do many other passages throughout scripture. Truly saved people will obey Gods Word as a way of life. Habitually and characteristically. They love Jesus and strive to obey Him and love His Word and His people. Not obeying His commandments means they are lost. They don’t know or love Him and are liars about knowing and loving Him (1 Jn 2:3-5).

Repeatedly the Bible indicates that salvation ALWAYS produces verifiable fruit and evidence without exception. True salvation that must involve true repentance always has substance and evidence and fruit that require an examination of one's experience, noted in passages such as Ezk. 36:25-27; Jer. 23:3; Ps. 1:1-3; Pr. 11:30; 12:12b; Matt. 3:1-12; 7:15-20; 13:8-23; 21:28-32, 41-44; Mk. 4:20-29; Lk. 8:15-16; Jn. 4:35-38; 15:1-16; Rom. 11:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; 9:10; Col. 1:4-6; Jam. 1:18; 2:14-26; 3:17; etc — which is how we know we are truly saved and those that we fellowship with, hence the command to “give diligence to make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet 1:10). And those that don’t have it, are false believers (exposed in the epistle of 1 John, James, Parable of the sower and seed: the wayward, stony and thorny soils, etc). Sinners are called to “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Ac 26:20), but that will not occur if a sinner does not turn from his sin. It is by the outcome that we know we are saved. True faith always produces something but what Rice is advocating for is dead faith (Jam 2:14-26).

The underlying issue with Rice's unbiblical sanctification is Keswick theological heresy, which purveys a false teaching that there are two types of Christians: the spiritual Christian and the carnal Christian. This they based upon their false philosophy that a born again Christian has two natures: the spiritual nature and the carnal nature, as Rice illustrates:

"Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before."

There is not a single verse of Scripture that teaches a true born again believer has two natures. There is "spiritual man" who is the saved person, and "natural" or "carnal man," which is the unsaved person (and in this case and context, one that professes to be a "spiritual man"). Yes we retain the old man in us till we reach glory, but that is not the saints nature any longer. The born again believer has a new nature completely, not a new nature added to an old one (2 Cor 5:17). The new wine gets a new bottle, and the new garment gets a piece of new cloth (Lk 5:36-38), for "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. [Jesus] came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Lk 5:31-32).

In support of this error 1 Cor 3:1-3 is favoured (though not mentioned here, but elsewhere), but that false philosophy is neither found there or anywhere else in Scripture. 1 Cor 3:1-3 has to be twisted out of its meaning, out of context and falsely divided to achieve the desired effect of teaching. Paul is not teaching that a believer is carnal or can live carnally or that there is such a thing as a “carnal nature” in a true born again Christian. The context of 1 Cor 3, which is most crucial in proper hermeneutics, presents only two categories of people: the natural man and the spiritual man (1 Cor 2). The natural man of 1 Cor 2 and the carnal man of 1 Cor 3 are the same person. The natural man in 1 Cor 2:14 is “psuxikos,” a person controlled by himself, by his own soul (the “ikos” ending says "controlled by" or "pertaining to" or "characterized by"). The natural man is in control of his own life and destiny. The spiritual man, 1 Cor 2:15, is “pneumatikos,” so the Spirit controls him. These are the unsaved person and the saved person respectively. The contrast is also made in Eph 2:1-5, the carnal very much unregenerate (vv. 1-3), which is after all what that word in fact means.

The Bible teaches TWO types of people in the world, not three, like Rice and the rest of the revivalist IFB churches teach. There are Only Two Classes or Categories of People in God’s Word, Not Three. And this is taught throughout the Bible, hundreds of times, including by Paul. False Keswick-influenced Christianity creates three, to accommodate false believers. Hence the other terminology and currency utilized by this same philosophy: “backsliding,” “lukewarm,” and “unbelief,” which are actually— like “carnal”—referring to unsaved people that feign faith, have very likely never been born again, and likely never will. These terms are Keswick/Revivalism currency to describe people that are actually lost but proclaimed as saved. They are an ever elusive category that does not exist in Scripture.

For further reading on this subject see the following reports:

• Misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 to Produce the Erroneous Teaching of "Carnal Christianity"

• Keswick Currency of “Unbelief,”“Lukewarm,” “Backsliding,” and “Carnal,” Describe False Professing “Christians,” Not True Born Again Believers

• Does the Bible Teach the Class of Christian known as “Carnal Christian”?

5. Rice on Babes and Man-Centeredness.

Rice, and revivalist IFB churches in large part, love to compare new born again Christians to babies, though they never quantify when "new" or "baby" ends. This is likely because it's perpetual for most, until your moment of "surrender" and you start your journey to becoming a big dog in the Hog's and Dog's circus show.

Rice compares a baby raised and in need of constant care with a child of God in the help they need, but Rice is a very confused man. He says, 

"It is as foolish to expect young Christians to be good Christians by themselves as it is to expect a child, born in the family, to automatically be a great credit to the family without any rearing—whether they are spiritual babes or physical babes." 

A born again child of God is not a baby in a diaper and no baby is of an age of accountability and responsibility, nor has the Spirit of God dwelling in him or her (besides John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ). The analogy isn't what Rice makes it out to be. Just like there is no such thing as a “carnal Christian,” there is no such thing as a “baby Christian.” Paul says "as babes in Christ." (1 Cor 3). He is talking to professing Christians, but "babes" doesn't have to be a Christian. It isn't in Heb 5:12-14 (also commonly misused in unison with 1 Cor 3:1-3) or Gal 4:3. "Baby" is not a universal term for "new believer" in Scripture. "Baby" is often a term of derision for those who are not growing as they should according to their profession, which then casts doubt on that profession. Paul isn't creating a category of “carnal Christian” that are “babes.” He isn't differentiating the two like they are two types of Christians. These Corinthians were behaving like unsaved people, which is what the word "carnal" actually means (fleshly, natural, lascivious). He's having to talk to them like they’re unsaved. As it turns out, many of them were unsaved (cf.1 Cor 5:1-13; 6:1-10; 11:24-32; 2 Cor 12:12-13:5), the warning being based upon their behaviour and doctrinal corruption. They should’ve been eating meat but were drinking milk. It doesn’t mean they were new believers, just that they were acting like babies, like lost people, like the carnal. At the end of Heb 5 "babe" is used to describe unsaved Jews who had not yet left their insufficient knowledge of Jesus to move on to salvation, a continual echo through the book of Hebrews. The verses itself tell us that, but the context even further, which goes on to Heb 6:15. The contrast is made between truly saved Hebrews and the pretenders, a very common contrast in Hebrews, including the preceding context: Heb 3 and 4.

What does Rom 8, the parallel passage to 1 Cor 3, say?

“For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (vv 5-9).

Is the carnal in this text a Christian? Of course not. And it perfectly harmonizes with 1 Cor 3:1-3.

What Rice is describing is man-centred means of establishing people in their Christian life. There is no patient waiting to see the work of God in their lives, clear and undeniable evidence and proof of the new birth, observing whether what the person has professed is indeed true. No testing of the faith, which God always does. No, the working of the Holy Spirit has been replaced with the works of man, for the former does not build big churches in our age of apostasy, while the latter builds them almost as big as you want them to be. All of these are measures that relate to ensuring something happens through human effort, and then calling it the power of God. Rice isn't the first or the last one to employ human tactics. Finney did it before him, and Jack Hyles (with Rice's help), did it during Rice's lifetime, and then after came the Bill Hybels, Rick Warren's, Paul Chappell's, and by today, much worse, that the former birthed, with slight modifications.

The child of God does not need to be taught by man to live a godly, righteous, holy and consecrated life. The grace of God and the Holy Spirit of God do this (1 Jn 2:27; Ti 2:11-14; etc). What Rice is advocating here is right out of a manual on man-centeredness. No, this doesn’t mean we avoid or ignore the Biblical teaching of man's role in the growth of the Christian life, but that is a means of help and it's not an absolute necessity. The very same “grace of God that bringeth salvation” also “Teach[es] us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” (Ti 2:11-12). It's God's grace that does that, not Dr. Bottlestopper and his ten man dog and pony show. The Holy Spirit is the absolute necessity, but they don't allow Him to do His Biblical-based work.

1 Jn 2:27 makes it very clear, a passage that men like Rice habitually ignore:

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

The Holy Spirit of God guides the born again believer in the truth. Specifically Jn 16:13 says,

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

6. Rice Lies About Not Judging or Knowing Whether Someone is Saved.

It is an utter lie and false statement to claim,

“There is not any way you can judge whether people are born again except as you take their testimony that they have put their trust in Jesus Christ and depended on Him for salvation.”

In one short paragraph he denies a massive portion of scripture, and a necessary element of spiritual discernment.

Yes, that kind of judgment has to be made. It does. A pastor for instance must have “faithful children” (Ti 1:6), which means judging faithfulness is occurring. Matt 18:17 is written for this purpose. We can judge whether someone is a false believer or false teacher (Matt 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Ju 1:3-4). In fact, those passages of scripture command the born again believer to do so.

When erroring on the side of caution, testing by Scripture, we are instructed to regard people as unsaved, not saved (how Rice and the rest of the revivalist camp does). It's like this. Genuine conversion comes with evidence. We don't know someone is saved just because he professes to be saved. That is clear from James and 1 John. Jude says that they creep in unawares (Ju 1:4), which is why we must “earnestly contend for the faith” (Ju 1:3). Creeping in unawares means that we don't know it. Churches have unsaved people in them, and today's evangelical and fundamental, incl., reformed and even most baptist churches, are loaded with them, so we're not even sure if anyone in many of these churches are actually saved.

The Scripture exhort us to examine ourselves (2 Cor 13:5; 2 Pet 1:10) and others (Matt 7:6, 15-20; 2 Pet 2:1-22; Ju 1:3-16), to try the spirits (1 Tim 4:1), to prove all things (1 Th 5:21), to test someones doctrine and beliefs whether they are of God (Ac 17:11; Is 8:20). The Bible warns of a “faith” that does not save.

“Now when [Jesus] was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man." (Jn 2:23-25)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (Jam 2:17)

Just because someone professes faith doesn’t mean they are saved. We do not judge whether someone has faith by his profession, but by his doctrine and lifestyle (that's how he even judges his own faith), which is the evidence and fruit of salvation.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

Disobedience is a mark of being unsaved:

“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Ti 1:16)

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2 Tim 3:5)

Thats just a small sample of this sort of teaching.

The parable of the sower causes us to judge between different souls receiving the seed, and only one is saved (Matt 13; Mk 4). “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15-20) and only the good soil has good fruit (Matt 13:23). We judge a man by his obedience to God’s will, just like Jesus said we could judge Him by His obedience to His Father’s will (Jn 7:16-18). If we couldn’t judge a man’s spiritual condition, how would we ever know whether he is a wolf or a sheep (Matt 7:15-20; Ac 20:29-31)? How would we know who to fellowship with and who to reject? (Heb 6:12; Phil 3:17-19; 2 Jn 1:9-11; 3 Jn 1:9-11). It’s hypocrisy and also a convenient excuse to reject separation and embrace false professions, which most would be ignorant to.

What we see is too much inclusion among the professing saved today. Scripture excludes where people include. This is unhelpful and dangerous. Part of the reason many want to know is so that they can find the salvation bar and get themselves just above it. If we are going to tend toward anything, I think we should tend toward giving people the judgment that they might not be saved. 'I wouldn’t risk it,' is what I say. Why do we want to give credit to people on this side of eternity? If there is a question, then we should keep it a question. That’s how I read scripture. Scripture isn’t attempting to give the benefit of the doubt but the very opposite, and that is also how God tests the faith of the professor.

Many, many more people are unsaved today, I believe, than what people believe. They say, “Saved,” but likely, “Unsaved.” The gospel has been dumbed down. People are disobedient and yet still given credit as saved (Obedience is major mark of the saved, and those who don’t obey are treated as unsaved in Scripture: Lk 6:43-49; Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5). One reason for the credit of considered saved is because churches are not careful with discernment and membership. Churches have a wide range of belief and practice that is allowed in their membership. Unbelief and disobedience is accepted and you’re still saved. It’s a rush to the most lenient position but it isn’t helpful but very dangerous.

Testimony by words isn't enough; it has to be confirmed (1 Cor 1:6; Is 8:20). Paul said it is the wise that judges, and that is the saved person (1 Cor 6:1-5; 10:15; Ac 17:11). John the Apostle judged pastor Diotrephes to be an evil and unsaved man (3 Jn 1:9-11). John the Baptist judged the Pharisees as unsaved and under the wrath of God (Matt 3:7). God the Son did the same (Matt 23; Jn 8:31-59). John also judged king Herod and lost his head because of it (Mk 6). The list goes. Literally, the pages of Holy Writ are loaded with the subject. So yes, we can judge people to be unsaved and we must. It’s required for fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-18) and peoples souls depend upon it (Pr 24:11-12; Ezk 33).

But people like John R. Rice and his false gospel don't like casting doubt on their congregations loaded with empty professions and dead faith. Thats a fundamental in these heretical revivalist churches.

For further reading on the Biblical teaching of evidence of salvation, see: Evidence of Salvation in John's Epistle’s, and the allowance and necessity to judge a persons salvation: Can We Judge Someone to be Unsaved? Such as the Reformers or John Wesley?

Conclusion

The major premise of John R. Rice's teachings and the Sword is a lie. It is a very dangerous lie, for even one person who accedes to their repentant-less message, but it hasn't been restricted to just one person but to millions. Many of these people have been in hell now for decades, who prayed prayers and easy believed void of critical elements of the gospel, led by men like the “evangelist” John R. Rice, and then confirmed in their false state of security. We can’t say bad enough things about all of it, and yet many shamefully put up with it for years and still do, and won't join us in pointing it out, which really indicates what a big problem this is, and that they are at least in some way part of the coalition. I believe that the people who don’t say anything about these people, who allow it by their associations and accommodation, help spread it. But thats not all. Some are not sure it is wrong. They give a wide latitude in their doctrine. They swallowed a placebo, but they really are a dupe of Rice's Sword and the Sword churches, sucked into it with their methods, and now on the broad road. The Sword church gets the statistic. This issue is all over in evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but I’m narrowing it here out of love for independent Baptists, of whom I belong.

All of Rice's problems with the corrupted gospel that omits repentance, Christ's lordship, immediate changed life with fruit and evidence and victory, not judging professions of faith ---could really be boiled down to this one statement in his response:

"So the thing to do is to take for granted that people are saved when they trust Christ for salvation."

No you shouldn't. That is really, really bad advice and so many things wrong with it. The rich young ruler had every appearance of trusting Christ, but he wasn't saved. There is absolutely no doubt that men like Rice would have prayed a prayer with him and called him a believer, not expecting anything that Christ commanded of him in Mk 10:21 (“Sell, distribute, come, take up the cross and follow me”), because of his rejection of Biblical repentance and submission to Christ's lordship, the two issues that kept the rich young ruler from being converted.

Though better than many of his IFB revivalist contemporaries such as Jack Hyles, and Curtis Hutson, Rice nevertheless embraced the same false gospel as these men whom he promoted extensively, preached alongside, and even placed into positions of leadership (specifically Hutson, who became the second editor of Sword of the Lord). In reality, Rice was the same as these men noted by his close friendship and association with them, compromising his own beliefs and doctrines, and in many ways doctrinally corrupt in similitude, only in softer and more subtle ways.

As Rice aged, his compromise appeared to only grow worse. It took years before he finally separated from Billy Graham (whom he had even given a position on the board of the Sword of the Lord!), a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing, but then only to reclaim his love for Graham in his final days, including in the last sermon he preached at the age of 85. In that sermon, he asked the congregation sing to a song by the heretical and apostate Gaithers, but thankfully was declined, not fulfilling Rice's last wish, for the people to "love" apparently how they and him had not, “you’ve got to love everybody Jesus loves,” including false teachers such as Billy Graham. At this stage of his life, he was infected (unsurprisingly) with the disease of neo-evangelicalism (maybe in part because of his deeply compromised and likely unregenerate daughters), where the "love" he called for was unbiblical love, and the music he called for, was false worship. What was the Gaither song he had requested? “The Family of God.” In other words, the call was for everybody to love Billy Graham, to not dissociate from him any longer, because he, like them, were all part of “The Family of God.” How tragic when a man consistently compromised and entertained error, heresy, a false gospel, all of which are leaven leavening the lump (Gal 5:9). How did Rice respond when his request was denied? “Rice sat in his wheelchair and wept with disappointment and sadness." (Andrew Himes, Sword of the Lord, p. 290).

What is actually sad and disappointing is Rice's compromise and deeper slide into heresy, largely in part due to his corruption of the gospel and the doctrine of sanctification. His compromise in fact is very troubling, and when combined with his corrupted position on the gospel, exposes a man who may have well been more a false teacher, as we have exposed here: False Teachers are Dangerous Spiritual Counterfeits: How To Identify Them and What To Do About It - Part 1.

We are entreated and begged by the Apostle Paul to mark and separate from those teaching false doctrine, especially those who come with a perverted gospel and another Jesus (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4):

"Now I beseech [beg, entreat, appeal to] you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Rom 16:17-18)