John R. Rice Verses David Otis Fuller On King James ONLYism
by David J. Stewart | August 2014
I stand 100% with Dr. David Otis Fuller (1903-1988) on this issue! Critics of the correct King James only position continually bolster up great men of God like Dr. John Rice (1895-1980) to support their heretical position that modern Bible versions are reliable. Before his death in 1980, Dr. Rice had received numerous admonitions from peers in the clergy concerning the danger of modern Bible versions, but Brother Rice was not convinced before his death. Here's one such article by a King James only critic, attempting to use Dr. Rice's words to support modern corrupted Bible versions. I'd like to make several important observations here on this subject:
Dr. Rice went to Heaven in 1980 before the satanic New International Version (NIV) went public in 1984. It wasn't until the NIV came out that many preachers started to wake up, seeing how Satan was progressively moving the ancient landmark to corrupt the printed Word. 1st Peter 1:23 teaches that the Word of God is incorruptible. Men can corrupt the printed Word, but they cannot corrupt the living Word. Jesus came to earth as the incarnate Word (John 1:1-3,14), the sinless Lamb of God.
Even Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) was not King James only in his position prior to the NIV's publishing in 1984.
- If you read the preceding link that I've provided to the criticism of King James only Christians, you'll read a quote provided by Dr. Rice in which he states that the word Easter in Acts 12:4 should be Passover. I love and admire Brother Rice, but He is wrong! The King James Bible is correct to interpret the word Easter as such, and here is Biblical proof! Passover is wrong in Acts 12:4 of modern versions of the Bible.
Every preacher adjusts his views and positions as he learns more and grows in grace. No young preacher knows it all, even though he may wisely adopt the teachings of older preachers who've studied the Bible much longer. No two preachers agree on everything. For example: Dr. John R. Rice believed in a Young Earth Creation; whereas, his successor Dr. Curtis Hutson (1934-1995) believed in an Old Earth Creation (gap principle). I side 100% with Curtis Hutson on the issue.
We must always remember that even the wisest, most scholarly and godly of men are still flawed human beings. The inspired Word of God is our only authority! Matthew 4:4, “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This is why it is so critically important that we have every Word of God, undiluted. All modern Bible versions are corrupted. Only the precious King James Bible truly uplifts, honors and boldly proclaims the deity of Jesus Christ. Check out all the Corrupt Modern Bible Versions And Their Omissions! Don't you dare claim to love Jesus if you're using a perverted Bible that removes every mention of people worshipping Him.
The chairman of the Old Testament who translated the New International Version was an open homosexual. No wonder he removed the word “sodomite” from the Bible completely. It is wickedness to remove the word sodomite from the Bible, which is the Biblical term for a homosexual. Romans 1:25 says that the wicked “change the truth of God into a lie.” Homosexuality is a horrible sin, just as are all sins. Any sin can be forgiven in Christ, but this does not mean embracing the homosexual lifestyle as being acceptable or legitimate. The NIV Bible is of the Devil, translated and endorsed by homosexuals.
- If you love Jesus, then you're not going to use a perverted Bible version that diminishes His deity, removes the Godhead and removed the blood of Jesus 15 TIMES!
If Dr. John R. Rice were still alive on earth today, I am convinced that he would take an uncompromising stand as I am, as a preacher, against the perversion of modern corrupt Bible versions. The NIV took the Bible version issue to a whole new level. Now the new NIV 2011 has been published, which is gender neutral, no longer calls the Holy Spirit a “He,” wives are no longer commanded to obey their husbands, et cetera.
Read This Carefully All You King James Bible Critics, And Then Read It Again, Prayerfully
Bible colleges like Bob Jones University (BJU) allow different versions of the Bible. Should it be surprising that Bob Jones has changed their moral standards from when they first opened their doors in 1927? In their recent 2013-2014 student catalog, BJU allows female students to wear pants on campus and dress pants to church? It is one thing for Christians to sin as human beings, it is another thing to lower one's standards in sinful compromise. BJU didn't allow pants back in 1927 and neither did Moody Bible Institute (MBI) in 1889 when they opened their doors.
After I recently mentioned in public that Christian ladies ought not wear pants, a Bob Jones' pastor called me “OLD SCHOOL.” Yes sir I am old school, and plan to stay that way, which is what God's Word teaches. The “NEW SCHOOL” is sinful compromise, allowing the heathen world to influence our moral standards in churches and Bible colleges. It's a shame that Amish, Apostolic Pentecostals and Mormon women have higher standards of modesty in dress than Independent Baptists do. 1st Timothy 2:9 and Deuteronomy 22:5 are still in the Bible. Neither the church, the world, nor any Bible college should set our moral standards, but the inspired Word of God. With the changing Bibles we are witnessing changing morals in our churches. I'll stick with the unchanging King James Bible.
THE UNCHANGING CHURCH IN A CHANGING WORLD (a great MP3 sermon by Dr. Harold Sightler)
The following is an excellent explanation of Biblical fundamentalism by Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) and the need for Ecclesiastical separation . . .[emphasis added]
The term "fundamentalist" is a relative one, like "conservative" or "liberal." As it applies to organizations and denominations, "fundamentalists" would define those who hold to original doctrines and convictions and standards of a movement. This means that at the beginning of a movement all of its adherents would be fundamentalists. However, movements change. Denominations change. As they do, those who hold to the original doctrines and convictions fight for their preservation and for the return of the movement to its fundamentals. History tells us that these attempts have failed. Finally realizing that their hopes are futile, a group will pull out of the original movement or denomination and organize another according to the original dogma, standards and convictions of the apostate group. When this happens, the new group can be labeled "fundamentalists."
Hence, to be a fundamental Methodist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Presbyterian. To be a fundamental Baptist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Episcopalian. The important thing to note here is that the term "fundamentalist" is one that has been given to those who pull out and return to the original intents, purposes and doctrine of the group that they feel has gone liberal.
. . . It is rather popular to define the term "fundamentalist" as one who believes the fundamentals; for example, one who believes the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious death, the bodily resurrection and the second coming. Now, to be sure, such a one believes the fundamentals, but the term "fundamentalist" probably should not be ascribed to him if he is still a member of an apostate denomination.The term "fundamentalist" is given not to those who simply believe the aforementioned fundamentals but to those who have separated themselves from those who do not. This brings the doctrine of separation into focus as a vital and necessary part of being a fundamentalist. . . .
SOURCE:WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST? (chapter 15 from Dr. Jack Hyles' life-changing book, BIBLICAL SEPARATION)
Church splits are a necessary part of fundamentalism, because as Brother Hyles truthfully said in the quote I just shared with you, history tells us that attempts to fight for the preservation of THE TRUTH have failed. Every generation must rediscover the truth for themselves. Satan is always trying to remove the ancient landmark. This is why believers are commanded in Jude 1:3 to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” We've got much work to do!
Dr. John R. Rice And King James Onlyism
By David J. Stewart | July 2012
I recently found an article on the internet attacking the Sword Of The Lord for changing Dr. Rice's position on the Bible. May I say that I firmly believe that The Sword Of The Lord has done the right thing, the godly thing, and I am thankful for their fire and zeal for truth. Instead of following the agendas of our generation, the Sword has stood for what is right. No doubt they'd make more money if they dipped their sails in sinful compromise, by selling other versions of the Bible. God's curse is upon the Bible corrupters behind the New International Version (NIV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Both of these versions of the Bible are perversions of the Scriptures. God only wrote one Book!
I think Dr. Curtis Hutson (1934-1995) and Dr. Sheldon Smith has done a wonderful thing by taking the Sword Of The Lord in a King James only stance on the Bible. Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980) founded the Sword Of The Lord in 1934. I firmly believe that if Brother Rice were alive today that he'd be King James only. It must be considered that Dr. Rice graduated from this life and went to be with the Lord in 1980. So Brother Rice never saw the NIV published in 1984 that butchers the Bible mercilessly! In 1980 neither Dr. Jack Hyles nor other mighty fundamentalist preachers were King James only yet. It wasn't until faithful preachers saw what the Devil was doing, that is, changing the Bible incrementally through never-ending new versions, that they woke up and took a stand for the inspired King James Bible. And so, America's true men of God stood with the King James Bible, which is the ONLY reliable Bible that we have in the modern English-speaking world.
Dr. Otis Fuller was ahead of his time spiritually, one of the few preachers, along with Dr. Al Lacy, who saw what the Devil was doing before others awoke to the battle. Eventually Brother Hyles and Dr. Hutson saw what was going on and joined with Dr. David Otis Fuller on his King James only position (which is clearly God's position). Don't you tell me that modern Bible versions produced by homosexuals on the translating committee—who remove the word sodomites and attack the deity of Jesus Christ, and remove the word godhead entirely—don't you dare defend those wicked butcherers!!!
Here's the criticisms of the Sword I found on the internet, if you want to read some nonsense...
DR. JOHN R. RICE'S REPLY TO DR. DAVID OTIS FULLER ON THE KJV
with an introduction and analysis by Bob L. Ross
It has been about thirty years (1975-2005) since Dr. John R. Rice (1895-1980) published his letter to Dr. David Otis Fuller in The Sword of the Lord, expressing his difference concerning Fuller's perspective on the King James Bible. Dr. Rice used the KJV and had a very high regard for it, but he was not in the mold of the phantasmagoria which was spawned in the latter half of the 1900's, referred to as "King James Onlyism." We stock and sell many of Dr. Rice's writings, and many of them present his attitude about the KJV and other translations; he took a stand against KJVOism and those who promoted it in its early stages. He opposed the views of Fuller, Peter Ruckman, E. L. Bynum and their followers.
The letter to the late Dr. Fuller, author of a couple of books which helped in developing KJVOism (Which Bible? and True or False?), was published in the November 28, 1975 issue of The Sword of the Lord, on pages 3 and 12, and it would have probably been buried there forever had we not called attention to it a few years ago. But in the summer of 1996, after watching the drift of the Sword toward the ditch of "King James Onlyism," I thought it was time that somebody at least should point out the departures being made from the original Sword's position under Dr. Rice when it had the "fire" in its masthead artwork.
Dr. Rice's successor, the late Dr. Curtis Hutson, did away with the "fire" [who knows why], and Hutson also was one of the first to take the rabbit path to "KJVOism." Along with Jack Hyles, Hutson jumped-on the Gail Riplinger bandwagon, and reportedly bought and mailed a thousand copies of Riplinger's book to preachers affiliated with the Sword. Hyles said he read but "did not understand" the book by Riplinger (Rev. 2:20), but I have no idea if Hutson understood it or not. I hope Hutson did not understand it, for I would hate to know that he understood and endorsed the contents. If Dr. Rice were alive today, he would be unwelcome by the preachers who are promoting Riplinger's book, such as Hyles, Wally Beebe, Bill Grady, Donald Waite, Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, Larry Phillips and others.
After Hutson's death, Hyles announced a Pastors School for March 18-21, 1996 at which he would, in effect, beatify the King James Bible and indict, convict, and sentence all other versions. He called it "The Trial of the Century!" He also decided that Mrs. Riplinger should be elevated to "Doctor;" and since he had years ago given a similar "degree" to Dr. Rice's horse, named MacArthur, I suppose Hyles figured that if a horse deserved such a degree, it would not be below his standards to give one to Mrs. Riplinger. He even made some facetitious remark about ordaining her to preach, and he might as well have done so, since she has been speaking at a number of alleged "Bible believing" churches and conferences where they give lip-service to the KJV but disregard what it teaches about women usurping public ministry (Rev. 2:20).
Dr. Rice must have been doing the proverbial act of "rolling over in his grave" as he witnessed Hutson and Hyles, two of his choice proteges, engage themselves in these shenanigans. At the Sword, finally, Hyles was evidently bridled from buying space for those outlandish full-page ads in the Sword, such as the one where he and some other men are shown in military uniforms with a tank, and Hyles is referred to as "Our General" (Sword, May 31, 1996, page 22). Sometime later, Hyles was no longer on the Board of the Sword.
READ MORE: Dr. John R. Rice's Reply To Dr. David Otis Fuller On The KJV
I cannot speak for Brother Rice, because he is no longer with us; but I can say that Brother Rice was always willing to CHANGE his position when he was wrong. Brother rice admittedly changed his doctrinal position on the signs of Christ's return. Whereas Dr. Rice used to teach that there are signs, he eventually changed his view and stated that the Bible says what it means, that is, there are NO SIGNS of Christ's return.
Having said that, I believe that Dr. Rice would have changed his position on the King James Bible. Remember, Dr. Jack Hyles wasn't King James only either until after the NIV was published, woefully desecrating and tampering with God's Words. Faithful preachers like Dr. Al Lacy and Dr. David Fuller woke other preachers up to the issue. Only a fool would defend the corrupt modern perversions of the Bible. John 3:16 in all modern Bibles removes the word “begotten,” claiming that Jesus is God's one and only Son. That's a lie! John 1:12 says that every believer is a son of God (an adopted son of God - Galatians 4:5).
John R. Rice's books addressed the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and earlier versions that seemed helpful (and were to an extent), but Satan had an agenda, that is, to continue publishing new Bible versions to REMOVE THE ANCIENT LANDMARK. Proverbs 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” In ancient times, landmarks were used to designate the survey of the land (showing who owned what). When a man died, sometimes dishonest neighbors would take advantage of an unsuspecting widow and her children by moving the landmark a little at a time. Over time the thieves would steal much land away from their neighbor.
This is exactly what Satan is doing to us with the Bible. The Devil keeps moving the landmark (God's Word) a little at a time, until eventually no one has ever heard about the Godhead, nor do they know what Calvary means, nor do they think Jesus is God in the flesh as 1st Timothy 3:16 says (if you have a King James Bible). Those believers who grew up with the King James Bible might find modern versions helpful as a commentary (I won't use them); but those people today who've never read a King James Bible, are doomed to the doctrinal corruption of the new versions. You won't find the word “godhead” in modern Bibles. Since the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the word godhead is critically important.
Don't be fooled by the Devil my friend. God only wrote one Book and you have it in the inspired King James Bible!!! The way you can tell is simple. Which Bible of all the versions doesn't tamper with the doctrine of Christ? That's right, the King James! Which Bible still calls homosexuals SODOMITES? That's right, the King James! Which Bible still teaches that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God? That's right, the King James! Which Bible is the ONLY version not copyrighted by some greedy company with exclusive publishing rights? That's right, the King James Bible!!!
It's not that hard to figure out my friend! The question is, do you want THE TRUTH, or a watered-down substitute? Do you want a double-edged SWORD (Hebrews 4:12), or a plastic knife? Do you want dynamite, or snap-n-pops? Do you want the brutally honest Words of God, or an imposter that caters to the transgendered agenda of lesbians and homosexuals? The choice is obvious! Do you want the preserved purity of the King James Bible, or the perversion of modern translations?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” —Jude 1:3
New and Used Books at Amazon.com by Dr. David Otis Fuller
Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!