Ten Most Damaging Preachers

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Here is my list, keeping the names within the realm of Fundamentalism:

1. Jack Hyles
2. Happy Jack (my nickname for Jack Hyles)
3. Preacher (title by Jack Hyles followers)
4. Dave Hyles (Jack's son)
5. Pastor D. Zaster (my nickname for Dave)
6-10. Re-read 1-5.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hostile much? LoL

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

P.S. I liked "Pastor D. Zaster"

 

I'm addressing this to whoever said that Jack Hyles was one of the most damaging preachers. I don't know much about the late Bro. Hyles, and I would like to know what he did that was damaging. I'm not trying to cause trouble, so please dont get defensive.

 

I cannot understand why anyone would want to list names of Preachers that they do not like.
What could be edifying about this thread?
Preaching is not to be a popularity contest.

Maybe some people feed on negatives.
has anyone considered Phillipians 4:8 ?

 

to the people that said J.hyles.It seams now.
that if you preach on sin you are dameging.
i have heard him many times and i went home blessed not hurt.
my thoughts.

P.S no harm ment to any one

 

Don't Forget Bishop Sponge!

I have been in the Whole Faith Movement, I even went to see Kenneth Haggin Sr. It scared the daylights out of me. The Faith Movement is very cultic.

 

The most dangerous preachers are those who proclaim themselves independent fundamental Baptist's but fail to have Godly standards for their church, are weak on preaching against certain sins, etc.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Brother Joseph:

If you are conservative (as I know you are) you need to do a little more research into the CBF. At their recent yearly meeting they affirmed their denial of the unity of Scripture by claiming Paul's wrtings are not authoritative and error concerning women, homosexuality and other matters, as well as praying and singing to Mother God.

The CBF is heretical and unbibical, and has suckered in some well-meaning conservatives.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11248 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11234 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11243 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11235 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=11228<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost all of your posts and links here are from Baptist Press. They are patently false. I was at CBF's general assembly and they did nothing of the sort.

There was no affirmation of anything related to scripture and if you knew anything about CBF you would have known this. Matters of faith, practice and doctrine are not the domain of CBF which is a Baptist fellowship not a denomination.

Had you read anything truthful about CBF you would also have known that they made a very clear statement concerning homosexuality. They approved a resolution which, in effect, denies CBF funding from any agency, institution or organization that endorses the practice of homosexuality. Granted, there was some opposition to that statement, mainly because they oppose an ecclesiastical organization, even a fellowship, making a pronouncement that interferes with the autonomy of a local church.

I cannot speak for every church in CBF, but I have never heard of a CBF church denying the virgin birth, the authority of the Bible, saying that Paul is not inspired, etc. ad nauseum. I do know that my own church would never fellowship with congregations that would do these things and we do most definitely believe in the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and we do not condone or approve of homosexuality.

Like most other Baptists, we agree to disagree on some points of interpretation, respecting also the Bible's very clear doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer.

Baptist Press, an outspoken enemy of the CBF, has proven itself to be far less than accurate on many, many points of information in recent years. It has little credibility in the Christian community, and is not even widely accepted among most Southern Baptists as reliable, since less than 10 percent of its membership reads its publications.

Since you weren't there, and I was, perhaps you could ask me some questions and I could fill you in, since the information you have provided here certainly calls your credibility into question.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by atestring:
I cannot understand why anyone would want to list names of Preachers that they do not like.
What could be edifying about this thread?
Preaching is not to be a popularity contest.

Maybe some people feed on negatives.
has anyone considered Phillipians 4:8 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HALLELUJAH! PRAISE THE LORD FOR THIS POST! I've been reading stuff on this board for a few days and I can't believe that God is glorified or Jesus honored by the gossip posted here, or the vicious spirit in which some of these self-proclaimed "doctrinally correct" people assasinate those with whom they disagree. I left an independent, fundamentalist Baptist church several years ago because of the mean spirited character assasination handed down from the pulpit every Sunday as the pastor raged against all who did not accept his interpretation of the Bible. This mean spiritedness has now taken over the Southern Baptist Convention as well. I feared I was almost alone in thinking this. Thank you SO MUCH for speaking up.

 

The most damaging preachers are any that preach a gospel different than by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8,9)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
John reminds us, I, for one, am thankful for folks sharing about the:
~evil doers
~depraved charlatans
~false teachers
~wicked deceivers
~corrupt preachers
~amoral rascals
~heinous perveyors of error

This is NOT gossip or evil speaking. It is christian brothers trying to help spread the warning about the workers of satan. Get a grip.

Some folks reading this might listen to Robert Shuler and his Crystal Cathedral and not realize that he is so bad. Or Benny Hinn. Or Swaggart, Bakker, Hyles and other sexual miscreants. Or the tragic compromises of Billy Graham (he had his own babies sprinkled and still claims to be a Baptist), or the he/she God dung at the CBF meeting.

People need to know and I appreciate the good insights. Like everyone else, I will investigate on my own, and not take anyones' word (they may have a personal vendetta or wrong twist on things). Soul liberty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still waiting for the "insights" to move from personal biases and personal vendettas. It is quite obvious that a lot of Baptists, particularly the IFB group, are dead set against charismatics. This is probably due to having lost so many members to charismatic churches over the past thirty years.

Our primary task as Christians is not the "exposing" of errors that we perceive as a result of our Baptist mindset (which is often combined with our own cultural background to the exclusion of anything else). We are saved by grace and that grace precludes our judgement of others who are saved by the same grace. I could list several passages in support of that.

And what about the one who saves us by his grace? Did he not say that anyone who is not against him is for him? And his Apostle Paul, who said that he had become all things to all men in order that some might be saved?
And Matthew 7 surely addresses this thread directly. There is a lot of order that must be restored to your own house before you go try to clean up someone else.

When you use a prooftext method of Bible interpretation instead of a systematic, consistent one, you can surely jump to a lot of conclusions. The most dangerous preachers are those who don't get that.

 

Robert, Robert, Robert.

My brother in Christ, you are probably correct with your statement that MOST of the Baptists are upset about the Charismatics because they're "stealing" church members.

But the only TRUE reason to be upset is because they're teaching false doctrines.

Speaking in tongues, emphasizing experience and feeling over relationship, edification of the flesh as opposed to the Spirit--these are things that must be spoken out against, in order to help our weaker and less-taught brothers see what is right.

You sound like Raulf, who basically said that we aren't supposed to worry about anyone but ourselves--and that's wrong.

 

Robert,
It seems you are guilty of just what you complained about in your thread, about the tone on the BB.
Maybe you should reread some of what you have written here on the BB.

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: katie ]

 

Robert,
I would invite you to the following verse:

Not all who name the name of Christ speak the truth, charismatics have made up their own gospel i.e. one must speak in tongues, have visions, prophsy, etc. to be saved. This is another gospel!

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Ernie Brazee

 

Thank you Dr. Bob for defending the nature of this thread. My comments were included here without personal vandetta, etc., rather in response to who I believe is the preacher that has done the most damage to the overall cause of Baptist Fundamentalism. I chose Jack Hyles and his son Dave Hyles.

Dave Hyles preached numerous "revival" Youth Conferences to young people back in the early 80's. I attended a few of these meetings. He hounded us on purity and having pure minds (Even wrote a book on it!). He actually used a very deceptive technique--In his messages on purity, he painted pictures in our minds by describing for us detailed female anatomy, and then talked about the pornography movement. After successfully filling all our minds with this stuff, he yelled at us for our ungodly thoughts and began the high pressure altar call for us all to come forward and "Get right with God". Everyone went forward.

Needless to say we were curious as to why Dave Hyles did not show up one year as the keynote preacher!

It was found out that he had had active affairs with at least 13 women, and had deposited a briefcase filled (with photos of him with the women) into a trash container. A boy in his church discovered the briefcase, and he was caught red-handed.

Suffice it to say that this qualifies him as a damaging preacher.

As to Jack Hyles, there is the old saying that "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree." Jack is the tree, Dave is the fruit. Years after Dave was caught, Jack made the comment that his son Dave was one of the greatest Christians he knew.

In 1989, a lengthy expose on Jack Hyles was published by Robert Sumner, that laid bare the goings on at First Baptist Church, and the accusations of female mis-uses by Jack. A book was later written by Glover that documented the many gross sins of this preacher and his son. In his reply to all these accusations, Jack Hyles evaded all the really tough accusations and tried to explain away some of the accuasations that would be harder for his accusers to re-verify. My belief is that even if only 50% of all that Sumner and Glover wrote were true, then Jack Hyles is indeed one of the most dangerous and destructive preachers of the 20th century.

As to his doctrine and contribution to the movement, he helped explode radical KJV-Onlyism, he sadly moved much of Fundamentalism toward Arminianism, he discourage any form of liturgy from church services by turning services into carnival acts where prizes are given away. He is responsible for introducing fundamentalism to the bait and switch evangelistic tactics (give the kids a hamburger to get them to come to church), and he was really loose on divorce--even encouraged someone to divorce once with someone in mind already that he should re-marry.

I could drone on and on, but you get the point. This and much more is why I listed Jack and Dave Hyles as my most damaging preachers.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MagicDar:
Ummm whats up with Jim Baker being a "damaging preacher"? He sinned, he paid for his sin in prison and he repented of his sin and is now living his life to honor Jesus. I really respect this man, simply because he turned his life around as hard as it was for him he came thru with flying colors. Just thought I would share this. -dar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, if Tonya Harding can't skate after paying her price, why should Jim Bakker be allowed back into the ministry. He didn't just scr*w a secretary, he scr*wed everyone who ever supported PTL.

 

The only thing I found damaging, isnt some of these preachers, it's this board itself.

Peace,
OD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MagicDar:
The reason I won't be reading this book suggested is because I do agree with the theology that these preachers preach. I'm sorry that you don't and you don't feel its biblical but I do.

-dar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MagicDar

I could understand why you would not read Hanegraaff's book, even though I thought it did a pretty good job on the issue of the Way of Faith Movement. Some posts on this thread come across as if a person is lost if they are a Charismatic. I'm not condoning all Charismatic teaching but I will say that being a Charismatic does not mean the person is lost. There are about as many different kinds of Charismatic folks as there are different types of Baptist. Some perhaps do not understand that you can not lump everyone in one pile.

Actually the book I appreciated the most about the way of Faith movement (Hagin, Copeland, Price, etc) was written by D.R. McConnell. He is a Charismatic preacher, a graduate of Oral Roberts, that has stuck his neck out to warn others about the false theology of the Way of Faith Movement. The Book is called "A Different Gospel" I appreciated his warnings knowing he would not be as biased as a non-Charismatic.