"Going"
The copies I have of the three volumes of Ira Y. Rice's Axe on the Root series date back several years, but I had never read them until May-June of 2020. The first book was published in 1966, which is more than fifty years ago. Okay; so, I don't read every book the minute I buy it. However, I'm glad that I finally began reading them because they are most instructive.
The background of what is reported is simply this: Ira and Vada Rice moved to Hamden, Connecticut in September of 1965 in order to learn Mandarin, Chinese at Yale, located in New Haven. They planned to do mission work following their preparation (7). While there, they met a preacher, who had just begun working with the Hamden congregation, and two other men who were students at Yale. This became the Rice's introduction to liberalism. One of the students (undoubtedly influenced by his seminary classes) claimed that Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original Greek (a characteristic of Modernism) (10).
One evening a historical religious movie was shown (19), which seemed accurate overall, but Brother Rice protested that the film made it seem as though Luther was a Christian. One of the seminary students overheard the comment and became incensed. "Declaring that Martin Luther was a Christian, he went on to say that we should have fellowship with far more people than just our brotherhood" (20). Don't these remarks sound like those that Rubel Shelly or Max Lucado would make 20-30 years later?
How does a person become a Christian without being immersed for the forgiveness of his sins (Acts 2:38)? Liberals do not usually answer that question; they just insist that we should fellowship them. How can that be? It is essential for the blood of Christ to wash away sins (Rev. 1:5), which occurs in baptism, which washes away sins (Acts 22:16). Furthermore, Paul wrote: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). Therefore, how did Luther get into Christ when he was only sprinkled but never immersed? Apparently, liberals do not think they need to explain the answer to that question.
Palm Sunday
A few years ago, I expressed my shock in Spiritual Perspectives that one of "our" preachers preached that Christians should observe Palm Sunday. He was not the first to do so. One of the Seminary students at Yale preached on February 27, 1966 a "sermon" in which he kept referring to "Palm Sunday" and "Good Friday" without any qualifying remarks. Brother Rice recorded the last words of that message: "Let us not crucify Him afresh on Good Friday, but let us hail Him in the spirit of Palm Sunday" (23). If a person has determined to take that route, why not say, "Let us glorify Him as the disciples did on Easter Sunday"?
It's possible the reader is thinking, "This sounds a whole lot like Roman Catholicism." Funny that one may say that. The young preacher said just a few weeks later, "Historically, we are all sons of the Roman Catholic Church (not that we owe them any allegiance, of course), first through the Reformation Movement, then through the Restoration Movement" (25). The man should speak for himself; he does not speak for me. Neither I nor any other Christian on earth today is a son of the Roman Catholic Church. We are "children of God" (1 John 3:1), which came as a result of obeying the gospel recorded in the New Testament—not any manmade institution.
Guy N. Woods
Brother Rice knew that these young seminary students were being taught Modernism and attempted through Axe on the Root to warn brethren that those men obtaining advanced degrees in order to teach in Christian universities so that they could be "accredited" institutions of higher learning were being taught by Modernists. In order to compete with secular universities, Christian colleges had to hire so many men with a Ph.D. But in the process of obtaining those degrees, they were losing their Biblical soundness. Guy N. Woods agreed with Rice's analysis and wrote these words to him:
It is truly amazing that there would arise among us men who would advocate views of the Holy Spirit which were refuted two generations ago on a thousand battle fronts by the giants of the Restoration Movement; that efforts would be made to weaken the teaching of the Scriptures on the VIRGIN BIRTH of Christ; that men would deny the VERBAL INSPIRATION of the Scriptures, and question the essentially of baptism. But such is sadly so (27).
It just keeps recurring, doesn't it? Remember "Christmas at Matthew's House"? Modernism must be defeated in every generation. In fact, we can't even wait twenty years; all of the fundamentals must be repeated every ten years.
Justification and Accusation
It is often said that "the best defense is a good offense." When liberals are exposed, they often accuse those who stand for the truth. The young preacher at Hamden stated that "the heretic is not the one who teaches a false doctrine, but is one who insists on his own way to the dividing of the church" (25). Hymenaeus and Philetus could not have said it better. Ahab accused Elijah of being the troubler of Israel, but the student of the Word knows who it really was. Likewise, when people come into a congregation or the brotherhood at large (through books or websites) and teach contrary to the Word; they are the heretics.
PRINCIPLES OF HERESY (PART ONE)
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: