PDA

View Full Version : The REAL Jack Hyles


Pages : [1] 2

Charles Meadows
08-08-2005, 09:55 AM
I was talking to a fellow in my church yesterday. He is getting ready to leave to go plant a church in Carrollton, TX. He mentioned that he was blessed to have had personal relationships with (among others) Jack Hyles and John R Rice. His daughter attends Hyles-Anderson College and is very happy there.

Anyway he said that while Jack Hyles has been much maligned (obviously) he found him to be a wonderful Godly man. He also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally. He said that Hyles used to say things in jest (if you don't use the KJB then you aren't spititual) which have been quoted out of context as Hyles' views. Many times my pastor (a great fellow) has made such joking remarks (you can disagree with me if you want - but then that means you're not right with God - (church laughs) - no I'm just kidding...). Anyway he portrayed Hyles as an opinionated but reasonable fellow.

Any thoughts? I guess (based on things I've read) that I've always considered Hyles a bad apple (assuming he was a hyper-legalist). Maybe that was wrong?

Pastor_Bob
08-08-2005, 11:07 AM
I attended Hyles-Anderson College 25 years ago. I would be very quick to agree that much of what is said about Dr. Hyles is exaggerated and taken out of context by those who are repeating second, third, fourth-hand stories.

However, when you made the following statement, "He also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally," I believe that Dr. Hyles own words would indicate that he believed otherwise.

Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New international version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.

The genes of the new birth must be incorruptible. I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." These words were penned in the first century, but it says that the incorruptible seed "liveth and abideth for ever." Since today is a part of "for ever," we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again.

Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed..." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever. Enemies of Soulwinng by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1993My friend, Dr. Dell Johnson told me that, in his opinion, this one chapter in Dr. Hyles' book has done more damage to the defense of the KJV than anything else of which he is aware.

LarryN
08-08-2005, 11:26 AM
I'll begin by addressing one of Charles' friend's comments:

Charles writes: He [his friend] also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally. Here is what Hyles wrote in his 1993 book Ememies of Soul Winning (Chapter Five):

...Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New International Version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.

3. The genes of the new birth must be incorruptible. I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." These words were penned in the first century, but it says that the incorruptible seed "liveth and abideth for ever." Since today is a part of "for ever," we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again.

4. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever. This is also borne out in Psalm 19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Notice the words, "the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul." It is the law of the Lord that converts. It is the Word of God that regenerates. The Word is the seed, and the seed must be incorruptible.

Hyles never retracted that statement prior to his death in February of 2001. Of course, Hyles' own conversion to KJVOism took place in the early 1980's- after the death of his close friend & mentor John R. Rice. Prior to Rice's death, Hyles actively opposed KJVOism, going so far as to expel (c. 1978) Hyles-Anderson College students who promoted it. Also, in his earlier books, Hyles clearly did not believe the KJV to be a flawless translation. As an example, see his 1968 book Let's Study the Revelation. In that book Hyles points out in several instances what he believed to be imperfectly translated verses (in Revelation) in the King James Version. I could mention several other examples & incidents that demonstrate Hyles' pre-1980 non-KJVO stance, but these couple should suffice.

Since Hyles' death, many of his supporters seem to be engaged in some sort of revisionist campaign to soft-peddle the more extremist of his statements & views. Charles, your friend's statement about Hyles not really believing that one could be saved only through use of the KJV is an example of that. Hyles clearly did state, and wasn't known to have retracted, such a belief.

LarryN
08-08-2005, 11:29 AM
[I see that while I was busy typing, Pastor Bob was beating me to the punch!]

RightFromWrong
08-08-2005, 06:33 PM
I am not a Jack Hyles fan. Sad to say my family and I went to a IFBC that was VERY cultish and legalistic and we were hurt tremendously for not conforming.The Pastor worshiped Jack Hyles not God.Below are some documented facts about Jack Hyles.

I have attended 2 legalistic churches which caused so much spiritual abuse to so many families I will never attend one again. No wonder they have so few members. I am happy to say I am once again part of a well balanced Babtist church.


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hyles/sin.htm

RightFromWrong
08-08-2005, 08:54 PM
Woops I meant Baptist

servant-96
08-08-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
I am not a Jack Hyles fan. Sad to say my family and I went to a IFBC that was VERY cultish and legalistic and we were hurt tremendously for not conforming.The Pastor worshiped Jack Hyles not God.Below are some documented facts about Jack Hyles.

I have attended 2 legalistic churches which caused so much spiritual abuse to so many families I will never attend one again. No wonder they have so few members. I am happy to say I am once again part of a well balanced Babtist church.


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hyles/sin.htm I am just curious, what you mean by "cultish and leagalistic.

RightFromWrong
08-09-2005, 03:19 AM
Well, this is what we experenced. The Pastor new and young ( age 26 ) was very controlling. You could not disagree with him on anything or he would point you out or get very mad. You had to carry a KJV and the women had to ALWAYS wear dresses even at home or they were considered UNGODLY. Men had to wear suits. We had questioned him on this and he would advoid the subject and he would get mad at us for discussing the subject with others. We were told not to call certain people in the church and talk about him about anything that it would get back to him. He would get upset and say something from the pulpit if anyone would be sleeping, or not singing or making a face he didn't like ( one lady left because of this she was actually looking at a child and he basically pointed her out ). Outward apperences were MORE important than ones heart. One young couple were living together in sin , she already had a child out of wedlock with another man. But because he knew the family and they dress in dresses and suits and carried a KJV and never were any trouble, he never talked to them about living together. We had them over to dinner to talk to them about it and the guy admitted he would never marry her, why should he . When going to the Pastor about it he got mad at us and called us pharisees.

The Pastor and others would do visitation for NUMBERS sake only saying they won lots of souls but the church never grew and I know for a fact a couple he supposably won to the Lord were not really saved. They were my friends from my sons school and they said they prayed with him cause he kept pushing the issue.

Preaching was more on the importance of ones outward appearence then having Gods Holy Spirit do the work in and through us. Any kind of Alcohol was forbidden even cooking wine in food. Dancing was a Sin he said David never really danced it was something else, but not dancing. Everything was a Sin and he was in charge of EVERY thing. My son 10 was in his own front yard we were playing catch one HOT summer day and he wasn't wearing a shirt, we had to hear about it at church the next day. From a family that drove by. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. Jack Hyles was his God he talked and qouted more from him than Gods word.

servant-96
08-09-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
Well, this is what we experenced. The Pastor new and young ( age 26 ) was very controlling. You could not disagree with him on anything or he would point you out or get very mad. You had to carry a KJV and the women had to ALWAYS wear dresses even at home or they were considered UNGODLY. Men had to wear suits. We had questioned him on this and he would advoid the subject and he would get mad at us for discussing the subject with others. We were told not to call certain people in the church and talk about him about anything that it would get back to him. He would get upset and say something from the pulpit if anyone would be sleeping, or not singing or making a face he didn't like ( one lady left because of this she was actually looking at a child and he basically pointed her out ). Outward apperences were MORE important than ones heart. One young couple were living together in sin , she already had a child out of wedlock with another man. But because he knew the family and they dress in dresses and suits and carried a KJV and never were any trouble, he never talked to them about living together. We had them over to dinner to talk to them about it and the guy admitted he would never marry her, why should he . When going to the Pastor about it he got mad at us and called us pharisees.

The Pastor and others would do visitation for NUMBERS sake only saying they won lots of souls but the church never grew and I know for a fact a couple he supposably won to the Lord were not really saved. They were my friends from my sons school and they said they prayed with him cause he kept pushing the issue.

Preaching was more on the importance of ones outward appearence then having Gods Holy Spirit do the work in and through us. Any kind of Alcohol was forbidden even cooking wine in food. Dancing was a Sin he said David never really danced it was something else, but not dancing. Everything was a Sin and he was in charge of EVERY thing. My son 10 was in his own front yard we were playing catch one HOT summer day and he wasn't wearing a shirt, we had to hear about it at church the next day. From a family that drove by. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. Jack Hyles was his God he talked and qouted more from him than Gods word. There is a lot here, but nothing here is cultish or legalistic. If what you say is true, the Pastor has a lot of maturing to do. There are different levels of Christianity. A person who has been saved for 10 years can't expect a person who just got saved to conform to there level of walk. I go to a IFBC, and nothing that you said goes on at our church. We are glad people are there, and BTW, it's God's church, not ours. We let the Holy Spirit guide the believer. As for the KJB, you can carry whatever you want, but you will never teach, preach or read outloud anything else but the KJ. There is a reason for that, we won't get into that here. I knew brother Jack, He preached at our church once in awhile. I enjoyed him. He wasn't perfect, but who is. He in my oppinion he was a great man of God. He is my brother in Christ and with the Lord. One day I'll see him again. I like to focus more on what someone did for the Lord, not what they didn't do.

robycop3
08-09-2005, 01:16 PM
Servant_96: There is a lot here, but nothing here is cultish or legalistic.

Yes, it IS. Nothing in Scripture says women must wear skirts or men must always wear a shirt in public. I generally ignore such chowderheads who ADD to Scripture. They have their reward.

If what you say is true, the Pastor has a lot of maturing to do.

Why should it NOT be true?

There are different levels of Christianity. A person who has been saved for 10 years can't expect a person who just got saved to conform to there level of walk.

There's a BIG difference in growing as a Christian and slipping into heresy.


I go to a IFBC, and nothing that you said goes on at our church. We are glad people are there, and BTW, it's God's church, not ours. We let the Holy Spirit guide the believer.

Excellent!


As for the KJB, you can carry whatever you want, but you will never teach, preach or read outloud anything else but the KJ.

That's YOUR loss. You're not utilizing everything God has made available to you.


There is a reason for that, we won't get into that here.

If the reason isn't PERSONAL PREFERENCE, it's WRONG.


I knew brother Jack, He preached at our church once in awhile. I enjoyed him. He wasn't perfect, but who is. He in my oppinion he was a great man of God. He is my brother in Christ and with the Lord.

You're right in saying he wasn't perfect; in fact he was the very antithesis of perfect. I suggest you study what he preached in his later years very closely, ignoring the KJVO stuff, focusing about what he preached about JESUS.


One day I'll see him again. I like to focus more on what someone did for the Lord, not what they didn't do.

While ignoring what they did AGAINST the Lord?

Charles Meadows
08-09-2005, 01:36 PM
Thanks for all the responses so far. I've been hoping to hear that many of the stories about Hyles were somewhat exaggerated. Because a preacher in the vain of the one described by Rightfromwrong is NO man of God.

LarryN
08-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Jack Hyles was known for his frequent rants against the Southern Baptist Convention almost as much as he was known for his relatively late-in-life conversion to KJVOism.

Therefore, does anyone else find it ironic that Beverly (since moving to Texas) reportedly now attends First Baptist Church of Dallas- a non-KJVO, SBC church?

(I am not being critical of where she's at, BTW.)

RightFromWrong
08-09-2005, 02:52 PM
BTW he ( the young Pastor ) taught that other leaders such as Billy Grahm, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley and many other men of God were " Wrong " he also would put down other Born Again Christian denominations. We would joke saying " IFB " are going to be awfully surprised when they go to heaven to see so many other denominations of people there. They are going to stay in their LITTLE and I mean LITTLE corner and never mingle with any of them, just their little group since they were the true Seperate HOLY ones.

Here are a few defenitions of a CULT sorry to say both IFBC we went to had these same problems.


Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

RightFromWrong
08-09-2005, 02:57 PM
Now compare what I said in my true story to some of the things mentioned about cults you will find lots of similarities.

I rest my case smile.gif

robycop3
08-09-2005, 08:15 PM
I know whatcha mean about cults. In my BC days, some moonies tried to recruit me, and I pulled some heat and said that's what I had for their guru Sunny Junk Moonshine if I got the chance, but THEY'D do as subs if they hung around another 5 seconds.(I was a VERY violent person before I submitted to Christ & He corrected me.)

However, while a new Christian, I almost got sucked into Herbie Armstrong's cult, "Worldwide Church of God". No threats, no coercion, just a pack of cleverly-disguised lies made from partial Scripture quotes and fabricated history. The HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to open my eyes by making me read about Herbie's annihilationism, while reminding me it's a false doctrine pushed by the Jehovah False Witlesses & 7th Day Ad-libbers among others.

To "civilized" peoples who've had the Gospel preached to them for centuries, those pseudo-Christian cults are the most dangerous of all, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it".

Seems the moonies, Hare Krishnas, Rosicrucians, Flower Children, etc. have died down considerably in America, while Maiatreya(sic) and a few others have never caught on here.(Beware of Quinn The Eskimo!) But we must be aware of all the little local cultettes that have sprung up. "Heaven's Gate" is an example of such.

The armor and the sword of God, which one acquires through diligent Bible study along with fervent prayer, can make anyone cult-proof. If we lead someone to Christ, we should follow up to keep this person from straying into the wide world of cults while they grow in Christ.

David Ekstrom
08-09-2005, 09:49 PM
We're getting off the point about Hyles specifically. As a 1983 grad of Hyles-Anderson College, I saw the evolution of Hyles. I idolized him in my youth. But I have come to see that he is no pattern for a Christian pastor.
HAC is the most legalistic cult one could imagine. I learned next to nothing there from Scripture. The classes were a joke. We were there to be worker bees for the bus ministry. And don't get me started as to the mess that was! And don't get me started about all the people supposedly saved and baptized there.
I wouldn't recommend a young person to go to HAC if they paid him to go there. Don't waste the best years of your life building an empire for egotistical humbugs.

Soulman
08-11-2005, 04:13 AM
I apologize for not reading every single post here but I don't have time right now. I will add my 2 cents worth.

We need to be careful before we destroy a man's reputation after he has passed on. Obviously he was only a man and therefore could not perfectly interpret every aspect of scripture any more than the rest of us.

I believe the KJV to be God's preserved word as well. But I also believe people can be saved through other versions. I believe that most translations doctrines are intact.

But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved.

If his stance on the KJV was flawed it doesn't change a thing as far as someones getting saved. In other words, if a man was led to Christ with the KJV, it was valid. It didn't matter if that person didn't believe the N.I.V. to be the word of God. All the KJV haters cannot dispute that the KJV is and always has been the Word of God. It has been the other versions that have had the burden to prove they are up to the KJV for accuracy and longevity.

I believe Jack Hyles was a flawed but used of God man. I think we all fit that catagory.

4His_glory
08-11-2005, 10:40 AM
We need to be careful before we destroy a man's reputation after he has passed on. Obviously he was only a man and therefore could not perfectly interpret every aspect of scripture any more than the rest of us. Jack Hyles destoryed his own reputation by his foolish actions. Pointing out what is public fact is doing no more damage to him. He is already dead anyhow.

Yes he was a man, but a man with a tremendous amount of responsability, which he abused. He therefore is worse than other men for the spiritual destruction he caused in the lives of many.

But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved. If a ministry is error, there is nothing wrong with exposing it for the protection of others. This is comendable.

His church was sucessful by man's terms not God's. The methods used by Hyles certainly were not pleasing to God. The ends never justify the means.

As to thousands of souls saved, that is not a proven fact. Hyles "easy believism" more than likely gave many a false assurance of salvation and further blinded them to the truth.

I believe Jack Hyles was a flawed but used of God man. I think we all fit that catagory. This does not justify Jack's flawlessnes. God used Judas for His purposes too. Jack Hyles ministry was not the example of what a good church should look like. May we learn from and avoid his many errors.

LarryN
08-11-2005, 12:09 PM
But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved.
Why is it that Hyles' supporters will so frequently revert to these types of statements in regards to Hyles' ministry, but yet seem to absolutely refuse to extend the courtesy which they expect to the ministries of others?

The last two sentences that Soulman writes above could also be said about men such as Rick Warren or FBC Hammond's Chicago-area neighbor Bill Hybels- yet these men's ministries are the object of almost universal derision & scorn among Hylesites. Thousands have also been saved through the decades-long ministry of Billy Graham; yet I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any positive summaries of Graham among those who are within the Hyles camp.

The largest church in America at the moment is pastored by Joel Osteen. 57,000 people were in attendance for Lakewood Church's recent opening weekend services in their new 16,000 seat auditorium: Houston's former Compaq Center arena. Because he pastors the largest, most "successful" church in the country- should that mean that nobody should have any basis for critiquing either him or his ministry?

All about Grace
08-11-2005, 01:26 PM
Good observation Larry.

Paul33
08-11-2005, 06:25 PM
God can use an "ass" (KJV) too, but it doesn't mean I want to be one or emulate one!

David Ekstrom
08-11-2005, 11:42 PM
Jack Hyles was self-obsessed. His preaching was unbiblical. His leadership was abusive. His doctrines were in serious error. His ministries were more hype than substance. Reports on conversions and attendance were so grossly exaggerated that they are more lie than anything else. I'm not saying this because I want to rant against a dead man. I hope that others will not follow his example.

RightFromWrong
08-12-2005, 01:42 AM
AMEN Larry

Soulman
08-12-2005, 02:55 AM
Just so you know, I am not a Hyles man. I just watch as people judge and derail a man no longer here to defend himself. Take anyones ministry and you will find it flawed. If you find a perfect church ya better not join it.

Not trying to start an argument. Just amazed at the wolf pack mentality of this board. If this board is a true representation of baptists then where are the Hyles supporters. Lets get some two sided debate going.

Charles Meadows
08-12-2005, 08:05 AM
Soulman,

Just so you know, I am not a Hyles man. I just watch as people judge and derail a man no longer here to defend himself. Take anyones ministry and you will find it flawed. If you find a perfect church ya better not join it.

Just curious...

Would you also defend Billy Graham?

Squire Robertsson
08-12-2005, 11:24 AM
Regretfully, we have a problem with letting the dead bury the dead in this case. There are those who are continueing to follow the methods and philosophies promulgated by Brother Hyles. And in many situations, the ratioanale is: "This is the way it was done at FBC-Hammond." or "This is the way Brother Hyles did it." In other words, while the man is dead, his legacy lives on.

robycop3
08-12-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
Regretfully, we have a problem with letting the dead bury the dead in this case. There are those who are continueing to follow the methods and philosophies promulgated by Brother Hyles. And in many situations, the ratioanale is: "This is the way it was done at FBC-Hammond." or "This is the way Brother Hyles did it." In other words, while the man is dead, his legacy lives on. Yeah, we couldn't get the same good fortune the world had after Herbie Armstrong croaked. Looks as if his WWCOG is becoming legit, even following many Baptist practices. Seems as if their 7th Day Adventist/Universalist heresy is over and done.

PRAISE THE LORD!

Now, if people would leave HYLES in the ground....

Paul33
08-12-2005, 04:51 PM
Would you like to judge the honesty of Hyles' ministry?

He claims he preached 50,000 sermons! That's 1000 sermons a year for 50 years! Do the math! That's roughly three sermons a day, every day, for fifty years!

The man was a liar. There is no way one can get around this fact.

Squire Robertsson
08-12-2005, 05:13 PM
I view this situation much like a war. The primary conflict is over. The dead are dead and buried. However, there are still land mines and unexploded ordinance in the ground waiting to blow off some unwary soul's leg off. The wounded are among us. And a piece of military wisdom applies here: Generals want to fight and win the last war. The ACW saw both sides emulatng Napoleon. In WW1, the French wanted to refight the F-PW. Then there was the Maginot Line. In Iraq, we went in with a force equiped to fight the Russians. The same applies here. Many in leadership use Brother Hyles as their benchmark.

That is why the man and his philosophy of ministry still matter even after his death.

ccrobinson
08-12-2005, 07:11 PM
Indeed it does matter, and not just because many of us have serious concerns about the ministry of the late Jack Hyles. The bigger concern is the impact he and his ministry had on FBC/HAC and fundamentalism, and what the impact is today.

A team from FBC was at my church recently and there were some things brought out that made me question there credibility. There were rhetorical questions asked like where would fundamentalism be but for Jack Hyles. Wouldn't it be wherever God wanted it to be? It just seems to me that the majority of HAC/FBC folks are giving Jack Hyles credit for what God has done.

A statement was also made that FBC has a goal of 25,000 baptisms in one year and they were well on their way to meeting that goal. Assuming the traditional Baptist practice of Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday night services, they would have to baptize an average of 160 every service to reach the goal. That's an astounding number to me.

I've never been to FBC, so maybe they have a good number of baptistries and an incredible system for making them happen quickly. If the building had 8 baptristies, and each baptism took 1 minute from the time the new believer got in the water and out, and they used all the baptristies every week, it is possible that an average of 160 people could get baptized every single week. Is it me, or does that seem like an unrealistic number? Things like that continue to call into question the credibility of FBC.

Again, what Jack Hyles was about should be questioned because he still has an impact on FBC/HAC and fundamentalism, though he's been dead for 4 years now.

Paul33
08-12-2005, 09:14 PM
Jack Hyles son-in-law is carrying on Jack's legacy. It seems that he has learned some of Jack's worst traits.

Where would fundamentalism be without Hyles? Much better off. FBC no longer remotely resembles historic fundamentalism.

Soulman
08-13-2005, 02:36 AM
Posted by Charles Meadows: Would you also defend Billy Graham?

I can't honestly say that I would. I am not disputing anyones claims against Jack Hyles. The man's ministry has already been judged of God. Jack Hyles is where he will spend eternity.

It is one thing to discuss a ministries shortcommings. It is another to attack a dead man like a bunch of scavenging jackals.

If you think Jack Hyles was corrupt, so be it. The laborers are few. Mabey some of you experts should go to Hammond and show them how it should be done in a Godly biblical manner.

Paul33
08-13-2005, 05:53 PM
Soulman,

You say, don't make it personal, then you attack everyone who evaluates Hyles' ministry. Now which is it that you would have us to do? If we follow your example, we ought to continue doing what we are doing! smile.gif

Squire Robertsson
08-13-2005, 07:47 PM
And you leave aside many have endeavored to deal with the problem in a non-confrontational manner over the years. However, because of the positions taken by Brother Hyles, any attempts at reconcilation have come to nought.

Dr. Bob
08-16-2005, 01:37 AM
The truly bad theology of hyles lives on in the legacy of young preachers whom he trained or influenced.

His soul winning 1-2-3-pray-after-me technique will result in more people THINKING they are born again and on their way to hell than any other false teaching short of infant baptism.

Lying, personal indiscretions, justifying and applauding convicted child molestors . . man, it is sickening.

And my disdain for the false "kjvonly" is only heightened by his position of requiring it for salvation.

But the worst condemnation is his praise and defense of his son. Dave is a whoremonger of the most vile type (I will NOT detail the adultery and abuse). You cannot imagine a "christian" much less a pastor conducting a life such as Dave. But Jack lied to cover for him, would not admit his sin, and said his son was the best Christian he ever knew.

THAT is the legacy most disgraceful. Vile practice and vile theology and a reproach on the name of Christianity, much less Fundamentalism.

AVL1984
08-16-2005, 07:07 AM
And the legacy lives on in his SIL...shameful.

Paul33
08-16-2005, 12:33 PM
Dr. Bob wins the Cliff Notes Award!

All one would ever need to know about the lifestyle and beliefs of Dr. Where Would Fundamentalism Be Without Me Hyles.

FundamentalDan
08-16-2005, 12:57 PM
Doc,

Here is a quote from a message that he preached. I actually liked the message up until the point that he said this, "Sometimes I think that God feels how I felt..." He was talking about being disappointed, but I was struck by how low his view of God was. We should not ever compare ourselves to God, and when we do, we think way too much of ourselves. Maybe I am overreacting to that statement, but it bothered me. And that tape was from the year 1981. Perhaps a lot that followed had to do with that view of God that was accidentally (I believe) expressed.

ChrisTag
08-16-2005, 01:38 PM
You know Dan, I have noticed that, among the HAC grads that I know, many have that same low view of God. I think it's an over-emphasis on Christ's humanity.

I don't know about you, but I need to know that Christ is so far above me and my ways. If not, I won't fear Him, follow Him, or faith Him.

AVL1984
08-16-2005, 04:14 PM
Hey, Dan...Didn't see you there!

Chris I agree with you...if God feels like we feel, I don't think I would be able to serve Him. It would be awfully hard. I know he was tempted in all points like we are in Christ Jesus in the form of a man, but other than that...no way.

HAC grads are notorious for trying to bring God down to the lowest human denominator.

Soulman
08-17-2005, 01:42 AM
Quoted by Dr. Bob: His soul winning 1-2-3-pray-after-me technique will result in more people THINKING they are born again and on their way to hell than any other false teaching short of infant baptism.

At least the 1-2-3 folks are giving the gospel attempting to do God's will, while it is the Calvanists' who sit on their duffs and do nothing because they are chosen. They think they are saved too.

Charles E Smith
08-17-2005, 02:28 AM
I agree Soulman.There are somethings I disagree with Hyles on but I loved his emphasis on soul winning. It's people like Dr.Bob and some of the folks on the FFF that turn me off more from Calvinism then anything John Calvin ever said. If they were more like Spurgeon and Whitefield and less like pharisees I might consider becoming a Calvinist!

Remnant
08-17-2005, 02:53 AM
Dear Folks,

I am 36. When I was 7 my parents got caught up in "Pastor-Worship". This occurred when they attended Pastor's School in 1978. Our lives were scarred forever when we began following our local Pastor at the command of brother Hyles.

Lets not worry about what Brother Hyles said. He was a good friend and colleague of my mentor and Pastor. However he was a man and quite obviously fallible and sinful as the rest of us are.

Let us "look(ing) unto Jesus the Author & Finisher of our Faith" and stop this meaningless thread.

Love in Christ to all his chosen ones. Remnant

Remnant
08-17-2005, 03:14 AM
Mr. Soul man, is quite right that the "easy believism" is a sham in my humble opinion and in the righteous opinion of God's Holy Word.

But please understand I was saved under Hyles ministry, you don't get more "easy beleivism" than that. ButIn that day the Word of God was read, and God reached down in His Mighty Power and set my feet on a rock even in the midst of darkness and legalism. Even Charles Spurgeon agreed that the Baxterions had some true converts. (may I suggest a study of their doctrine would show that their doctrinal stand on salvation is not much different than our present day Independant Baptist doctrine?)

Only the preaching of the Word is necessary with its power to transform a soul. Just like when God breathed into Adam the breath of life. In its wake follows a flood of faith, belief and repentance...all of which are gifts from on high. Hallelujah! Ephesians 2:8, Phil 1:29, 2Tim 2:25

Dr. Bob
08-17-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Soulman:
At least the 1-2-3 folks are giving the gospel attempting to do God's will, while it is the Calvanists' who sit on their duffs and do nothing because they are chosen. They think they are saved too. Foolish talk. I don't know a single person who is reformed that does not actively share the Good News. You argument is a fatuous as your stereotype.

BTW, the 1-2-3 Gospel is NOT the Gospel of the New Testament. It is a false Gospel that deceives people into believing "decisionsism" instead of all God's sufficient grace to do HIS work, not man's.

Dr. Bob
08-17-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Charles E Smith:
It's people like Dr.Bob and some of the folks on the FFF that turn me off more from Calvinism then anything John Calvin ever said. If they were more like Spurgeon and Whitefield and less like pharisees I might consider becoming a Calvinist! No fear, Bro Smith, about becoming a Calvinist. You are not worthy of the name. Wallow in your finneyesque man-centric religion while Calvinists rejoice in a Sovereign God.

The modern cult of "soul winning" has replaced biblical preaching/teaching and holy Spirit conversion in many ifb churches. Sadly.

The demons believe. Believing is not enough. But then, you do know the NT is way more than the 1-2-3, right?

David Ekstrom
08-17-2005, 05:47 PM
As a HAC grad, I concur that HAC teaches, because Hyles taught, a very low view of God. Actually, they taught a very high view of Hyles which amounts to the same thing. At Hyles funeral it was stated that Hyles could remember so many people because he walked with God so closely for so long that he was like God, and of course,
God remembers people. This was said by Ray Young, one of the associate pastors of the church and a leader of HAC. BTW, Dave Hyles also spoke at that meeting. He said that his father never got discouraged because he lived above the clouds.
Wonderful fundamental Baptist doctrine, don't you think?

Soulman
08-18-2005, 03:48 AM
Posted by Dr. Bob: Foolish talk. I don't know a single person who is reformed that does not actively share the Good News. You argument is a fatuous as your stereotype.

Then you don't know many. I was a Calvanist for years. Although they may share the gospel with visitors amd aquaintainces, very few would actually go out into the world and share the gospel. They figured that God would save whom He will.

Posted by Dr. Bob:BTW, the 1-2-3 Gospel is NOT the Gospel of the New Testament. It is a false Gospel that deceives people into believing "decisionsism" instead of all God's sufficient grace to do HIS work, not man's.

The bible teaches that it is our decision Dr. Bob. Christ is the second Adam and we all have the same choice as Adam did to serve God or not.

It is God's grace that saves through faith which is the substance of things hoped for. Trust and hope are concious decisions made with a free will!

Posted by Dr. Bob: No fear, Bro Smith, about becoming a Calvinist. You are not worthy of the name. Wallow in your finneyesque man-centric religion while Calvinists rejoice in a Sovereign God.

When you don't have any real ammo to fight with it is nice to see that you can at least be condesending. The bible is clear. Calvanists have muddied the waters and hurt the intent of the Great Commission. :D

C4K
08-18-2005, 04:37 AM
Let us keep this thread on topic please.

We have a forum for discussing Calvinism.

Thanks

Roger
C4K
Moderator

Soulman
08-19-2005, 04:01 AM
Didn't mean for that to happen C4K. Sorry.

David Ekstrom
08-20-2005, 01:38 AM
To get back on track, I commented on something said about Hyles at his funeral by no less than Ray Young. You may recall that I reported that Young claimed that Hyles had a prodigious ability to remember names because he had walked with God so closely for so long that he was like God. Young's comment reflects the REAL Jack Hyles, the most self-obsessed man I ever knew. Worship of him knew no bounds because he actively taught and encouraged it. I won't disgust you with the numerous Hyles-quotes that can be cited that, brick-by-brick built the great idol Hyles constructed of himself.
I would wonder how his defenders can defend that.

David Ekstrom
08-20-2005, 01:43 AM
Did Hyles ever admit to making a mistake? I recall seeing in a rag that HAC put out that Hyles was talking about his younger days. He claimed he once made the mistake of being too gracious and slow to deal with a particular situation that required stricter measures. In all the years, I knew him, this was the only thing that even remotely came as an acknowledgment of an error. He was once too saintly and kind to judge someone.
Reminds me of a speech I saw Hitler giving once when I was taking German. Herr Fuhrer apologized to the Nazi faithful for being so patient and reluctant to invade Poland. He waited and waited until he had to wait. He was so very sorry that he didn't act sooner. He was such a bad man for being so good!

David Ekstrom
08-20-2005, 01:56 AM
I had been feeling nostalgic about my days in Hyles' camp. It had been years since I had left. I wanted to see what I could reclaim. I even started writing a book, entitled, "A Second Look at Fundamentalism: Why I Came, Why I Left, and What I Want to Take with Me." (Not that I had any expectation that anyone would read it.) It was at this time that Hyles died. I was saddened and I attended his funeral.

After Hyles' funeral and much soul-searching I was all the more certain of why I left and I came to the conclusion about "What I Want to Take with Me." The answer is diddley-squat! Kind of put a cubash on the book thing.

PappaBear
08-20-2005, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
You are not worthy of the name. Wallow in your finneyesque man-centric religion ...Wow... Admins are allowed to make ad hominem attacks like that here? Or can anyone do this?

AVL1984
08-20-2005, 06:11 AM
PappaBear, I didn't see it as an attack. But, I do find it strange that you would show up here and attack Dr. Bob. Hmmm....makes me wonder about your motives, Brother. Is this what Trinity/Drs Gray and Messer taught you?

PappaBear
08-20-2005, 01:09 PM
Are you following suit and judging motives, AVL1984? I see Bob's example is being followed.

AVL1984
08-20-2005, 01:38 PM
I find that a typical comeback from you, PB. Bob's example ISN'T being followed by me. I know where I stand. And you seem to be standing in a meadow muffin.

C4K
08-20-2005, 01:51 PM
Come on fellas - lets keep to the topic. Even as an admin Dr Bob WAS reminded above of the same in my post above.

They has been a lot of accusation of "heavy handed moderating" of late so I would prefer to let this thing run, but we can't keep it on topic I will be forced to close it.

Actually, any thread on an individual always leads to this kind of general degeneration.

AVL1984
08-20-2005, 03:15 PM
Agreed, Bro. Roger. I assisted in the "bad". :(

Gib
08-20-2005, 03:45 PM
That wasn't a stretch for you Tony graemlins/laugh.gif

Pipedude
08-20-2005, 09:25 PM
"Heavy handed moderating" sounds like a good idea to me.

"An armed society is a polite society."

AVL1984
08-21-2005, 07:11 PM
Gib, as my friend Buffa would say on another board....GET OUT!!! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

I can only give Hyles a little credit...he did get our church interested int he bus ministry along with Jim Vineyard. Though I approve of neither man or their ministries, God did use them to have our church start one. Had it not been for that ministry of the church, my parents would never have been saved, and neither would my siblings or I. I also know several people whom he personally paid for to go through Christian school and Bible college. It still doesn't make the things he did right. It almost at times seemed like he was trying to buy favor with God to me, or had done it to build his own reputation. I can't judge his motives, though on either subject, because I didn't know his heart. I can judge some of his motives by the fruit they yielded.

Mexdeaf
08-21-2005, 11:41 PM
As a starry-eyed, innocent and naive Christian I sat under the ministry of many men who I blindly followed, imitated, and worshipped. It took me many years to learn that none of those men was worthy of my adulation. Some of them were revealed in time to be hypocrites. Other more honorable amongst my 'heroes' passed on to Eternity. The ones left now are mostly in their reclining years.

I have finally learned that there is only One worthy of my unfettetered adoration, imitation and exhultation, that is my Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. All other ground is sinking sand.

May our young fundamentalists learn this lesson much more quickly than us first- or second- generation fundamentalists of the 50's, 60's and 70's did. IMHO many young Christians of that era were disillusioned and fell away from the faith when they found out their heroes had feet of clay. And may I say, ALL of our heroes have feet of clay.

Soulman
08-28-2005, 06:34 AM
The laborers are few. We have way too many arm chair judges. We all seem to have our opinions how to do things. Lets get out there and do it!

Gregory Perry Sr.
08-28-2005, 10:13 AM
AMEN MexDeaf....and Double AMEN Soulman!!!!!

Greg Sr.

Paul33
08-28-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Soulman:
The laborers are few. We have way too many arm chair judges. We all seem to have our opinions how to do things. Lets get out there and do it! If that's true, what are you doing at Baptist Board? If you were out there doing it, you wouldn't have time to post, would you?

Dr. Bob
08-29-2005, 03:10 PM
tongue.gif Paul! Another in the 'dripping piety post' category shot down with excellence!

Fundamentalist1611
08-29-2005, 05:22 PM
Paul....look at the # of posts by soulman, that in a years time...assuming 3 minutes per post...that's 1935 minutes (32 hours and 25 minutes)which comes down to less than 9 minutes a day. So in other words...you have an irrelevant point.

Dr. Bob Another category shot down with excellence.

It seems that all you do is attack Jack Hyles (someone who's dead and unable to defend himself from your mean spirited attacks). I don't agree with the man on all things, however, I don't gossip and cause shame to the cause of christ...there's a fine line between marking someone and flat out...gossip. You also have a vicious mean spirited attack on the King James Bible. Why so much hostility towards soul winning? It's so much easier to just sit down and not give the gospel out and not follow the example set forth by the Apostle Paul. After all, look at what he suffered for the Cause of Christ...there's a price to pay to serve Christ and if you're not willing to obey the great commission (a command of God...not suggestion) than one has no business in the ministry for they are not profitable. All those lazy preachers that probably never put in an honest days work that just simply think, "well if they're elected...they'll just automatically get to Heaven...I really shouldn't be concerned in the matter" Utter nonsense.

LRL71
08-29-2005, 05:30 PM
^^^^

Huh?

No one here has made a 'vicious mean-spirited attack' on the KJV; it's the KJV-only myths that are on trial!

Just because one man, Hyles, is considered by some to be 'great' doesn't justify his shortcomings!

Charles Meadows
08-29-2005, 05:50 PM
1611,

The question initially was whether or not Hyles was as misguided as he has been made out to be. I started this thread because I did not ever know Hyles himself, or even anybody really close to him - so I hated to go on assumptions based on the opinions of others.

If the criticisms of Hyles are true (adulterous relationships, believing that one cannot be saved reading a modern version, tyranical behavior, etc) then he was no man of God, no matter how much time he spent on the streets. That being said perhaps he was someone who truly DID have a heart for the lost and has been overly maligned.

I started the thread because I wanted some better information than what I had.

Dr. Bob
08-29-2005, 05:55 PM
Another "defender" of all things hyles? And (from the name, a "defender" of the Anglican Version, too) chimes in.

All I do is make "mean spirited attacks on Jack Hyles". :rolleyes:

Don't have to. Just post the facts of his life, his ministry, his family and let them condemn the man. Tragic to be such a great used-car salesman and not use it.

And as I've said before, WHEN you see an attack on the KJV or any other translation, please "blow the the whistle" (bottom of each post) and it will report the post to a moderator.

Attacking the kjvonly sect? That is my duty to contend for the faith against perversion of inspiration and error. And it will not change. This movement must be demonstrated to have NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT (not even one verse in the KJV) and rejected by defenders of truth.

4His_glory
08-29-2005, 06:13 PM
Since when is pointing out what is public fact about Jack Hyles an "attack" or "gossip"?

The guy has done just as much harm to the cause of Christ as Billy Graham.

Fundamentalist1611
08-29-2005, 06:26 PM
I am not a hyles defendor...it's just sick how much bashing goes on this board, just like billy graham, the man has faults but whether you like it or not....people have been won to Christ through his ministry. I didn't say anything about attacking KJV-only, if you read carefully, it had to to with the just the Authorized Version Bible. The idea that you have to be saved through the reading of a King James Bible is plain heresy. Ruckmanism is a false man made doctrine. I have no time for people who go pentecostal when a preacher makes a statment about the King James Bible but show no emotion when the preacher states the forgiveness of sin through the blood atonement of Christ. That to me is a sad testimony. Hyles did make that statment in one of his books about salvation only through the KJV....he's wrong...and many of his followers do practice easy believism and they're wrong....and many of his followers only "run" with each other and don't even see other Baptists as "fundamentalists" and they're wrong...but it's certainly not everyone from that crowd that resembles that. HAC does lack in some areas I believe, and there is far too much Hyles worship but the matter has been discussed over and over and over again on all these different threads.

Why were my other points ignored...go back and make reference. (calvinism, and the defense of you attacking a poster on the board with the # of posts nonsense)

With all preachers and Doctrines....study the Word of God...the truth will always set you free. I have disagreements with my Pastor on issues (not major of course), i'm not a cloned cookie cut baptist like so many are...study the issues on your own...that's some advice I must give to those trying to discern truth. Rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Gerad
08-29-2005, 08:04 PM
The people on this board will have to answer for every foul word spoken of others. It seems there's no fear of God here.

Paul33
08-29-2005, 08:45 PM
We must have learned THAT from Hyles.

Dr. Bob
08-30-2005, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Gerad:
The people on this board will have to answer for every foul word spoken of others. It seems there's no fear of God here. This from one immersed in false doctrine/interpretation? Expected.

Why fear God? The second Coming was a hoax and we missed it 1900 years ago . . . or so claim some here.

RightFromWrong
08-30-2005, 01:13 AM
I'm not a big Billy Graham fan, I have personally talked to people who are not saved you can sooooo tell. Who said they went forward in a Billy Graham concert. Billy Graham teaches a feel good gospel, easy believism. Without a true understanding of ones sin and accountability to God and a true repentant heart. How can you get saved ? Billy Graham also supports many preachers who are not Born Again.

He is a BARNEY ( remember that purple dinosaur ? ) preacher, preaching " I LOVE YOU, YOU LOVE ME, WERE A HAPPY FAMILY " I have to admit he has a heart of GOLD and means well. smile.gif

Jack Hyles on the other hand like so many preachers I have seen. Have an INFLATED EGO that ruins their ministry even though they may have started out right. They also have a numbers mentality that leads to false repentance and confessions. So many who " Get Saved " under this ministry real are not saved. I know I've also talked to these kind of people.

So to me BOTH are wrong, even though God can still use them. I just think Sooooo many get hurt and deceived in the process :(

AVL1984
08-30-2005, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Fundamentalist1611:
Paul....look at the # of posts by soulman, that in a years time...assuming 3 minutes per post...that's 1935 minutes (32 hours and 25 minutes)which comes down to less than 9 minutes a day. So in other words...you have an irrelevant point.

Dr. Bob Another category shot down with excellence.

It seems that all you do is attack Jack Hyles (someone who's dead and unable to defend himself from your mean spirited attacks). I don't agree with the man on all things, however, I don't gossip and cause shame to the cause of christ...there's a fine line between marking someone and flat out...gossip. You also have a vicious mean spirited attack on the King James Bible. Why so much hostility towards soul winning? It's so much easier to just sit down and not give the gospel out and not follow the example set forth by the Apostle Paul. After all, look at what he suffered for the Cause of Christ...there's a price to pay to serve Christ and if you're not willing to obey the great commission (a command of God...not suggestion) than one has no business in the ministry for they are not profitable. All those lazy preachers that probably never put in an honest days work that just simply think, "well if they're elected...they'll just automatically get to Heaven...I really shouldn't be concerned in the matter" Utter nonsense. The problem is, some of us won't put up with the continued legacy of hypocrisy brought on by Hyles. We won't put up with the perpetuation of the 1-2-3, pray after me mentality that is still being pushed by HAC/FBCH. We also don't like the continuation of the coverup that Hyles didn't defend child molestors, cover-up for staff who were adulterous, himself included, and his pushing his "son of perdition" off on another church ruining yet more homes! If some of you don't like it, that's too bad. Some of us WILL tell the truth about it, especially those of us who know those who were injured by Hyles. He may be dead and gone, but, his 100%er's are alive and well. His voice hasn't been silenced even in his death.

Squire Robertsson
08-30-2005, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by AVL1984:
SNIP His voice hasn't been silenced even in his death.Which is the reason for us all to keep in mind that our ministry will out live us. It also reminds me of the comment of an older saint, whose name I will not mention, who said I hope the Lord will take me home before I say something in my old age that ruins what I have done so far.

AVL1984
08-30-2005, 06:48 PM
Right on, Brother!

David Ekstrom
08-30-2005, 07:48 PM
The attacks on Graham were unfair. I don't agree with everything he did. I think he should have been more careful in appearing to endorse liberals. I understand that at some of the crusades some really left wing liberals led in prayer.
His justification was that it was not his meeting. The local churches held the meeting and invited him to speak at it. I can see that. If I was invited to speak at a liberal church, or a Catholic church, or a Buddhist temple, I'd probably jump at the chance.
The sermons I have heard of Graham were sound Gospel messages. I never heard him dilute the Gospel. Graham's personal life has been exemplory. I thank God for him.
The charge that some false professions may have been made is unfair. Graham deliberately calls the responses made at his crusades, "decisions." He does not call them "conversions." Whenever you share the Gospel, there is always the danger of shallow professions. Evangelism without follow-up is not good enough.
On that point, Graham can be criticized in that follow-up cards were distributed even to liberal churches. Given that he accepted invitations by some who were liberals there was really no other choice.
But to say Hyles and Graham in the same breath is entirely unfair. Hyles was an ego-maniac and dishonest person. It is a FACT that he covered up for child molesters and his degenerate son. It is FACT that he butchered Scripture. It is FACT that he adopted false teachings. It is FACT that he was an abusive manipulator. Hyles was no model for any pastor. I sat under the man for many years and know whereof I speak.

David Ekstrom
08-30-2005, 07:50 PM
Regarding Jack Hyles, the old saying applies. "No man is totally worthless. He can always serve as a rotten example."

Soulman
08-31-2005, 03:04 AM
Posted by Paul33: If that's true, what are you doing at Baptist Board? If you were out there doing it, you wouldn't have time to post, would you?

Your statement is a joke! You obviousley have nothing constructive to say.

I my friend am out there doing it while you sit around trying to be whitty because you have nothing of substance to add!

Mexdeaf
08-31-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Soulman:
Posted by Paul33: If that's true, what are you doing at Baptist Board? If you were out there doing it, you wouldn't have time to post, would you?

Your statement is a joke! You obviousley have nothing constructive to say.

I my friend am out there doing it while you sit around trying to be whitty because you have nothing of substance to add! Quite 'obviousley' written by a H-A grad. Please do us all a favor, just stay out there doing 'it' and resign from the Board so we don't have to put up with your prideful comments.

Paul33
08-31-2005, 10:43 AM
graemlins/laugh.gif

Charles Meadows
08-31-2005, 11:00 AM
Soulman,

Your statement is a joke! You obviousley have nothing constructive to say.

I my friend am out there doing it while you sit around trying to be whitty because you have nothing of substance to add!

But the question is doing what? If the accusations made against Hyles are true then he probably did more for Satan's cause than God's. I cannot speak from experience because I only know Hyles and the FBCHI ministry second hand.

My concern is that if he expounded a legalistic, militant KJVO gospel (that one is still lost if he was "saved" reading the NIV) then he was a false teacher. In addition he has been accused of having adulterous relationships with staff and being hugely prideful and egotistical. If these are true (again) he was a poor witness indeed.

Regardless of whether Hyles was "out there doing it" - if he was doing it wrong then he didn't do much good did he?

I agree that Billy Graham has caved in to the liberals a bit too much - but I think his heart is 100% in the right place and that he truly has a heart for seeing people saved. If the accusations against Hyles are accurate then I one could not necessarily say the same for him.

So I'll reiterate - I do not claim to know whether these accusations against Hyles are true. That's the whole reason I started this thread.

But if they are true then your defense of him (oh well at least he's doing it) is about as clean as the defense of a pedophile priest who is still ministering.

Squire Robertsson
08-31-2005, 01:08 PM
As to the "out there doing it defense", remember Our Lord said, "Many in that Day will say 'Lord, Lord, did we not do all kinds of good works in your name?' And I will say depart from me I never knew you."

Mind you, I am not putting the late Mr. Hyles into the "depart from me I never knew you" category. I am only saying, from this verse, the "out there doing it defence" is not valid in this court.

Dr. Bob
08-31-2005, 01:15 PM
Some people think Jack was Jesus incarnate. They micmic his words and actions.

Most think Jack had some good, some bad points and they try to "eat the chicken and spit out the bones".

The longer I am exposed to his conduct, theology, son, and now his "fans" and sycophants, the more I fall into the group that wonders if such a person could ever have been truly born again.

Probably was, but in a category such as Finney where the bad so outshadows the good that do even use his name is a reproach.

4His_glory
08-31-2005, 01:29 PM
Some chickens are just all bone.

Dr. Bob
08-31-2005, 01:56 PM
LOL. And some just roosters, crowing loud and parading around the hen-house . . :rolleyes:

Pipedude
09-01-2005, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
he has been accused of having adulterous relationships with staffTo be fair, I know of only one such accusation that had any substance to it. If I'm correct, the word "relationships" should be in the singular.

And there's good reason to believe that that one relationship never reached the point of physical contact.

I'm right with you guys regarding the relative demerit of Hyles's influence, but we shouldn't be careless in our language.

And I confess that I'm not privy to the inside scoop, so correct me if I'm wrong.

AVL1984
09-01-2005, 06:00 AM
Pipedude, as far as anyone knows it was just one lady in the church outside of his wife that Hyles was interested in.

Ask Voyle Glover, the Author of "Fundamental Seduction: The Case of Jack Hyles" or Victor Nischik, the author of "The Wizard of God". Know them both personally, and believe they are credible, especially after catching Hyles in many lies myself.

Pipedude
09-01-2005, 09:17 AM
Knowing what you do, would you agree that saying "relationships" in the plural overstates the problem? Any preacher can be accused at any time, and most successful ones are, but most accusations are void of merit.

Further, is there good reason to believe that this relationship ever became physical?

Paul33
09-01-2005, 09:41 AM
Dr. Bob,

What do you know about Finney that I don't?

My understanding of Finney was that he had a passion for holy living and total surrender to Jesus Christ.

Is there a biography of his life that you would recommend?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if you disagree with him over theology or lifestyle?

It seems to me that it was later followers of his "rightly constituted means" that so distorted the gospel he preached, such as Billy Sunday, and to a lesser extent, Billy Graham.

I look forward to your response.

4His_glory
09-01-2005, 10:12 AM
Hi Paul,

I know I am not Dr. Bob, but here is a link with a lot of good ariticles on Finney and his heresy.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/revival.html

Read this artical its really good:

http://www.the-highway.com/articleMar00.html

This one is good as well:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I hope that helps. Finney has done much to damage evangelicalism and fundamentalism in Armerica.

AVL1984
09-01-2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Pipedude:
Knowing what you do, would you agree that saying "relationships" in the plural overstates the problem? Any preacher can be accused at any time, and most successful ones are, but most accusations are void of merit.

Further, is there good reason to believe that this relationship ever became physical? I believe I pointed out my position plainly enough for you to understand it.

Paul33
09-01-2005, 12:46 PM
4His,

Thanks for the posts.

I've read the second one listed.

I agree that Finney's "methods" can be misused. I also agree that his assessment of revivals prior to his conversion is faulty. Most definately, the Calvinist revivals of the First Great Awakening proves him to be in error.

However, his "methods" in and of themselves are not necessarily wrong. Appealing to Scripture, one can certainly find support for asking another if they would like to "call on the name of the Lord?"

"Methods" were over-stated in Finney's meetings, but the lack of "methods" is also over-stated among some Calvinists.

Finney's life was characterized by holiness and walking with God. However, his "methods" created an opportunity for the less "sanctified" to abuse his methods. Ultimately, towards the end of Billy Sunday's career, we see this abuse fully implemented.

In any evangelistic effort their is a risk of "picking" green fruit. This is a serious problem. But if we truly believe that the elect are chosen by God before the foundation of the world, our witness to the lost needs to be clear and bold. The results are up to God.

Slamming Finney for all that is wrong with modern evangelism is, IMO, going too far.

The proof of true conversion is: 1) looking to Jesus (Calvin); 2) the inner witness of the Spirit (Moravians); 3) a changed life (Wesley).

Paul33
09-01-2005, 01:34 PM
4His,

I've just read another article on Finney from one of your posts.

I will read his Systematic Theology and Memoirs for myself.

But what I've read so far, if true, paints Finney as an heretic.

I'm not suggesting that Moody, Sunday, or Graham are heretics for using some of his methods. But clearly Finney did not hold to orthodox Christianity (both Arminian and Calvinistic) that his forebears lived and taught.

I especially found interesting the connenction between his views on depravity and regeneration and the corresponding need to emphasize perfectionism.

I believe when a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that person's life is changed and transformed!

David Ekstrom
09-01-2005, 10:23 PM
Back to Hyles. I disassociated myself with him at the time the scandal broke out, but not because of the scandal itself. I have spoken with the woman's husband and he is convinced that there was adultery, but that hasn't been proven. I disassociated myself with Hyles because I finally saw how the worship and adoration of this man was so wrong. I saw that he fostered it. I saw him tell lies. I saw him cover-up for his degenerate son, to the hurt of many, many people. I saw him cover-up for a convicted pedophile. Then I saw him rewrite his theology as an attempt to deflect the criticism of his ungodly leadership. He actually claimed that the attacks done on him were done because he was the true heir of fundamentalism and his detractors wanted to change historic fundamentalism. It is at that time he adopted the "blood, the book and the bride" nonsense, things he openly criticized before. He was a man of no integrity and horrific ego. Whether or not he was also an adulterer is irrelevant. I am a HAC grad who saw these things with my own eyes. This is not second hand knowledge.

Pipedude
09-02-2005, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:
I will read his Systematic Theology and Memoirs for myself.I read his ST while in college. In fact, I crawled through it line by line one summer. It's a long pull, I warn you. C. Hodge said that it was "in a high degree logical" and "as hard to read as Euclid."

A new, authoritative biography by Keith Hardman came out in 1987. Hardman shows that Finney, writing much later than the events he describes, used a selective memory. Although the Autobiography is glorious, it has some inaccuracies that will lead a reader astray regarding Finney's theology and the results of his campaigns.

I thought that Hodge's review of Finney's ST was very helpful. I found it in the April 1847 issue of Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, but I think it's been reprinted somewhere.

AVL1984
09-02-2005, 06:42 AM
Pipedude, please, stick to the subject of Hyles. If you want a Finney thread, please start one yourself.

Paul33
09-02-2005, 10:36 AM
Pipedude,

Thanks for the information.

AVL, chill out. Threads often are winding, but that doesn't mean they aren't on topic. Finney and his theology is very relevant to the discussion of Hyles and his theology.

4His_glory
09-02-2005, 10:39 AM
Absoulutly right Paul, Hyles was very "Finneyesque" in his ways and theology.

Squire Robertsson
09-02-2005, 11:36 AM
As for me, I'd rather this discussion stick to putting Mr. Hyles into a historical perspective rather than dwelling on the tawdry elements of his time on Earth.

Salamander
09-02-2005, 01:14 PM
Yeah, but then the gossips would be displeased.

4His_glory
09-02-2005, 01:20 PM
If somthing is public knowledge its not gossip.

Pastor_Bob
09-02-2005, 01:26 PM
If you are not a part of the problem or a part of the solution, then you are gossiping when you speak of it. Regardless if it's public knowledge or not.

4His_glory
09-02-2005, 01:30 PM
Gossip seeks to destroy ones reputation. If the information is public knowledge already, then the individual birngs that destrution to his own reputation.

Pastor_Bob
09-02-2005, 01:39 PM
"Gossip seeks to destroy ones reputation."

I agree, but that is not the sole objective of gossip. Those who engage in gossip are feeding a carnal appetite for information that they do not need to know. They are trying to elevate themselves by making others appear inferior. They are putting themselves in the position of being an authority on the matter when, in truth, their information was received from another gossip.

Squire Robertsson
09-02-2005, 02:11 PM
The problem is this situation is still to close to us in time for it not to take on the guise of gossip. If the same actions took place say fifty years ago, the distance of time would help to take out some of the heat of this discussion.

gb93433
09-02-2005, 02:25 PM
When one is neither part of the problem nor solution it is gossip.

Paul33
09-02-2005, 02:31 PM
Warning others to separate from false teachers is the "mark" of fundamentalism. Since Hyles is the self-proclaimed face of fundamentalism, applying this fundamental principle to Hyles and his ministry is the fundamental thing to do! Hyles would be so proud! graemlins/laugh.gif

LarryN
09-02-2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Warning others to separate from false teachers is the "mark" of fundamentalism. Since Hyles is the self-proclaimed face of fundamentalism, applying this fundamental principle to Hyles and his ministry is the fundamental thing to do! Hyles would be so proud! graemlins/laugh.gif Paul has a valid point. George Dollar identified fundamentalists as belonging to one of three categories (this summary is from a post of Dr. Bob's dating from 01/04/2004):

There are three basic divisions within "Fundamentalism" today - all of whom believe the basic fundamentals from 1895

(1) MILITANT FUNDAMENTALISM interprets the Bible literally and exposes all compromise and error. "Expound and expose." Hardline separation from ALL forms of sin and from tolerance of sin.

(2) MODERATE FUNDAMENTALISM accepts all the doctrines of the Bible, but refuses to expose error, wrong attitudes, questionable habits and defection from biblical discipline. They are not hardline and avoid issues of personal separation. They reject the role of the soldier in a battle.

(3) MODIFIED FUNDAMENTALISM affirms the basic Bible doctrine (evangelical) but bases everything on love and tolerance, dismissing doctrine as "divisive" and have absolutely no use for separation or militancy.

Today we would call "fundamentalists" all "evangelical" in theology. But it would stop there. There are but few truly historic MILITANT fundamentalists still building and battling for truth and against error.

[summarized from "History of Fundamentalism" by George Dollar, 1973] According to Dollar's synopsis, those who point out the errors of Hyles are simply exercising their responsibilty as militant fundamentalists.

Paul33
09-02-2005, 05:40 PM
Exactly. Isn't it interesting that when "fundamentalism" is directed at Hyles and his legacy, his followers all cry "foul"?

I'm just being militant! Hyles was in error and all those who follow his legacy must be pointed out and separated from, unless they repent!

It's not gossip! It's truth telling. Something that even the most ardent fundamentalist should admire!

Pastor_Bob
09-02-2005, 06:45 PM
"It's not gossip! It's truth telling."

Proverbs 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
22 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly. (KJV)

I do not think gossip is determined by the truthfulness of the conversation. I believe that it is in the intent of the talebearer. I can't believe that all involved in this thread did so for the sakes of warning others of this man's false teaching.

Charles Meadows
09-02-2005, 06:52 PM
Gee, I wonder if those who cry foul when Hyles' credentials are questioned would also rise up to defend Billy Graham...

Pastor_Bob
09-02-2005, 07:02 PM
Why don't you ask some of them?

RightFromWrong
09-02-2005, 07:48 PM
I've already posted what I thought about both of them

David Ekstrom
09-02-2005, 09:22 PM
No one can know the hearts of others. It's possible that Pastor_Bob is right. Some may have been sharing the dirt on Hyles because of a desire to gossip.
If I know my own heart, that is not the reason. I am angry with Hyles and HAC and the IFBdom that created him. But I don't think I'm bitter. And I don't post on him because I'm out to get him.
There's revisionist history going on right now regarding Hyles.
So which is the REAL Jack Hyles? The Finneyesque, pragmatic, authoritarian, psuedo-philosopher who could care less for theology of any stripe and was only interested in building his empire by means of easy-believism? Or is the REAL Hyles the Baptist brider, Ruchmanite, and separatist, the defender of historic fundamentalism which he morphed into to deflect criticism?

David Ekstrom
09-02-2005, 09:29 PM
To show how Hyles had his followers brainwashed one must only consider that Hyles did a major shift in his theology and virtually experienced no fallout from his followers over it. He did lead a bible college by the way. One day, it was not Ruchmanite. Then Hyles embraced Ruchmanism and without missing a step, the entire admistration, faculty, staff and student body became immediate Ruchmanites. Did any of his deacons ask him about this change in his theology?
The same regarding Landmarkism. In the early days of HAC, you didn't have to be a Baptist to go there. My Greek professor was shagged from Olivet, a Nazarene school. In fact, many nonBaptists attended Pastors' School every year in those early years.

Paul33
09-03-2005, 02:08 AM
Truly remarkable.

bapmom
09-03-2005, 08:17 PM
Don't we normally consider it a GOOD thing when a preacher goes from LESS fundamental to MORE fundamental?

Yet here some are criticizing him for changing his position on certain things over the years. Wouldn't it be better to be willing to change one's position if God shows you it is wrong, than to be so prideful that you stick to the wrong teaching for 40 years?

Ive seen some take their love of Bro Hyles and turn it into what looks like "man-worship", however, having heard him preach many times, I can tell you that this attitude was not one that he fostered himself.

Personally, I think it came from the fact that his first generation of church members knew him, and knew him well, and love him....then they have kids who perhaps don't know him as well, but see their parents love for him, so they carry it on. Then there is on top of that a third generation, who often are not even a part of his church, yet have had him built up in their minds by parents and grandparents to the point that they believe he can almost do no wrong.

But its not because he ever claimed to be that way.

4His_glory
09-03-2005, 08:41 PM
Hyles was hyper-fundamental and thats never a good thing.

Paul33
09-04-2005, 01:40 AM
The changes Hyles made were for the "bad."

KJVO.
Difference between "eternal" and "everlasting."
Coverup of sin in his own life and those of his deacons.
Fidelity to infidelity.
etc. etc.

bapmom
09-04-2005, 09:42 AM
The first two you mention I do not consider to be bad.

The second two you have no proof of and you are merely descending into unproven, false allegations against a man who can no longer defend himself.

bapmom
09-04-2005, 10:27 AM
Im sorry, gentlemen, after this I won't bother you on this thread. However, to the OP, yes alot of what is said about Dr. Hyles is exaggeration. He tended to write in the same manner as he spoke, which could be somewhat disjointed and not always very smooth. So one needs to read his sermons with careful consideration of what he has said in other places.
Yes, he had some changes in his beliefs, haven't we all grown in that way?
AND, when the whole KJV issue became foremost in people's minds, yes he did change his stance. However, there WERE faculty and staff members who left over it. It was not blind followship there. In spite of that, they left without making a stink because they were upstanding men of character. Im sorry that most of us here did not get phone calls at home regarding it. Perhaps next time you will. The ones who stayed obviously had been convinced of the rightness of their pastor's new take on the matter.
You must admit, this issue did not used to even be any big deal, it is only in more recent years that people have begun to look into it and take strong stances on the matter one way or the other.

As to someone who said "Beverly" is now in Dallas at an SBC church, thats not true. MRS. Hyles is still an active member at Hammond. She still sits in her place in the choir and she even still has an office in the building.

As I do not know those who are so against the man, I don't know that I really ought to care what your opinion of him is. I do know Hyles, and I do know what he taught. This does not mean that I am totally in his "camp" (though I hate the "camp" mentality that has sprung up among fundamentalists), however, if you all were not so stringent about criticizing him none of us here would have to be defending him.

Also, since when is gossip not gossip if its true? Thats a very immature point of view, and you need to change your stance there.

gb93433
09-04-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by bapmom:
Don't we normally consider it a GOOD thing when a preacher goes from LESS fundamental to MORE fundamental?

Compare that to Jesus' critics condemning him for picking grain on the sabbath.

Mexdeaf
09-04-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bapmom:
Don't we normally consider it a GOOD thing when a preacher goes from LESS fundamental to MORE fundamental?

Compare that to Jesus' critics condemning him for picking grain on the sabbath. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you become 'more' fundamental?

Unfortunately, the word 'fundamental' has become sullied by being applied to every looney group (i.e. 'Islamic fundamentalists'). And that is not the only word that has lost it's original meaning- the word 'liberal' has also fallen into mis-use. It used to mean someone who did not believe the Bible. Now it means someone who does not believe the Bible like I do.

Also, what was 'fundamental' back in the 40's-70's has changed from being a Bible-centered standard to a man-centered standard. Fundamental has nothing to do with what you wear, your hair length, or even what version of the Bible you use (GASP!!) :eek:

David Ekstrom
09-04-2005, 06:04 PM
Bapmom is completely in error when she says that Hyles himself did not encourage the worship he received. I was part of his ministry for years and I heard it. Even when I was under his spell, deep inside I knew it was wrong. The man worship that occured at HAC and FBC was carefully orchestrated by Hyles himself.
First of all, he was the hero of all of his stories. If you listened to him over time, the stories changed. For example, the "I'll take the bus kids" tale he told repeatedly eventually morphed into him being so deep in prayer on the streets in downtown Chicago that a crowd gathered around him and the incident was reported in the Chicago Tribune.
He repeatedly told his congregation that, when in other cities, he could boast to the crowds he preached to that if he called home and told the head of his deacon board that he felt they should all convert to Catholicism, the deacon would only respond, "Yes, Father." And, on cue, the crowd at FBC would shout, "Amen!" He must have told that story 100 times. What was the purpose?
We constantly, constantly heard him harp on loyalty. He chose staff first and foremost on the basis of their loyalty to him. His staff outdid one another in praise of him. We were told again and again to listen to whatever Preacher said. "Preacher says..." was the constant thread. No one EVER said that anything Hyles said was anything other than of God. No praise was too excessive.
More significant, there were times when Hyles made serious, serious errors. Like the way he covered up for his son. He never one time admitted to ever having made a mistake. I guarantee that any HAC student that would even HINT of Hyles being mistaken about anything would be shipped immediately.

Craigbythesea
09-05-2005, 04:25 AM
Charles Meadows wrote,

Any thoughts? I guess (based on things I've read) that I've always considered Hyles a bad apple (assuming he was a hyper-legalist). Maybe that was wrong? I have some of Jack Hyles' tapes that were recorded in the late 1970’s. On these tapes he took a VERY strong stand against sin, but I would not say that the messages conveyed a legalistic attitude. About four years ago I heard Jack Hyles preach in a VERY staunch, pseudo-Christian KJO “church” and I was absolutely appalled by both the man and the words that he spoke, for he was very arrogant in his demeanor and brash in his choice of words for those who are not distinctly KJO. How very sad it is that this mans ministry was so severely marred by such a ridiculous, nonsensical teaching.

graemlins/saint.gif

Dr. Bob
09-06-2005, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:
The changes Hyles made were for the "bad."

KJVO.
Difference between "eternal" and "everlasting."
Coverup of sin in his own life and those of his deacons.
Fidelity to infidelity.
etc. etc. Amen, Paul.

We debated some of his other quirky false doctrines (like repentance) but the greatest "change" dealt with his son and Jack's lying and duplicity with his own church, the church in Texas and, well, just about everyone.

rjprince
09-06-2005, 04:48 AM
A web search for

jack hyles affair

will reveal some interesting and well documented scandal.

bapmom
09-06-2005, 09:20 AM
Dr. Bob,

Not wishing to start a debate, but what about repentance?

(I don't intend to defend either way, Im just asking. I believe Ive actually talked to you before about repentance, but I don't remember)

Dr. Bob
09-06-2005, 11:29 AM
Start another thread if you'd like. Better yet, do a "search".

Bottom line is that JH taught (and now his disciples continue) that the only thing needed for salvation is "believing". That the only thing one "repents" from is from not believing.

Lots of verses about believing. But taken as a unit, the Scripture teaches that even demons "believe" in Jesus - that "easy believism" is a sham salvation without repentance from sin.

The hylesish 1-2-3-pray-after-me sham salvation is what is attacked as NOT biblical.

bapmom
09-06-2005, 12:08 PM
theres no way Id start another thread on that! lol

Imagine the chaos!

=)

robycop3
09-06-2005, 01:15 PM
KJVO....An unscriptural, false, man-made doctrine.

Difference between "eternal" and "everlasting."...
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/noeternl.htm


Coverup of sin in his own life and those of his deacons.
Fidelity to infidelity.

http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho1/2003_10_19_archive.html


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:u3TSvYNuZ6sJ:www.biblicalevangelist .org/jack_hyles_chapter3.php+jack+hyles+affair&hl=en&client=firefox-a

These weren't written from hate of Hyles...he wasn't nearly as despised as Dr. Ruckman is. These are but two of a whole gaggle of similar sites.

Soulman
09-08-2005, 02:16 AM
You guys are tough! I will admit that I have read alot of things I didn't know about Jack Hyles.

Thank God he's dead! He tends to take a better kickin when he's down. You've about beat that horse to death anyways.

AVL1984
09-08-2005, 07:10 AM
Some feel that the horse hasn't been half beaten to death. As stated before, his legacy and brainwashing continues through his SIL. It will never be a "dead horse" as long as the same tripe is being taught and covered up by FBCH/HAC. Repentence should be the objective, and the administration there doesn't seem to believe there is cause for that, despite the lives ruined.

robycop3
09-08-2005, 07:11 AM
Does his passing nullify his sins?

David Ekstrom
09-08-2005, 11:25 PM
I could agree with soulman if there wasn't a college in Crown Point, IN that continues the brainwashing of young people. When I criticize Hyles, I don't do so because of a need to expose something that a dead man did. I criticize Hyles for the sole purpose of discouraging any young people from making the mistake that I made, of going to HAC. I also hope to challenge pastors to define the pastor's role biblically. Hyles is a photographic negative of what a biblical pastor should be.

Squire Robertsson
09-09-2005, 01:03 AM
Folks, if the actions of J. Frank Norris are still discussed, why not Jack Hyles?

4His_glory
09-09-2005, 09:33 AM
Good point Squire.

Pipedude
09-09-2005, 12:03 PM
Is there a difference?

rmered
09-09-2005, 12:05 PM
I think that people avoid discussing the sins of Jack Hyles because there are somany people who still follow him. Even his son-in-law refers to Dr Hyles in most of his newspaper ads. He says things like "We will always promote the teachings of Dr Jack Hyles."

I'm sorry. This man has ruined the spiritual life of more young men who I know than any other man. As a matter of fact, the whole movement around him smack of cultism. There is no questioning the leadership, there is the promotion of long hours of school, work and "soul winning" to the point where young men and ladies are so psychologically weary that they cannot think critically or carry on a real spiritual life. I have interacted with many young Hyles men and invariable they "read their bibles" religiously, but when you begin a conversation abut some biblical topic, they will refer to what "Brother Hyles" used to say, or some sermon "Brother Hyles" preached. I could go on, but I have a life to love.

Squire Robertsson
09-09-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Pipedude:
Is there a difference?About a fifteen year gap between the beginning of one man's ministry and the end of the other's. Overall a good fifty year distance. I am reckoning J. Frank Norris's ministry as ending in the late forties early fifties and Jack Hyles in the late ninties. The point is men like J. Frank Norris or "Fighting" Bob Sculler (the Methodist) are still discussed to this day. Why should Jack Hyles and his legacy be any different?

Pipedude
09-10-2005, 05:30 PM
I haven't heard Shuler criticized for much except being an untheological kind of preacher. I've never heard his ethics questioned.

But I had begun to think that Norris and Hyles were the same person. Now I remember--their names are spelled differently.

Dr. Bob
09-10-2005, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
Hyles is a photographic negative of what a biblical pastor should be. Excellent word picture, David. Some find a little good in him (great story teller, great motivator). I take the little good they see and view it as additional negatives - great story teller? No, liar. Great motivator? No, lay a load of guilt and intimidation is NOT motivating.

And all the rest is already "negative". So we teach using him like we use Judas - as an example of what NOT to do, say, become. And pray that we can influence blinded eyes to see the unbiblical teaching and actions and walk away before they go down the same slippery slope.

Squire Robertsson
09-11-2005, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Pipedude:
I haven't heard Shuler criticized for much except being an untheological kind of preacher. I've never heard his ethics questioned.

But I had begun to think that Norris and Hyles were the same person. Now I remember--their names are spelled differently.You may be thinking of the wrong Robert Schuler. The one I mentioned was a comtemporary of J. Frank Norris. In Los Angeles, he was the counterweight to Aimee Semple MacPherson.

Pipedude
09-11-2005, 11:06 PM
No, that's him: Fightin' Bob Shuler--father to Bob Jr., Jack, and Phil. He fought corruption in politics and liberalism in his Methodist denomination, but he wasn't a come-outer. I've heard him criticized as not having a theological bone in his body, but I haven't heard his ethics questioned.

Squire Robertsson
09-11-2005, 11:30 PM
Just wanted to make sure. With the man occupying the platform at the Crystal Cathedral, I wanted to make sure. I can sympathize with a man in his circumstances. There are many reasons why men in the Methodist and Presbyterian denominations did not come out of them. Where would they go?
And who would own the buildings? IIRC, Machen got kicked out of the Presbyterians for heresy. The charge he was seeking to spilt Israel. (Mind you, this was in the mid-30s; long before the State of Israel was anything but a glimmer in David Ben Gurion's eye.)

My point was his name still resonates down through these many years after his death. Can it not be reasonably thought that a man of Jack Hyles' stature would resonate?

Actually, my only contact with Bob Shuler is through his son, Phil. And that's not a bad follow-on to a ministry.

RightFromWrong
09-12-2005, 01:19 AM
The worse church I had ever been in, in all my 20 years was a Jack Hyles based IFB church. Only 8 months thank God !
A cult if I ever saw one. To know what I believe about Jack Hyles, feel free to read my earlier post on this legalistic spiritual abuser.

TCassidy
09-12-2005, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
The one I mentioned was a comtemporary of J. Frank Norris. In Los Angeles, he was the counterweight to Aimee Semple MacPherson. Bob Shuler pastored Trinity Methodist Church in LA from 1920 until his death in 1965. My family occasionally attended Trinity in the late 1940s when we lived in Pasadena. The church grew to over 5,000 under his fiery preaching.

Matthew 16:24
09-12-2005, 05:07 PM
I was a member of one Church that the Pastor attended Hyles Anderson, the Pastor was a dictator!

ccrobinson
09-12-2005, 06:23 PM
I mentioned earlier in this thread that we had a team from HAC in a few weeks ago. During that service, my pastor said that he liked what was coming out of First Baptist these days, which made me shudder.

But, he has gone out of his way, and did so last night, to preach against "... 1-2-3 pray after me salvation." In the past, he has also asked the question, "There have been thousands of professed conversions in fundamentalism over the years. Where are they today?" Good question to those who haven't been preaching repentance as they ought.

So, I find myself not quite sure what to make of the first statement about liking what's coming out of First Baptist, but I'm whole-heartedly on-board with preaching against 1-2-3 pray after me salvation. Perhaps the SIL isn't falling quite as close to the tree as has been previously thought? I have my doubts, but I hope that this is the case.

bapmom
09-12-2005, 06:42 PM
ccrobinson,

Im not arguing against what you just wrote, but how would you lead someone to faith in Christ? Do you believe it can be done on the street in a few minutes if the person's heart has been prepared beforehand by the Holy Spirit?

Also, I do not hold to simply saying here, pray this prayer. I know alot have gotten that impression from Hyles, although personally Ive heard him many many times say that that is not the appropriate way to soul win either. It takes true faith in Christ. But thats really beside the point. Im honestly asking you what you would say when witnessing to someone?

David Ekstrom
09-12-2005, 10:18 PM
At HAC, we ran through the Romans Road in lightning speed. The most shallow prayers were counted as "conversions," and then the numbers were padded on top of that. The same at FBC. If Hyles himself didn't believe in that, he was out of touch with what was going on. In fact, I'm convinced he didn't care. He cared about numbers and appearances--period. The thing was systemtic. It so permeated the ministry that Hyles could not have not known.

bapmom
09-12-2005, 10:19 PM
David,

I understand that. I also have seen that in some places.

I guess Im trying to find out what the extent of your solution would be.

Does that make sense?

David Ekstrom
09-12-2005, 10:21 PM
Another take on the REAL Jack Hyles is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. Hyles would come up with sayings that were the opposite of reality. For example, here are three sayings that he constantly said that were the opposite of the reality.
"I will not use my people to build my church; I will use my church to build my people."
"We have more Bible in the hors d'oveurs around here than other churches have in the main course."
"On the essentials, unity; on the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Those things must have been true at FBC and HAC because Preacher said they were.

bapmom
09-12-2005, 10:29 PM
Brother Ekstrom,

do you have an alternative to how someone ought to win a soul to Christ?

My question was an honest one, now Im feeling almost like you are avoiding it.

David Ekstrom
09-12-2005, 10:31 PM
Sure, bapmom, I agree with you that one can lead someone to Christ on the spot, if the Lord has prepared them. There are a few folks serving the Lord now after many years that I had the privilege of leading to Christ in that fashion.
My only problem with soul-winning is that I don't do enough of it. God forgive me! I finally got out last weekend and banged on some doors. Had one real good prospect that I need to follow up on. My church really needs to grow and I need to step out in faith and witness. I realize that cold-calling is not very productive, but it beats what I'm not doing now.
No, I don't have any problem whatsoever with sharing the Roman's Road or the Four Spiritual Laws or whatever method and calling for a decision on the spot. If you're heart's right, you're not doing it to boast. If you're really thinking about the people you're trying to witness to, you won't be manipulative. You can't manipulate conversion. If we really care about the people we're witnessing to, we'd rather have them come out and hear themselves openly reject Christ than innoculate them with a false profession.

bapmom
09-12-2005, 10:36 PM
I couldn't agree with you more! Thank you for your answer, I really wasn't sure if those who were criticizing Hyles were saying that a person can't possibly really be saved "on the spot" as you put it.

Im glad that isnt so. I go out soul winning, too, and see people saved, though I haven't had many converts come with me to church yet. I have done my best to never ever claim that the prayer will save them, and to point out that God hates sin, and how bad it is. Ive never pushed just for a name on a paper, at least that I know of. I have seen young soul winners do these sorts of things, but we are trying to train that out of them. I do keep their names, though, and pray for them. I need to get better at going back and inviting them again to come with me to church.
That is where I believe I need to grow the most right now.

David Ekstrom
09-12-2005, 11:12 PM
Bapmom, I didn't mean to avoid your question. Our posts crossed in the air as it were.
I'm angry with Hyles but I do have to remember that a lot of good people don't see it my way. I've got to remember that most of the folks following Hyles do so because they love the Lord and they believe that he was legit.

bapmom
09-12-2005, 11:15 PM
Thank you David, I do see now that you were not avoiding me and I appreciate that.

I believe that my own preacher is one of those latter that you just described. He loved Hyles, as they were friends, but I would not describe our church as Hyles-based. We don't even really talk about him all that much. And we do things according to what the BIble says.

RightFromWrong
09-12-2005, 11:16 PM
At HAC, we ran through the Romans Road in lightning speed. The most shallow prayers were counted as "conversions," and then the numbers were padded on top of that. The same at FBC. If Hyles himself didn't believe in that, he was out of touch with what was going on. In fact, I'm convinced he didn't care. He cared about numbers and appearances--period. The thing was systemtic. It so permeated the ministry that Hyles could not have not known.David Ekstrom that is the same experiences we had in the Jack Hyles based church we attended :(

AVL1984
09-13-2005, 06:02 AM
CCRobinson, if Pastor Thibo is liking what he sees coming out of HAC, you need to keep a serious watch on him. Granted, he did come out of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, but I have to say that I would question his theology. I grew up at Faith Baptist in Pekin, and we had many go to HAC who's lives are now a mess. Then my I went to Fellowship Baptist College over at Averyville Baptist Church in the 80's and my wife and I went there again in the 90's. I think Brother Coyle likes the things from HAC also. I hate to see it. I believe David Lynn, pastor of First Baptist in Creve Coeur was a HAC grad, and he seems to be on a pretty even keel. Not all that came out of HAC or were associated with or love it are bad, but, a great majority are.

God bless you my friend.

P.S.- Did you know the Coffrin's...Phil and Sandy? Phil recently passed away from a massive stroke.

ccrobinson
09-13-2005, 01:04 PM
bapmom, that's a good question. If the Spirit has been working on the sinner's heart, then yes, I have no doubt that somebody can be saved on the spot. I would think that this scenario is a case where somebody planted the seed, somebody else watered and God brought the increase. In my own witnessing, I try to get them lost, so to speak, before they can get saved. I hope that answers your question and makes some sense, too. smile.gif

AVL, I was quite troubled by the statement that he liked what was coming out of HAC. I've been going to Bayview since 99 and I've never heard him say that before. The last time we had a team from First Baptist was 2000 and I had never even heard of First Baptist before that. I wasn't impressed. The preacher that day bragged that they had more converts on the road than any other college team that summer. Yeah, they bragged about how awesome they were. :eek:

This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I don't think Pastor Thibo been totally on-board with everything that has happened at First Baptist over the years. I think it says a lot that he's never said those words before.

Pastor preaches the truth and though I disagree with some of his views, like music, for instance, his theology is rock solid. He's been preaching against "1-2-3 pray after me" salvation and preaching that repentance has to be a part of soul-winning for as long as I've been there. I guarantee that if I hear anything approaching heresy, we'll be out of there. I've been down that road at my last church, and it's not an experience I want to relive.

Chris

Yes, I know the Coffrins. Sandy still comes to Bayview.

AVL1984
09-13-2005, 01:33 PM
Personally, Chris, I don't see how Brother Thibo COULD BE on board with all of the things that go on at FBCH/HAC...the i,2,3 pray after me mentality was something I had always thought he was against. He may have just been trying to be a good host.

The Coffrin's were best friends to my mother and father when I was growing up.

Paul33
09-13-2005, 02:07 PM
I have found that if the person "getting saved" isn't already connected to the church in some way (Bible Study, small group, attending worship), very seldom will that newly "saved" individual begin to attend church.

Now we need to witness wherever we are, but discipleship (and true conversion) seems to need to take place in an already established relationship to the church. Without this, the saved don't seem to want to go to church.

ccrobinson
09-13-2005, 02:50 PM
AVL, I'm going to go with being a good host, because preaching against "1-2-3 pray after me..." (a direct quote btw) goes against what I've always known about First Baptist. Or, maybe things are slowly starting to change at First Baptist and Schaap is starting to preach more about repentance than Hyles did.

Phil and Sandy have been, and Sandy continues to be, a great blessing to my family.

AVL1984
09-13-2005, 04:27 PM
If you see her, tell her Tony (Lou's son) said howdy! smile.gif

Glad to know that Thibo hasn't strayed. Now I wonder about Averyville and Coyle...if he's still pastor there.

bapmom
09-13-2005, 04:33 PM
thank you ccrobinson.

You know how extreme Baptists tend to be? I think the repentance issue has caused an extreme reaction in some. I know there are a few who went to one extreme and started saying that one must clean their life up in order to BE saved OR in order to PROVE that they were saved....know what I mean? So I really truly think that some started avoiding the word "repent" because they did not want to be thought to be saying anything like "you have to STOP sinning FIRST in order to be saved."

Does this make sense? BTW, Im not trying to start an issue here.

AVL1984
09-13-2005, 04:41 PM
bapmom, I know of a few preachers who believe that once you get saved, you'll automatically become a totally new person overnight...immediate spiritual maturity expected. What a radical and ridiculous concept on their part. Most of the doing away with the preaching of repenting came on the part of the HAC crowd and others like them. The 1,2,3 pray after me mentality has left more people unsure of their salvation and the need for repentence than any other "doctrine" (false doctrine, I might add).

bapmom
09-13-2005, 04:44 PM
So do you think their radical view was actually a reaction to the "doing away with the preaching of repentance"?

AVL1984
09-13-2005, 04:54 PM
I think it's possible in part, but not probable. Many of these Bible college Jack Hyles wannabe's all think that repentence isn't necessary. I've heard at least three say from the pulpit that it wasn't, but that God would change the people immediately...what a pity that this isn't true. I believe I remember John the Baptist preaching "Repent"...Jesus preaching "Repent", Peter preaching "Repent" and Paul preaching "Repent". Hmmm...Do these preachers have a new revelation? I certainly don't think so. I believe they are adding their own little twists to the doctrines to fit their own wants and needs to the detriment of the lost.

bapmom
09-13-2005, 05:16 PM
So how would you define repentance, if you had to try to boil it down?

I guess I would say saving repentance would be a conviction of the awfulness of one's sin, and the knowledge that that sin needed a penalty. Then the acknowledgement that that sin was paid for, and salvation is only through Jesus. Im being simplistic, I know, but did I leave anything out?

Squire Robertsson
09-13-2005, 11:25 PM
I think it comes more from the wittnesser's perspective. I've always operated under the rough principle of "You can't get them saved, until you get them lost." Yes, Dr. Bob et al. the theology of that statement is not all that accurate or elegent. But, it works as a rule of thumb.

bapmom
09-13-2005, 11:29 PM
Squire,

I understand what you mean, and Ive often thought of it that way, too.

Bartimaeus
09-14-2005, 01:20 AM
bapmom,
I pastored in ST. John In. (8 miles south of Hammond) I saw the good, bad and the ugly. Not all was wrong in Hammond and certainly not all was right either. I've got good stories that I personnally witnessed and bad that came from the "horse's mouth". I must also say that I grew up going to another large church in another location and there are skeleton's in all the closets. I was in the area over eight years. I pastored a small church with no "known" name, trying to do what the Lord sent me there to do. I had another pastor in the area be so bold to say, "if it weren't for me and Hyles you little guys wouldn't have churches". He ran away to Florida when the cops started looking for him for statuatory rape. I knew the Lord would vindicate I just didn't know when, I prayed that He would help me keep my temper and my stomach. Bro Hyles or his folk at the church never bothered us, quite a few times his folk were rich blessings from God. Thanks ------Bart

My nanny used to say if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.

AVL1984
09-14-2005, 05:48 AM
Bartimaeus...if you'd had to have lived with some of the tyranny of the Hyles cult as many of us did, you wouldn't be so kind...regardless of what your "nanny" said.

bapmom
09-14-2005, 09:11 AM
AVL,

I think you were the one who said you are still angry with Hyles? Im not disputing your right to have these feelings, or even the legitimacy of your complaint. I suppose we have all been done wrong by people in authority, even in churches.

Let me ask, though....do you think that perhaps you have been angry for too long? If it hasn't already, this will turn into bitterness. And bitterness is very very difficult to get away from. Anger and bitterness in the Christian's heart very often comes from a quite legitimate wrongdoing on someone else's part. So Im not saying that you do not have cause. Im saying that if you haven't yet, it would behoove you to forgive and then forget.

Please understand, I haven't read all your posts in all the threads, so Im only going by our short conversation in here. But by your posts you seem to still harbor anger, and you did even say that, correct? Im only trying to help, though.

AVL1984
09-14-2005, 02:03 PM
bapmom, I don't recall saying that I am still angry with Hyles. Could you please point out where I said that?

bapmom
09-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Oh AVL,

please forgive me, you're right! I got mixed up in who I was talking to. David Ekstrom said he was still angry at Hyles.

Im sorry! I hope you aren't offended.....=)

AVL1984
09-15-2005, 06:02 AM
No offense taken, bapmom. We all make mistakes. ;)

I can understand some people still being angry with Hyles, or at least his teachings and his continued "legacy". It bothers me greatly that many are still following in the cultic footsteps of HAC/FBCH. I'm not saying there aren't good, Christian people there, because there are. I am saying, however, that the vast majority are still be sucked in by Schaap. With his constant invoking of Hyles name, I don't see much of a change, though many say there has been. Personal experience leads me to believe otherwise, and it is our duty as Christians to warn against the error of 'man worship' and false doctrines.

I'm sure Bro. Ekstrom knows what anger can do. I'm sure he's probably trying to deal with it. It's not as easy to let it go if you've been lambasted by the teachings of Hyles. For others, it's easier. Keep him in your prayers. Many are still hurt, have had their families or ministries destroyed by Hyles or his Hyles-bots! It's not always so easy to forgive or to forget.

Bro. T

Preacher Boy88
09-15-2005, 07:53 AM
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Cultic"

David Ekstrom
09-15-2005, 11:27 PM
Well, I think we've got a semantic problem with the word "anger." I believe that there is such a thing as righteous anger and there is a thing as bitterness. I would define righteous anger as a settled disposition toward evil. I do not think that such an attitude is harmful. In fact, I think that if someone says that they have no anger toward those who hurt them in the past, they're either not being honest with themselves or they are using the word anger in a different sense than I do.
Hyles is not dead and gone. Young people are still being duped by his legacy. That kind of authoritarian, legalistic, amoral, and abusive practices continue in many parts of IFBdom. We ought to be angry at being abused.
Thanks, though, for your expressions of concern. I used to hang out at the FFF and had to leave it. The reason was that my anger was becoming bitterness. That can happen very easily. There's a fine line between the two and I appreciate your concern that I not cross that line.

bapmom
09-16-2005, 12:07 AM
David Ekstrom,

I appreciate your willingness to take my posts as they were meant! =)

I too had to leave the FFF for basically the same reasons. Im glad that all is well.

I still don't know that I can say I agree with the strength of your position about him.....does that make sense? Im just not sure it rises to the level of abuse and amoral behavior. BUt then, Im a relative outsider, not being in the church and only seeing things from the periphery every once in awhile.

Thank you for listening! =)

David Ekstrom
09-16-2005, 12:09 AM
To follow up, abusive leaders thrive on the passivity of their followers. Those who realize that they have an authoritarian, self-centered pastor who uses people for his own ends should get angry about it and stay angry about it. They should have that pastor fired. No pastor who abuses his office has the right to keep that office.
This nonsense about "leaving quietly" only hands the church over to the abuser. I say this as a pastor myself. My service at my church is a privilege extended to me by my congregation. If they don't think I'm doing a good job, they have the right and the duty to fire me.
If your pastor makes self-absorbed statements like, "God sent me to this church," and especially, "Touch not mine annointed" you've got problems. As a member of the church, it's your responsibility to do something about it.
I repeat something I said earlier. The deacons at FBC Hammond will have much to answer for.

bapmom
09-16-2005, 12:15 AM
May I clarify a question for myself? When you say statements like "God sent me to this church" are you meaning in the attitude of "this is where GOd placed me"?
My preacher knows God called him to our church, he loves us and feels that we are his God-given responsibility, and he often says that one day he will have to answer to God for his actions and his leadership....whether it was good or bad.

I guess I have to assume you meant that in a more negative fashion?

PamelaK
09-16-2005, 12:25 AM
Posted by David Ekstrom

"This nonsense about "leaving quietly" only hands the church over to the abuser. I say this as a pastor myself. My service at my church is a privilege extended to me by my congregation. If they don't think I'm doing a good job, they have the right and the duty to fire me."

David, at times this is easier said than done. We went through this with a previous pastor. (non-Hyles by the way) He didn't believe anyone had the right to disagree with him on anything, let alone the right or duty to fire him. When he started to go off the wall doctrinally and the more mature Christians left one by one, we would be "discplined out" for having left the church and in would come more new Christians. Then, more would leave as they saw the light. A vicious cycle. There was no talking to the man. Anger? Yes, for a while, but we're not angry anymore, just sad.

gb93433
09-16-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
To follow up, abusive leaders thrive on the passivity of their followers. Those who realize that they have an authoritarian, self-centered pastor who uses people for his own ends should get angry about it and stay angry about it.
Anyone who will follow a pastor like that has serious needs wanting to be met.

Mexdeaf
09-16-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
To follow up, abusive leaders thrive on the passivity of their followers. Those who realize that they have an authoritarian, self-centered pastor who uses people for his own ends should get angry about it and stay angry about it.
Anyone who will follow a pastor like that has serious needs wanting to be met. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course! They are all sheep needing to be led and fed. Thieves will come in and drive the sheep, but a real pastor will come in and lead them.

However, there is also another truth here... the sheep have to feed THEMSELVES, also. If not, then they are more susceptible (sp?) to falling under the leadership of a thief and not a shepherd.

Paul33
09-16-2005, 02:38 PM
There are also church members who act like Hyles. Despite being in the minority, they throw their weight around, intimidate others, and generally gum up the administrative/ministry process.

Fearful of what damage they can cause, people learn never to move forward for the kingdom of God. It isn't just pastors who won't listen or serve under the authority of the congregation and headship of Jesus Christ.

David Ekstrom
09-16-2005, 05:02 PM
Amen, Paul, the pulpit isn't the only place for arrogant little men to push people around.
I agree with my sister that getting rid of an abusive pastor isn't easy.
Churches need to realize that church discipline is a very important thing. Conditions of abuse do not happen over night. We need to "nip it in the bud," as it were. This is for the sake of the abusers themselves. They don't see their error. Far better to have a senior saint take a young pastor out for coffee and lovingly confront him in the early days of his ministry.
We need to make sure our church constitutions have provisions for disciplining members. We need to make sure our church boards are comprised of team players. Those who aren't need to go. Let their money perish with them.
When people like Hyles are held up as role models, they do great harm. Young pastors think that that is the appropriate pattern for a pastor.
The only thing that saved me was that I was so badly burned by a Hyles-clone I served under that I vowed before God that integrity would come before "success."

Paul33
09-16-2005, 10:36 PM
Amen, David. But what happens when the young pastor has to take a senior saint out for coffee and lovingly confront him in the early days of the pastor's ministry?

Families are dysfunctional, and often, so are churches. Throw in a new pastor, and guess who is in trouble if he dares to confront sin?

AVL1984
09-17-2005, 03:30 PM
Woah...Paul, have been there recently and DONE THAT! Thank the Lord I'm no longer the pastor!

Paul33
09-18-2005, 03:08 PM
For some reason I just keep coming back for more abuse.

In secular work I made six figures.

In the ministry I make alot less and have far more stress and abuse, and this from Christian saints!

gb93433
09-18-2005, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
In the ministry I make alot less and have far more stress and abuse, and this from Christian saints! http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21464

AVL1984
09-19-2005, 06:27 AM
Paul, know how that feels. I'm disabled at the present, but after a church split, took on the pastorate again. In just three weeks time I had been accused of things that I never thought I would hear from a Christians mouth. I wasn't distraught, but was ever so glad when the Lord brought Matthew 10 across my path and led us out of that church. There were some good people there. Why they are staying I can't understand, unless it is fear of the unknown or fear of change.

Plain Old Bill
10-21-2005, 12:25 PM
Be a church planter. That way you can train up your people and create your own set of problems.I don't mean that to come across in a negative way.
When you take a pastorate on in an established church you take on all of the baggage good and bad that exists in that church.When you plant a church you generally get to disciple and train most of the people in your church.You can see and deal with the problems as they arise if you don't it's on you.

le bel
10-24-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
The truly bad theology of hyles lives on in the legacy of young preachers whom he trained or influenced.

His soul winning 1-2-3-pray-after-me technique will result in more people THINKING they are born again and on their way to hell than any other false teaching short of infant baptism.

Lying, personal indiscretions, justifying and applauding convicted child molestors . . man, it is sickening.

And my disdain for the false "kjvonly" is only heightened by his position of requiring it for salvation.

But the worst condemnation is his praise and defense of his son. Dave is a whoremonger of the most vile type (I will NOT detail the adultery and abuse). You cannot imagine a "christian" much less a pastor conducting a life such as Dave. But Jack lied to cover for him, would not admit his sin, and said his son was the best Christian he ever knew.

THAT is the legacy most disgraceful. Vile practice and vile theology and a reproach on the name of Christianity, much less Fundamentalism. Ditto! Unfortunately, my father got sucked into the Hyles mentality and now Jack Schaap. All I hear about is how great of a man Hyles was and what he did and pastor's school. I dug up some stuff a while back about HAC, as DH and I wanted to attend the college. I'm grateful that I found all of that before hand.

My father told me that it's okay that Dave didn't follow into his father's footsteps, not everyone has to. That's certainly not the reason why he can not hold the pastorate. Uhh, it gets irritating having to hear about how great this man was and his prodigy when you know the truth. There's a bad apple in every bunch, and he was a rotten one.

MikeinGhana
10-27-2005, 08:30 AM
"Make your heroes dead guys!" What a truth. They cannot come back to haunt you.

John of Japan
10-27-2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Be a church planter. That way you can train up your people and create your own set of problems.I don't mean that to come across in a negative way.
When you take a pastorate on in an established church you take on all of the baggage good and bad that exists in that church.When you plant a church you generally get to disciple and train most of the people in your church.You can see and deal with the problems as they arise if you don't it's on you. Amen, Plain Old Bill. Better yet, be a church planter in a heathen country. That way you can take them all the way from Buddhism or Shinto to Jesus Christ and then through the Bible! graemlins/applause.gif

Plain Old Bill
10-28-2005, 12:03 AM
There you go!

MikeinGhana
10-28-2005, 06:38 AM
Somone once said to "Make your heroes dead guys." That way we know what they stand for their entire life. Just look at Billy Graham, Jack VanImpe, among others. Praise the Lord for all the good that came out ministries whose leaders ended their time on earth with questionable actions. It just goes to show you that honors His word, not men.

jarhed
10-31-2005, 10:11 PM
It is interesting what is considered "legalism" and "cult-like" behaviour these days. The King James only issue is pretty simple 1. Things that are different are not the same. 2. All of the modern texts come from Wescott-Hort manuscripts. These were two 19th Century homosexual lovers who cheated on their wives with each other (DOCUMENTED), they were paganistic in theology, certainly not born again, and didnot believe in the Virgin Birth, a Bodily Res. of Christ, or the vicarious nature of his death on Calvary. 3. All of modern texts have thier roots (further back) in ALEXANRIAN texts. Origens fifth column or Septuigant as it is better known. If you think Wescott and Hort were bad, just go read Origen! 4. You have to make at least 1500 changes in a text the size of the bible to be granted a copyright ($$$$$$$$$), and therein lies the rub...YOU MUST CHANGE IT TO MAKE A BUCK. We communicate in words, not ideas, and God is NO different (read I Cor. 2 ((KJV...its different in the others...the words are changed so the meanings are different as well...duh.)

Now, as to some other statements of hate and intolerance made in the previous posts: read and heed...God is particular.

NAKEDNESS in the Bible is defined as the inside of one shoulderblades, the skin below the collarbone, and the skin ABOVE the knee. This is not the worlds definition, it is Gods. See Lev. 18-20; Ex.20:26; and Ex.28:42.

Dress standards (we are to peculiar) are deliniated as what CULTURALLY pertains to a man, and what CULTURALLY pertains to a woman. ANYTHING else is ABOMINATION (=with Homosexuality, beastiality, and witchcraft). See Duet.22:5. Note: Ladies in this country NEVER wore britches or went uncovered until hellywood introduced these practices (Barbara Stanwick...Big Valley first wore the pants in the family.

IFB are not asking you to bend the knee to preference...and our churches are growing. But remember that LEGALISM is WORKS salvation, not holding a high regard for the holiness and the particular nature of Him with whom we have to do. We just happen to believe that, just because the world changes, God does not follow suit in His expectations for his people. GRACE demands more than the law because we are constrained by love, not by fear. There is no sacrifice to great to bring GLORY to the name above every name!

jarhed
11-01-2005, 06:35 AM
I apologize for not clarifying my post as a reply to "rightfromwrong" post 848 on 9 Aug of this year in this topic. My humble apologies for this oversight to all!!

AVL1984
11-02-2005, 06:08 AM
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? :rolleyes: Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please. :eek:
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE :eek: asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. :rolleyes: I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!)

robycop3
11-02-2005, 07:15 AM
Sorry, Jarhed, but Hyles couldn't prove his KJVO myth from Scripture, and neither can you. It was men like Hyles who added the KJVO myth to the pantheon of IFB doctrines w/o any Scriptural evidence to do so.

From what source did you find your "info" that W&H were gay?

There's a stronger case that King James was gay, but I don't believe that one either.

And here goes someone else about the women/pants thingie! That is horse feathers! In more than one area of the world, women have worn pants since time immemorial. Try telling an Alaskan or Siberian Christian lady she's wrong for wearing pants!

Sorry, Sir, but false doctrines and legalism don't cut it in GENUINE IFB living!

bapmom
11-02-2005, 09:51 AM
There ya'all go again.....

you guys can't accuse us of legalism out of one side of your mouth and then accuse us of easy-believism out of the other side of your mouth.


In another thread soon ya'all will be calling Hyles and IFBdom easy-believists......like you've done before.......


It doesn't make sense, people.

4His_glory
11-02-2005, 10:01 AM
With all due respect bapmom, many ifb churchs (I would call them hyper-fundamentalist) are legalistic when it comes to sanctification, and practice easy believism when it comes to salvation.

AVL1984
11-02-2005, 01:36 PM
You're right 4His....I was in IFB churches for well over 30 years, and I've seen them co-exist in the same church.

bapmom
11-02-2005, 02:08 PM
no guys,

people keep making BOTH claims about Dr. Hyles specifically! THATS what Im talking about. The idea that people can coexist in the same church with different views is just obvious. But what I see claimed far too often is that the SAME PERSON is both legalistic AND teaching some sort of easy-believism....AT THE SAME TIME. OR that the church leadership as a whole encourages BOTH points of view AT THE SAME TIME.

This is not possible.

This is what we get........when talking to the UNsaved person we focus on salvation......I should think that would be the proper focus as they are UNsaved, right? But then, because we don't tell them they need to stop sinning FIRST, we get accused of easy-believism. We use actual Bible verses to tell people about Christ, very often using Christ's actual words. I use John 3 alot for soul winning. I figure if Jesus used it, so can I.

BUT then when we make an honest effort to see those converts discipled by teaching them BIble principles, standards, how to live according to God's Word, we get called "legalists", and its claimed that we only care about outward appearances.

Ya know what? It just isnt true. But ya'all don't want to hear it. You've decided whats true and your sticking to it regardless of what we who are THERE are actually saying.

4His_glory
11-02-2005, 03:31 PM
Bapmom, again, they are legalistic when it comes to sanctification; that is to say that you must to this this and this if you really want to please God. But regarding salvation they have Finnyism influenced easy-believeism that they preach.

jarhed
11-02-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by AVL1984:
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? :rolleyes: Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please. :eek:
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE :eek: asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. :rolleyes: I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!) Man, this is too easy. Under the law, a man was supposed to obstain from the evil detailed. Under Grace we are to OBSTAIN from all APPEARANCE of evil. The Law demands you forgive your enemy seven times...Grace: 70 times 7. The Law makes you a debtor to man if you owe him money, but under Grace, I am a debtor to all men. Under the Law I am responsible to God, but under Grace I am responsible to God and to man as HIS AMBASSADOR.

I Could go on infinitum: Point is, GRACE DEMANDS MORE THAN THE LAW. That is just Bible.

Convictions are beliefs held because they are commands that God gave. Grace in no way "FREES" me from OBEDIENCE. This is an old problem (See Rom.6:1-3). If I am DEAD to SIN then I will not be offended at a PECULIAR CHRISTIAN. I will not attack him for not looking, stinking, and thinking like the world...as seems to be your bent. May God deliver us all from the compromise which makes the world COMFORTABLE in our presence but truly causes a lack of respect for our God!

jarhed
11-02-2005, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by robycop3:
Sorry, Jarhed, but Hyles couldn't prove his KJVO myth from Scripture, and neither can you. It was men like Hyles who added the KJVO myth to the pantheon of IFB doctrines w/o any Scriptural evidence to do so.

From what source did you find your "info" that W&H were gay?

There's a stronger case that King James was gay, but I don't believe that one either.

And here goes someone else about the women/pants thingie! That is horse feathers! In more than one area of the world, women have worn pants since time immemorial. Try telling an Alaskan or Siberian Christian lady she's wrong for wearing pants!

Sorry, Sir, but false doctrines and legalism don't cut it in GENUINE IFB living! Wescott and Horts letters. They are easily researched.

The pants "thingie" is CULTURAL division of men and womens clothing and I am just quoting Bible. You go on and look like the world...that's your business...see I am not trying to put ANYTHING on you...You must answer for you. BUT why are you fighting me...I am trying to win souls to Christ?

Please do some transcriptural research not based on AGE of manuscript analysis. Anything that comes out of Alexandria is GARBAGE. Oh by the way W/H were also unbelievers. They DENIED ALL THE "ESSENTIALS" (Blood, Book, Bodily Res, Birth, and Blessed Hope)...that is also documented. I would refer you to "FINAL AUTHORITY" an excellently documented and researched book by Dr. William Grady.

Finally, King James did not have anything to do with the translation or the modus operendi of the translation except a decreed commission. It is the manuscripts, the checks and balances, and the scholarship involved. An interesting study for you would be the number of FLUENT languages which the KJV translators spoke in relationship to the number (in total) spoken by the trans. of all the W/H bibles.

By the way, did you realize that the Russellites hold your buddies W/H in high regard, and acknowledge as thier central doctrine thier teaching that our Saviour was NOT, and is not Divine!???


W/H were not "gay", they were sodomites...an abomination to God.

Squire Robertsson
11-03-2005, 10:56 PM
[switch on Speaker of the House of Commons voice]I WILL REMIND YOU ALL. BAPTIST BOARD HAS A VERSION FORUM. POST VERSION DEBATES THERE.[switch off Speaker of the House of Commons voice]

There will be no further warnings on this matter. Any more W/H and KJV posts (pro or con) on this thread will result in the posts being deleted and/or the thread closed.

Robertsson
Justice of His Grace's (The Webmaster's) Peace

bapmom
11-03-2005, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Bapmom, again, they are legalistic when it comes to sanctification; that is to say that you must to this this and this if you really want to please God. But regarding salvation they have Finnyism influenced easy-believeism that they preach. Ive seen this claimed about our circles far too often, and again I will say....when you describe "YOUR" way of telling people about Christ it is no different than how we describe salvation to people.

There will be some who try to rush, but there are some among your "groups" who walk around their point so long that they never get to the point. On the one hand I don't want to rush someone who isn't feeling God's convictions.......but OTOH neither do I just want to send everyone away with "I'll pray that someday you find God", which is what I hear from alot of people who would seem to be on your side of this issue.

Do you see what Im saying? Theres got to be balance, Im sure you'd agree. So while there are SOME who are unbalanced on BOTH sides, that should not define the entire group.

4His_glory
11-04-2005, 09:12 AM
For the record I am consider my self a historic fundamentalist. I have been to the type of churches I have described and they are IMHO not fundamental but hyper-fundamental. Again I can't speak for your church I have never been there, but I do find your church's enthusiasim for Hyles Anderson College disturbing.

bapmom
11-04-2005, 09:28 AM
How do you know how much emphasis we give to HAC? especially since you just said you've never been there?

HAC is ONE of the colleges where we have students attending....I believe we have one or two going there now. But its not the only college.

And we do not hold HAC or Hammond up as being the ideal situation. We've even had kids go there, not like it, and switch to another college, and we actually have NOT kicked them out of our church! lol

I just think its funny that you can say we have a disturbing emphasis on HAC right after you say you've never been to my church and don't know anything about it.

C4K
11-04-2005, 09:30 AM
I have met and know some true men of God who went to HAC.

I do not accept their philosophy, but cannot cast a blanket aspersion on all who went there.

bapmom
11-04-2005, 09:36 AM
I can tell ya why I didn't go there, and it was mostly because of the attitude of a few kids who were on their way to going there, hadn't even made it yet.

But yet, Ive met many good people who went there, too. The truly meekest man on our staff with probably the kindest heart went to HAC and found a very sweet wife there, too.

4His_glory
11-04-2005, 04:49 PM
Bapmom,

There was HAC stuff on your churches web site, thats how I know.

bapmom
11-04-2005, 05:08 PM
HAC "stuff"?

two website links, amongst a list of, I think, six or seven? what in the world does "HAC stuff" mean?

You're sounding paranoid here, my friend.

"There's HAC stuff on your website....." Oh no! What is the world coming to?

Come on! We have a gentleman in our church who has made a website to inform others about us. Whats the big deal if he has put a couple links up to the Hammond sites? Our pastor considered Dr Hyles to have been a good, true friend to him, and thats exactly what Dr Hyles was.

Like Ive said, we don't hold them up as the "Baptist's Mecca", we don't play their church tapes in the place of our own preacher preaching, we usually don't even have their college tour groups come to our church, even though they're only an hour or two away.

But we aren't all "worried" about having things to do with them.

C4K
11-04-2005, 05:20 PM
I agree with bapmom here - the church site is hardly a Hyles site. I have serious problems with HAC and the Hyles mentality, but don't see that from the church site by any means.

4His_glory
11-05-2005, 12:09 AM
I agree it is not a hyles site, but it would be best for a church not to promote HAC in any way. I have know some good people that came from HAC, but they no longer support HAC and have cast off the problems of the Hyles mentality.

bapmom
11-05-2005, 12:11 AM
well 4Hisglory, we don't agree that its wrong to associate with HAC in any way. Ive seen lots of good come from them.

ANd I would hope that that would be ok for us to disagree on.

AVL1984
11-05-2005, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by jarhed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? :rolleyes: Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please. :eek:
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE :eek: asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. :rolleyes: I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!) Man, this is too easy. Under the law, a man was supposed to obstain from the evil detailed. Under Grace we are to OBSTAIN from all APPEARANCE of evil. The Law demands you forgive your enemy seven times...Grace: 70 times 7. The Law makes you a debtor to man if you owe him money, but under Grace, I am a debtor to all men. Under the Law I am responsible to God, but under Grace I am responsible to God and to man as HIS AMBASSADOR.

I Could go on infinitum: Point is, GRACE DEMANDS MORE THAN THE LAW. That is just Bible.

Convictions are beliefs held because they are commands that God gave. Grace in no way "FREES" me from OBEDIENCE. This is an old problem (See Rom.6:1-3). If I am DEAD to SIN then I will not be offended at a PECULIAR CHRISTIAN. I will not attack him for not looking, stinking, and thinking like the world...as seems to be your bent. May God deliver us all from the compromise which makes the world COMFORTABLE in our presence but truly causes a lack of respect for our God! </font>[/QUOTE]As YOU stated, this is "too easy". Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio? I think you're confusing the meaning of grace and law.

As far as my "bent"...you know nothing about me, so you're making a false accusation...typical of a person who plays the pharisee.

bapmom
11-05-2005, 12:34 AM
how was anything he said Pharisaical?

He's right......the New Testament "changed" the law from an outward command on appearance and actions, to an inward life of conforming our motives and heart to God.

its really the direct opposite of being a Pharisee. Grace changes you from the inside out, making the inside clean up first, so that it can affect the outside eventually.

but we can't let the idea get hold that since we are "under grace" that now we don't have to let our outside appearance conform to God's Word. The outside actions are still important.

gb93433
11-05-2005, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by AVL1984:
Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio?
Gee I wonder if anyone buys gas from a company which sends its money to Muslims?

bapmom
11-05-2005, 01:10 AM
gb.......

graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/saint.gif graemlins/wave.gif

jarhed
11-05-2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jarhed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? :rolleyes: Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please. :eek:
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE :eek: asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. :rolleyes: I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!) Man, this is too easy. Under the law, a man was supposed to obstain from the evil detailed. Under Grace we are to OBSTAIN from all APPEARANCE of evil. The Law demands you forgive your enemy seven times...Grace: 70 times 7. The Law makes you a debtor to man if you owe him money, but under Grace, I am a debtor to all men. Under the Law I am responsible to God, but under Grace I am responsible to God and to man as HIS AMBASSADOR.

I Could go on infinitum: Point is, GRACE DEMANDS MORE THAN THE LAW. That is just Bible.

Convictions are beliefs held because they are commands that God gave. Grace in no way "FREES" me from OBEDIENCE. This is an old problem (See Rom.6:1-3). If I am DEAD to SIN then I will not be offended at a PECULIAR CHRISTIAN. I will not attack him for not looking, stinking, and thinking like the world...as seems to be your bent. May God deliver us all from the compromise which makes the world COMFORTABLE in our presence but truly causes a lack of respect for our God! </font>[/QUOTE]As YOU stated, this is "too easy". Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio? I think you're confusing the meaning of grace and law.

As far as my "bent"...you know nothing about me, so you're making a false accusation...typical of a person who plays the pharisee. </font>[/QUOTE]In answer to your questions (1) Not knowingly, and if I find out I am (which I have), I quit. For instance...there is NOTHING from Walt Disney in our house. (2) Only for Christian Videos and Homeschool Materials...the world has nothing to offer me but TRASH. (3) Not very often...I confess to listening to a little talk radio once in a while and some news, but ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE WORLDS MUSIC (I have a new song).

I am not a pharisee, Sir...I serve out of love, not constraint. That is WHY Grace demands more...because if I allow myself to be self-determinate I am being an ingrate and doing despite to what Christ did on Calvary. The Pharisees thanked God that they were "not as other men," while I thank God that I am not getting what I deserve.

Def: Grace. The unmerited (unearned) favor of God. It has the function of delivering to the subject the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what it (I) deserves.

Law. The declared standard of God. God is RIGHTEOUS, in that he is holy and lives (acts or does) like it.

And, my friend, by commission of the NT, I am subject to it (Be ye holy as I am holy), and I STILL am bound to reach the standard of Righteousness...that is why Christ "fulfilled" the Law...so that he could JUSTIFY me FREELY by Grace (Rom.3:24).

I am free from the law as a CONDEMNING force, but NOT as a standard of obedience. You, sir are confused. GRACE is not the opposite of the Law at all, it just makes salvation possible because by the works of the Law shall NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED in his sight.

Please read Rom.6. You are the slave of sin (conditionally) or the Instrument of God (conditionally)...there is no middle ground. This is not pharisaicle, it is Bible. Your position does not change, for GRACE is the only means of Justification by faith, but that is no excuse to return to the vomit of sin and eat out of the bowl of self-satisfaction and compromise.

I am bought with a price...I have no right.

4His_glory
11-05-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by bapmom:
well 4Hisglory, we don't agree that its wrong to associate with HAC in any way. Ive seen lots of good come from them.

ANd I would hope that that would be ok for us to disagree on. We can disagree, thats fine with me. If I am going to be a consistent sepratist, I will not support a ministry like HAC that has done more harm that good to the cause of Christ, I am sorry that you don't see that.

C4K
11-05-2005, 11:42 AM
Sorry 4HG, I think that is a bit harsh.

I am no fan of Dr Hyles, HAC, ot FBH. I have serious philosophy problems with all of that.

I would not condemn a church for their tempered support of such however. Would I go to church there, probably not. Would I seek their support? Probably not. But I can rejoice in the work they are doing for the Lord in their area.

Plain Old Bill
11-05-2005, 11:52 AM
I am just a little bit curious.Does the fact of some of Dr. Hyles activities negate everything he did or wrote. I find his books,specically"Let's use forms and letters,Hyles Church Manual,& Hyles Sunday School Manual" to be packed with practicle useful information.Should I throw these books out or maybe burn them?

4His_glory
11-05-2005, 01:55 PM
The thing is if we separate from John Piper because of things we disagree with, and unbiblical philosophies, then why don't we separate for HAC. It seems like incosistentcy to me.

This is a big problem with in IFBdom (remember I am unashamedly a fundamentalist), why is it we may disgree with the KJVOism of some shcools, yet it is ok to display their information in our churches, but if we display information about Masters College and Seminary sudenlly we are New-Evangelical ( I don't consider J Mac a NE), and worthy of being separated from.

This just seems inconsistent to me.

bapmom
11-05-2005, 02:09 PM
(I don't know who John Piper is, so I can't answer to that, 4HG)

John McArthur....Ive heard a couple of sides about him. When we lived in California we were only about 45 minutes away from his church. Id already heard all the stuff about him saying that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to shed His blood in order for there to be atonement....but then I also heard that he recanted those words, or he clarified them. I don't know either way anymore.......

Obviously you can separate from any ministry that you see as unBiblical. I haven't seen or heard any unBiblical philosophies actually taught from the FBC Hammond pulpit, and this is why we don't separate from them. I think you'd agree, unBiblical philosophies is saying something different than just philosophies you don't agree with.

YOU might have a different opinion on that.....ok.

BTW, being KJVO is to me one of those things where if you are NOT of that belief than you can handle supporting a school that IS. There is nothing wrong with the KJV, and being willing to add other versions to your study should not have to preclude you from joining with a ministry that limits themselves to ONLY the KJV. Does that make sense? The two viewpoints do not have to clash, if you are of the opposite view. Basically Im saying, a kid can go to a KJVonly school, even if he doesn't hold that view, and get a perfectly good education.

OTOH, I understand why KJVOs separate ecclesiastically from nonKJVOs, because they/we see it as compromising to use an inferior version. Im not trying to make this a versions thread....just presenting the difference in the views.


Plain Old Bill, I don't think it should negate his great books, either. We've got many of them....and they are very useful. We've even got some of his preaching tapes, and find them very good, as well.

Joseph_Botwinick
11-05-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charles E Smith:
It's people like Dr.Bob and some of the folks on the FFF that turn me off more from Calvinism then anything John Calvin ever said. If they were more like Spurgeon and Whitefield and less like pharisees I might consider becoming a Calvinist! No fear, Bro Smith, about becoming a Calvinist. You are not worthy of the name. Wallow in your finneyesque man-centric religion while Calvinists rejoice in a Sovereign God.

The modern cult of "soul winning" has replaced biblical preaching/teaching and holy Spirit conversion in many ifb churches. Sadly.

The demons believe. Believing is not enough. But then, you do know the NT is way more than the 1-2-3, right? </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds like the self-righteous Gandhi who never understood it was his sin, not the actions of Christians, that kept him from Christ. If only we had been as pious and humble as he. graemlins/laugh.gif :rolleyes:

C4K
11-05-2005, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by 4His_glory:
The thing is if we separate from John Piper because of things we disagree with, and unbiblical philosophies, then why don't we separate for HAC. It seems like incosistentcy to me.

This is a big problem with in IFBdom (remember I am unashamedly a fundamentalist), why is it we may disgree with the KJVOism of some shcools, yet it is ok to display their information in our churches, but if we display information about Masters College and Seminary sudenlly we are New-Evangelical ( I don't consider J Mac a NE), and worthy of being separated from.

This just seems inconsistent to me. Why condemn Piper, MacArther, or anyone else with a blanket. There are things than can contribute to our study of God's word and our service for Him.

Criticise their errors, of course - but we can also glean.

4His_glory
11-05-2005, 03:35 PM
Thats a refreshing spirit C4K, the trouble is that man who consider themselves fundamentalist do not think this way.

As far as Hyles goes I have more of a problem with what I consider unbiblical, yes bapmom, unbiblical philosophies, than I do with JMac. And the thing on blood was a case of people taking what MacArthur said out of context.

bapmom
11-05-2005, 03:42 PM
yes I know, 4His.....and my belief is that most of what many don't like about Hyles is ALSO them taking him out of context.

4His_glory
11-05-2005, 04:01 PM
Yet I know from personal experience that is not the case with HAC.

HACgrad
11-07-2005, 12:25 AM
Wow... interesting thread. As an HAC grad I find it interesting that so many people have so many opinions about a man that in many cases, they never met. I was directly under his ministry for 8 years and have been influenced by his ministry in one way or the other for most of my life. Do I worship the man? No... of course not. Why not? Because he taught me that I should only worship God.

As for him being unable to admit to his mistakes, I heard him on numerous occassions in his Saturday night Preacher Boy's classes and in chapel sermons admit to mistakes he had made both in and out of the ministry.

I understand why some of you preacher's despise the man so much. He enjoyed more success than you can even dream of so why not try to tear him down? And yes... there is ample ammunition to fire at him. Some true and some simply "well-documented" (in the form of forums and online articles which we all know are completely factual and never contain opinion, only fact). Some of you that attack his doctrine so eloquently should put more effort into propogating your version of the truth than in tearing down his. Then you might enjoy some success of your own and know that you did some good with your ministry.

To answer the original poster's question, here is what I know of the man. He was very generous, he loved God and wanted nothing more than to serve his God in the way he saw best. Perhaps that is the problem... he didn't ask Dr. Bob or others in this forum how he should best serve God. I have met the man personally on several occassions and have listened to more of his sermons and read more of his books than most of the people throwing accusations around on this board. He was a good man... not perfect... but a good man.

4His_glory
11-07-2005, 01:26 PM
Hello HAC grad,

As an HAC grad I find it interesting that so many people have so many opinions about a man that in many cases, they never met. I was directly under his ministry for 8 years and have been influenced by his ministry in one way or the other for most of my life. One does not need to meet some one in order to understand what they teach and their philosophies.

Do I worship the man? No... of course not. Why not? Because he taught me that I should only worship God. Well I'm glad for that.

I understand why some of you preacher's despise the man so much. He enjoyed more success than you can even dream of so why not try to tear him down? No you don't understand why we disagree with Jack Hyles, in fact if this what you believe you haven't got a clue. We don't think that man-centered, ego-inflating, numbers oriented minstiries are biblical, but rather harm the cause of Christ.

I hope to God that I never am "sucessful" like Jack Hyles was, I would rather glorify and exalt Christ.

Some of you that attack his doctrine so eloquently should put more effort into propogating your version of the truth than in tearing down his. Then you might enjoy some success of your own and know that you did some good with your ministry. We don't attack his doctrine, we simply proclaim the truth of Scripture and how it is contrary to many things that he blieved. As far as sucess goes again, you have a very warped view of sucess. I can say bibliclaly that I believe C4K's ministry in Ireland, though it may be small, is far more sucessfull in God's eyes than the man-centered Finney influnced ministry of Jack Hyles. You have no right in judging our ministries when you haven't even seen them. Whereas Mr. Hyles ministry is well observable to all.


It is this type of attitude that I have seen coming from the ministry of HAC that I believe is more detrimental to the Kingdom of Christ than good.

bapmom
11-07-2005, 02:09 PM
Why is it wrong for a church to see many salvations?

It is our job to plant and water the garden, and God's job to bring the increase. If there is a salvation it is because GOD convicted the heart.....
Sometimes the fruit does not show up in a person's life for years afterward, that does not mean that the salvation was a "false profession."
When a church has hundreds of people out soul winning every week, they are going to see alot of numbers of souls saved.
Its unfair to judge a ministry based on salvation numbers versus church attendance numbers. Even if they don't attend the particular church that the "witnesser" attends, they are SOMEWHERE, and God knows where they are.
There's actually many churches in the Chicago/Hammond area, many of them gospel preachin' and discipling churches.
Why do we think we have to "require" the convert to go the same church as the "witnesser" does?

ccrobinson
11-07-2005, 04:01 PM
bapmom, I understand your point, and I agree with you. But, shouldn't there be some sort of correlation between number of people saved and church attendance. If hundreds of people are soul-winning every week, which is likely, I wouldn't necessarily expect FBC attendance to increase by hundreds every week, but shouldn't it increase by some percentage?

I'm not saying that their attendance doesn't increase weekly, because it probably does. Maybe they finished their new auditorium because they are increasing attendance by that much every year. Maybe they have a 1:1 ratio of people leaving and other people joining every year, which is why attendance doesn't increase at a large percentage. I don't know anything about their attendance numbers, so I can't say.

But, I will give you a concrete example of why I don't trust the numbers that FBC says they convert weekly/monthly/yearly. We had a team from HAC at my church this last July. The preacher that morning (just to be clear, he was representing FBC/HAC) said that FBC had a goal of 25,000 baptisms in 2005 and that they were over halfway to their goal. If those numbers were true, it meant that FBC had baptized an average of 500 people every week from January to June.

According to their website, they have a traditional set of 3 services per week. If they baptize during every service, that's almost 167 baptisms per service. If they can dunk 1 person a minute, it works out to nearly 3 hours of baptizing every service. :eek:

BTW, I may have imagined it, but after making the 25,000 baptisms claim, the preacher paused for just a second, almost as if he was looking around to see who would accept such a ludicrous claim. But, I may have imagined it while I was trying to get my mind around a claim of 25,000 baptisms a year.

Anyway, does anybody think that FBC spends 3 hours baptizing every week? Remember that's what they have to average from January to June to get over 12,000 in a 6 month span.

HACGrad, would you care to address this claim? Maybe you have inside knowledge that I don't have. But, an FBC/HAC preacher stating that FBC has baptized over 12,000 people in a 6 month span presents a serious credibility problem because simple math says that it's just not possible.

Historically, from what I have read, this isn't an isolated incident of sensationalism from Dr. Hyles and FBC/HAC. When I hear baptism numbers being lied about, it makes me wonder what else is going on. 25,000 converts in a year? Sure, I'd believe that from a big church. 25,000 baptisms in a year? Not so fast, my friend.

I think that FBC/HAC is glorifying themselves to make sure that everybody in IFB-land knows that they are the "big dog", so to speak. (I have other reasons why I think that, btw. This claim just reinforces my view). I don't want to believe this about any church, but when a FBC/HAC preacher tries to feed me some claim that doesn't stand up under analysis, then something is seriously wrong. This post doesn't even begin to cover my own serious issues with FBC/HAC, but it's definitely a start.

bapmom
11-07-2005, 04:07 PM
ccrobinson,

I absolutely cannot argue with ya there. I don't like the "trend" toward publishing our numbers far and wide. If it isn't actually bragging, it certainly comes across that way.

I don't know how they do their baptisms, but I think they probably also baptize during their bus ministry outreach.

Thing is, a few days ago on this board, it was posted that the SBC had a goal of one million baptisms in this next year, and this was pretty much lauded as a great goal. I think having a baptism goal is a pretty good thing, because it shows tht people are actually coming forward and making their own personal, public declaration of faith.

You understand, I know where you're coming from. But I have to say, if any OTHER church had this goal they'd be applauded as not being into "easy-believism" because they are putting an emphasis on baptisms.

Does that make sense?

ccrobinson
11-07-2005, 04:39 PM
bapmom, I agree. A baptism goal is a good thing. If I implied that I thought it was a bad thing, then let me correct that. I think a baptist goal is a good thing for exactly the reason you state.

Maybe they're baptizing as a part of the bus ministry. I might buy that explanation if it makes sense.

I should add, and this has been discussed in this very thread btw, that my preacher said that he liked what was coming out of FBC/HAC these days. Does that mean that he wasn't so hot about what was coming out of FBC/HAC in the past? Well, it's a valid thought because a team from HAC hadn't been at my church for at 3 or 4 years prior, and the preacher that day said some things that were totally bragging.

I'm very curious to know what is happening over there under Dr. Schaap. Are they continuing the kinds of bad doctrine and bad practices of Dr. Hyles? Or, are they throwing out the bad and keeping the good? I hope it's the latter.

bapmom
11-07-2005, 05:28 PM
I don't know, ccrobinson. But then I don't know what bad doctrines you might be talking about, unless you are disagreeing with KJVonly. They are still that.
Otherwise Ive never heard anything that I would think would qualify as a bad doctrine from them. And I guess Im talking about actual doctrine....not just standards that might be higher than some people like.

C4K
11-07-2005, 05:30 PM
I disagree with the designation of "higher" standards. Different standards is a more apt description.

bapmom
11-07-2005, 05:39 PM
Im sorry C4K,
it is a term which Ive always used just to designate stricter or less strict. We can get to the point where the standard is so "high" that we come across as trying to be "holier than God."

Like Ive said before, I think the Amish have "higher" standards than I do, this doesn't mean I think they're more Godly or more spiritual, or more Biblical.

Its just the term my circles have always used, and so I don't even think about it. Please don't take it to mean more from me than Im intending.
Ive tried to modify it so that those here dont get the wrong impression, especially since now Ive heard that there are people who get the wrong idea from it. But Im not always thinking about that when I write a post.