The REAL Jack Hyles

"Make your heroes dead guys!" What a truth. They cannot come back to haunt 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!

 

There you go!

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!!

 

Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? 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.
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 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. 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!)

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.