Revival Fires

Bob writes:
Revival Fires raised the hackles (whatever they are) on me. They seem "hyper" on areas in which I have issues:

Hyper legalism in the guise of standards, with implication that a person is holy if he/she has a certain dress code, conduct code.

{Since legalism deals with salvation, the only implication this shows, is you don't know the true meaning of the word.}

Hyper soul winning (1-2-3-pray-after-me) pressure to get big numbers, which sadly leads to millions of people with a false assurance of a salvation they do not have.

{Since salvation is the "simplicity of Christ", All one needs to do is be convinced they are a sinner in need of a Savior. Confess Jesus Christ(the Son of God)as that Savior, and ask Him to forgive them, and receive the finished work on calvary as the means of their sins being forgiven.} There is nothing wrong with leading someone to that prayer.

Hyper my crowd only (must believe like I do) and we'll promote your book or meeting

{Since there is only one way to salvation, if your faith lines up with the Word of God, then by all means, they have to believe like you do}.

Hyper KJVO which is a sick sect parodying true historic ifb

{If you are promoting that any and every book that is labled "Holy Bible" is of God, then you do not know a whole lot about the history of the manuscripts and where they came from. In fact, you have belived in a first class lie. You definitly are not IFB}.

It does not matter what one might label themselves, when they post things like this, it is clear that degrees don't really matter in the things of God.

 

No. This stops well short of the biblical prescription for salvation. A person must repent which means turning from something to something. Jesus said to deny ourselves and take up our cross.

Salvation can be over-complicated by someone. It can also be over-simplified by others. Both are equally dangerous.

Many people have spoken words to this effect but never shown any evidence that they had experienced new birth. "Confess" is a legal term. It carries the direct implication of submission to the rightful authority of another in recognition of personal guilt. Confession produces a change in attitude. Too many "1-2-3 pray with me types" either believe or allow others to believe that "admitting something" is the same as "confessing". It isn't.

Nothing except the fact that there are no words that can be spoken that will save you without sincere repentance. Nothing except folks like Hyles (while possibly winning some genuine converts) have also effectively innoculated thousands against true salvation by "leading them in the sinner's prayer".

I don't think that is what Dr Bob is promoting and I am quite sure that he is far more knowledgable than most on the history of the Bible and textual criticism.

If you are KJVO, it is you, not Dr Bob, who has believed a first class lie. KJVOnlyism is not biblically fundamental in any way shape or form.

You said a mouth full there. Dr Bob is clearly "independent", "fundamental", and "Baptist". KJVOnlyism may be "I" but it is definitely not "F" nor "B".

I recommend you do some independent research on fundamentalism is, how it began, and what its beliefs are from a historical perspective. Maybe you will decide that you don't want to be a real IFB'er... but if you are honest, you will not doubt Dr Bob's credentials as a historical IFB'er.

 

"Hyer..." I agree with you, Bob!

 

Scott writes:
Jesus said to deny ourselves and take up our cross
-------------------------------------------------
What does that have to do with salvation. Nothing! You say "confess" is a legal term. No, it's a Bible term. "If thou shalt "CONFESS" with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"(Rom. 10:9-10). Maybe your Bible don't have that verse in it, or maybe you don't believe it,but nevertheless, it's a Bible verse, and a true statement.

 

I'd like to see this letter myself before I make judgements on it, but from everyone has said (the critics opinions too) I'm sure I'd like it.
Everyone seems to make a big deal out of easy belivisum in an IFB church. I'd like to know what church they are attending, because my church, and the other IFB churches I visit for revival services certianly aren't like that.
You know during the time when I was under conviction my pastor often said "salvation is one of the easiest things you'll ever do" and I completly didn't understand. Almost every night I'd say "God, I know I'm a sinner, save me." but I never got saved. Why? Because I didn't have repentance. When I finaly did get saved, I understood what my pastor ment. It's the easiest thing I've ever done.
And if someone has a problem with standards, I'd say "READ YOUR BIBLE!" Over and over the Bible says a saved person is a new creature, old things are passed away, all things become new, to come out of the world, to be in it but not of it. On and on. There is absolutly nothing wrong with living a seperated life.
As to the KJBO controversy, I am heartily sick to death with it. I've begun to avoid the bible version forum, because I get infuriated when I read or hear someone say "The KJB is is good Bible, but there are better translations." or that the language is archaic and out dated. And I've heard worse. Now if ya'll want to pick and prod and make comments about my beloved Bible, or about someone who holds soley to it, could ya'll please leave it to the Bible version forum? Someone the other day got rebuked in a post in the youth forum for making a postive comment towards the KJB (Heaven forbid someone would take a stand huh?)and were told there was a Bible version forum for that, so can we apply the same principle here?

And now we have people who don't approve of soul winning? Dear me, what next? Fundamentalists takeing the "fundamentals" from the faith it seems. The next thing I know someone claiming to be IFB will deny the virgin birth, or the resurection, or even worse.
Oh don't I pray America's Baptists today would get some of that backbone, that unwavering stand for truth that our New Testement forefathers had!
Have we lost our fire? our stand for truth? Are we to become the church of Laodicea?
And before someone gets all riled up about something I said, remember, if you've got the right to criticize my beliefs I have the right to stand for them.
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

You GO sister Abby!
We are definately on the same page!
It seems like it is o.k. to stomp on everyting and stand for nothing! Then if you have any "standards" your automatically a legalist and MUST not have any education or read the Bible for yourself..... we are labeled as having some 2 bit preacher(with no education either)who only preaches whatever takes his fancy for the week! You should have seen the posts after, God forbid, I took a stand AGAINST Harry Potter!?
Such comments as... "seems to be the norm nowadays", and remarks about what kind of Preacher I follow. My favorite is "Yes,the Bible says BUT,....." You can pretty much ignore the rest to follow. The BIBLE says..PERIOD. Final Authority-GOD.
In Christ, Peggy

 

Abby, you need to grip reality and not this misguided idea about truth.

1. The fundamentalists used the American Standard Version because they thought it was superior to the KJV. That was back in the 1920s. Did you know that? Probably not. You have probably been fed the mindless drivel that "real fundamentalists use the KJV". Completely bogus.

2. Since this is the fundamentalist forum, I am others will continue to point out the above fact because of the KJVO sect that means to undermine biblical authority.

3. I am a dyed in the wool fundamentalist. When people on here mention soul-winning, they are meaning the Jack Hyles kind. That is unbiblical and should be completely rejected. I encourage you to study the Scriptures and demonstrate a hyles mentality in the New Testament. It just isn't there.

4. Strict standards may or may not be good. That doesn't make a person a more legitimate fundamentalist.

Let us push ourselves toward maturity (me too), and grow in truth, not fabrications.

 

Your disagreement is with Jesus and God's inspired writers of the NT, not me.

Faith that does not manifest itself in action is "dead" according to James. Paul's epistles spend much time describing the characteristics of a real believer.

Both the original word and the English word are legal terms. Paul uses the word for that exact impact. Not only must one "admit" to something, they must "confess". Confession denotes an acknowledgement of the righteousness of another and the unrighteousness of self... thus we are to deny self in favor of the Savior.

Or maybe some people have fallen into a very dangerous false teaching that salvation is a light matter and that it is effected by nothing more than the recitation of a magical incantation called the sinner's prayer.

I have no problem with the words. I use them myself... but they must be the sincere expression of a sinner that understands the gospel... to include the fact that Christ expects self-denial and possibly even a great degree of sacrifice in order to gain a right relationship with God. This is completely consistent with Jesus' teachings above.

I have run across the Hyles type of "soul-winner". They behave like used car salesmen just trying to find the right pitch to get someone to recite the sinner's prayer. Some might be sold on heaven. Some might fear hell. These things are focused on the welfare of the sinner, not a relationship with the Savior.

Relationships have benefits and costs. We would think it terrible if someone tricked a woman into marrying a missionary by concentrating only on benefits. Rightly, a woman marries a missionary in spite of the costs. To a degree, she is denying hereself for something she values more. The same is true of a saving faith in Christ. Yes there is heaven. Yes there is an avoidance of hell. But there are also costs and expectations to be weighed against the most valuable relationship a person can ever have, on either side of glory.

 

I was a classmate of Bro Corle in Louisville in 1980. I went "soulwinning" with him a couple of times, and although I think he really loves souls, he seemed a little too much interested in alot of numbers...shall I say, "notch in my gun"? In those days, he was not KJV only as the way he is today.I had asked him about it and he said something like he only uses KJV, but it wasn't based on the "best MSS" (of course we all change over the years). Should I add that he is divorced? In fairness, this all happened (I think) before he was even saved, in the late 70's when he was around 19 or 20. (I am guessing the age)I do think he's went overboard w/ the KJV issue, but I wish him all the best.

 

BTW, I just checked out his bio on his webpage and he humbly mentions that he was valedictorian of his class, however he neglects to say that his graduating class was between 5-10! I thought that was kinda funny, sorry.