As we have endeavored to make plain in the past, we are not trying to stir up unnecessary strife. Before this blog was born, we anticipated that some would view any post we made to be "gossip", "slander", or "outright lies." We viewed negative opinions about FBCH and HAC in this very same manner in years gone by. Notwithstanding, that is not our present desire. More than anything else we would like to promote independent and Biblical thinking on the part of the impressionable future blogger who may stumble upon Bread and Circuses. We are FOR Cross-centered, Holy Spirit-led and enabled, Biblical witnessing. I want so much for that to be made clear before we receive a verbal onslaught from those who wish to discredit our claims and/or opinions.
Now then, I think it is appropriate at this particular time to explore the concept of what is commonly called "“soulwinning"” in IFBx circles, especially in light of recent comments made by a well-meaning fellow blogger in response to the recent Mike Hess editorial.
One of the most defining characteristics of Hyles-Anderson College and First Baptist Church is their purported soulwinning zeal and personal evangelism.
From the Hyles-Anderson College website:Unfortunately, this very characteristic becomes little more than a man-made methodology. I regret to say that these two institutions have become the benchmark for (un)biblical witnessing for churches turning in the IFBx orbit.
"Maybe You Wouldn't Like: OUR INTENSE EVANGELISTIC ATMOSPHERE
All faculty, staff, and students are required to go soul winning weekly. Students participate in the evangelistic ministry of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, which builds its ministry around personal soul winning. An average of over 10,000 new converts were baptized each year for the past several years."
Do I have to ask it? Sir(s), if an average of 10,000 new converts were baptized each year for the past several years, could you not plant churches with these converts and in effect change the spiritual landscape of greater Chicagoland? These folks are evidently seeing better "success" than our LORD did during his earthly ministry(tongue in cheek)! Why do they boast of such a number while simultaneously advertising that their new auditorium has a capacity for 7,500 people? I sense a tremendous disconnect.
I myself know from personal participation, that HAC has basically become the proverbial beast of burden for FBCH to achieve her pie-in-the-sky numerical goals. I also would like to note that they have categorically made their version of "“confrontational soulwinning" a litmus test for fellowship with other ministries. I digress.
From my experience there, the only Scriptural support offerred for their concept of soulwinning is taken from Proverbs 11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that winneth souls is wise." Hyles used to use this proof text as his basis for drawing all church members into his office for counseling--he had won the most souls so he was the wisest person to seek counsel from (that is another post for another day). In retrospect, it seems hermeneutically dishonest to beat this particular passage into the ground while neglecting to even attempt to elaborate upon the great commission as given by our LORD and recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew's gospel. In my estimation, the Great Commission does not necessarily square with their methodology for witnessing and quest for numbers. Can we equate "door-to-door soulwinning" with Christ's directive to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe ALL that He has commanded us? My answer to that question from the standpoint of a HAC alumnus is an emphatic "NO".
Let us take Northland Baptist Bible College, in Dunbar, Wisconsin, for example. It is my understanding that although they share some Baptist distinctives in common with HAC, the two have very different definitions of and approaches toward witnessing to the lost. Other Christian colleges and universities that don'’t hold to the same methodologies regarding numeric goals as HAC are usually labeled as "“cold"”, "“dead"”, "“liberal"”, or even "“hyper-calvinistic"”. Oddly enough, one would not have to be a Calvinist to be labeled as such by FBCH/HAC. I am willing to bet that the majority of our readership here at B&C would be calvinistic as compared with them.
Detractors, allow me to beat you to the punch: we were probably never real soulwinners while there, just critics...we probably couldn't even run a hot dog stand, let alone FBC Hammond...we are bitter and are capitalizing on this blogging opportunity to grind our axes, ad nauseum.
The truth of the matter is that we are trying to re-focus on what the scripture says about this matter of "soulwinning". Should "soulwinning" be the cornerstone of our philosophy of ministry? Is the book of Acts our blueprint for the church age? Should Proverbs 11:30 be our central battle cry as Christ followers? Why would Jesus seemingly refuse to "draw the net" as many "great soulwinners" have taught us to do? Would Jesus meet the typical IFBX convert at the church altar and share words with them that would cause them to walk away in sadness? Is true saving faith something you can try like a new pair of running shoes to see if it "works" for you? Is someone who gladly "accepts" Christ "into his heart" but refuses to follow the LORD in baptism truly saved? Is it possible to turn from darkness to light without a radical change in one's life? Are we truly a new creation after the new birth? Does God give us the option of bearing Christian fruit? Is discipleship an optional item as well? These are all questions worthy of engagement--why should IFBs be shallow and unbiblical? Why are IFBs content to allow the silly thinkers and exegetically illiterate in their movement to speak for them on such issues? What do you think the Bible teaches?
Joshua Z. Richards
30 comments:
Jean,
Glad to have you here under the big top! I trust you will grab a bag of peanuts and some cotton candy while you peruse the exhibits. I am so glad that you posted what you posted--I could tell a very similar story myself and will share it in due time. We love differing opinions on this site and truly want you to feel welcome.
A few observations on your post:
1. If exposing error is an attack on your "faith" then so be it.
2. Old-fashioned fundamentalism knows nothing of the rabid King James Only heresy that your church gleefully promotes. As you no doubt already know the KJV was the "new" and "modern" version at one time and rejected by the traditionalists. I realize that your pastor has debated theologians and seminary professors on this topic, but he failed to tell us which ones and when they actually debated. (I get good entertainment from listening to the sermons on the web).
3. What are you planting? Do you believe that a gospel void of repentance and a changed life is the gospel of Christ? Who hath bewitched YOU?
4. I think it is great that you are a name taker at FBCH. That being said, if hundreds come forward for salvation, where do they go after that? I am not talking about those from out of town--I mean the ones from around the area. How can a church with well over 100,000 so called members be roping off sections in a 7,000 seat auditorium? Granted I was taught math at Hyles High--I'm not too good with numbers--the math doesn't add up.
5. I am glad you accepted Christ but He did not need a candy bar to help Him save you. The end doesn't justify the means--this is pure pragmatism plain and simple.
6. I am unequivocally for the Blood of Christ, the Word of God, and the local NT church. See we DO agree on something. I just don't believe in the new-fangled doctrine of Ruckmanism or KJVOnlyism. I love the authorized version, ESV, NASB, NKJB, and other versions of God's preserved Word!
7. I have no new "heroes" but read many good theological books. The LORD Jesus Christ is my hero and His Word contains my 66 favorite books. Amazing how well you "think" you know us!
8. The Authorized Version has a copyright in England. You are believing another IFBx fable.
9. Hyles gave a lot of money to a lot of people--so does Bill Gates and Bono from U2. What were you trying to say?
10.Pastor Schaap is a nice and well-meaning gentleman. I did notice that he completely misquoted my letter to him the other night during one of his rants. He took poetic license on it in order to make his illustration more dramatic and stir up the crazies. I suppose the end always justifies the means so it is OK to embellish.
God bless you as you serve Him in your church. I pray that you will bring honor and glory to the LORD and be faithful in the ministry He has entrusted to you. Come back and visit us again here at the Circus!!
Matthew Richards
"By the way, I am one of those kids who came to church for something fun and trusted Christ after a very, very, very simple and abbreviated plan of the gospel."
Why do I really, really, really believe that is true? Gimmicks are always more interesting to kids than a complete, detailed gospel message... thus you have to keep the gospel very, very, very simple.
Jean and DJ,
First of all, why are you jumping to conclusions?
"Anyway, back to the Blood, the Book and the Body, which is where we disagree. It is obvious that your belief systems have admittedly been swayed to some degree by the books and the philosophies you so eloquently boast of knowing. Books written by men and for men (kind of man centered don't ya' think?)"
How is it exchanging homiletics for sound hermeneutics and apologetics man-centered? After all, we're suggesting the tactics and practices are contrary to the scriptures-- not to some book.
BTW, are you suggesting we shouldn't read? I guess it's okay to rip off and hack a Spurgeon sermon if your Jack H or Jack S. But now I'm just picking.
Paul delivered a stern message to the Galatians when he confronted him with their turning over to another gospel, which he goes on to say really isn't another Gospel. He's using a play on words and contrasting the use of Alos and Heteros. Alos means another of the same kind and Heteros is another of a different kind.
Well, his gripe with them was they weren't following the actual Gospel. They were following a false gospel of an altogether different kind.
If you and I simply disagreed on a few points such as modes of baptism, I might not be so concerned. But where do you find "asking Jesus into ones heart" in the bible?
You talk about God giving the increase and that's for certain. And DJ cites getting saved over hearing a simple presentation, and that's great. But as ministers of the Gospel we have a duty to teach and expound the truth. Do you disagree with this?
Josh had a great point in this last post. Do you not see a disconnect between winning 10,000 new souls a year and an auditorium that only seats 10,000?
Where are the aggregate new members? Why isn't everyone who is saved coming to church? I would think this to be a fair question of analysis to ask.
Before going into an explanation of Matt 28:19, I have to first refer you back to Matt 13 and the parable of the sower. Do you possibly think that some who profess Christ might die and go to hell? If not, then you don't believe Christ. He made this clear in Matt 7 and repeatedly in Matt 13.
So, what's so different about Matt 28:19? In the great commission, the imperative isn't Go Ye Therefore. It's "make disciples". Poreuthentes is an aorist participle in the Greek. It is properly translated as "having gone". Hmm. Having gone-- where does that come from? Well, early in Christ's ministry he is found preaching the Law and the Prophets to his disciples. In Matt 10, he sends them out to Jerusalem only and to preach the things he taught them. Again, the message was the same messages preached for centuries before. And while the disciples were at it, they were prohibited from preaching to the gentiles or to the Samaritans.
What was the response? They were met with much rejection. Do you recall this? He goes on in Matt 13 to explain the reactions they got.
Well, in Matt 28:19, we pick back up where the disciples left off in their ministry work. Having already gone unto those in Jerusalem, with all urgency make disciples of them and while you're at it do so amongst those in Samaria and also of the Gentiles. Matheteusate is an aorist imperative. It's very strong and not to be confused with the simple durative nature of the present imperative. This is used to emphasize the gravity of discipling.
Now, is the 10,000 a year keeping with this mandate? If so, why is the number of disciples not growing at a similar rate? Not that you should be focused on success, but this would be a good place to guage your effectiveness.
This is derived from simple exegesis of the text. Do you disagree with taking things verbatim from the text? Or do you disagree that God has preserved any truth in the original languages?
If by chance there is any error found in the work and in the ministry of HAC, FBC or anywhere else, don't you think it's the responsibility of God's ministers to explain the truth from scripture? I'm not asking you to acquiesce and agree that there are falacies there. I'm asking you if you happened to find discrepancies what would you do? Would be faithful to the men around you or to God? That's the faithfulness God calls for.
Anyway, I'm certainly glad you're here too. I don't agree with mindless attacks, no matter what camp you're in. And I don't care for Calvinism vs. Arminiansim controversies. What I care about is what do we do with the text before us. And if you can't read and understand the text then you ought to feel somewhat guilty. I can teach you Greek in as little as 15 minutes a day for perhaps two months. From there such studies should become a part of your life and it will grow as you grow.
My desire is not to see FBC, HAC or all things IFB shutdown. My desire is to see your eyes opened to truth and that you follow Christ-- not me, not Josh, not any man. Paul seriously rebuked those in Corinth for being followers of men.
Anyway, take care.
-Mike
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee [1Tim 4:16]
Wow. I have no idea where to start with this one. Firstly, thanks Jean for stopping in at Bread and Circuses. I trust that you enjoyed perusing previous posts and their respective comments, as it has truly been a joy for me to be a part of this weblog.
Regarding your comment above---forgive me for I am a little bit confused. Neither Matt nor myself have any intention of "attacking your faith", that is, unless "your faith" is indeed misplaced and misdirected towards new doctrines or man-centered ministry/theology. If that is the case, please don't take it so personally.
You seem to infer that we here at B & C do not believe in and actually attack what you refer to as the "Blood, the Book, and the Body"---were you referring to Jack Hyles' pamphlet printed in the early 1990's? I don't recall ever addressing that one yet, but we will remember that for a later post. ;) Seriously, I am keenly interested in how we have attacked your faith in the blood of Christ, God' preserved Word, or the body of believers. If this is about King James Bible Onlyism, it would be silly to think that either of us will rethink our position regarding the Holy Scriptures---the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice, inerrant and infallible in the original writings. I trust that you can agree to that, the historic position on the scriptures for orthodox Christianity for centuries. To go any further than that and suggest an inspiration of the KJB would be negligent.
As for your statement about planting and watering seeds, I don't recall ANY emphasis on that Scriptural concept while at FBCH or HAC. The commmon teaching was that anyone going door-to-door soulwinning could be guaranteed to see doorstep conversions by carefully using salesman tactics. Remember personal evangelism where we were taught to "trick" people into the sinner's prayer? The point is, even people who don't go "confrontational soulwinning" can plant and/or water seeds and pray and trust that the LORD will indeed give increase. It is absolutely undeniable that FBCH and HAC have been woefully inept at any attempts to disciple alleged converts. I do not think that they REALLY believe in the discipleship that Jesus Christ commissioned us to in Matthew 28. I am entitled to my opinion.
I am baffled that even after stating clearly that we believe in cross-centerd, Holy Spirit-led witnessing, someone would come along and insinuate that we don't think God needs us to be witnesses and thus are hyper-calvinists!?! Folks out there in the blogosphere, please READ our posts in their entirety and comment on our posts accurately.
All that being said, I am still bewildered as to where you think we disagree regarding the three B's. Where did we state an errant theology regarding Christ's substitutionary atonement or His shed blood? Please be more specific. Both Matt and I believe strongly in God's preserved Word, although you and your church would probably say that we really don't due to our use of "corrupt" translations.
I know this has been a somewhat haphazard response, I hope that it has cleared some confusion if only slightly. Thanks again for visiting B & C.
Josh
Circus guys,
Not everyone will want the peanuts and popcorn! Let me encourage you from personal experience to press on! Look to Jesus, and honestly evaluate the criticisms you receive. I am sure this will be but the first of many harsh critiques to come. So, above all, remember to keep your speech always seasoned with salt. Be meek and loving, yet firm. And always be ready to answer.
I think you have answered Jean's post well, and you have asked her to clarify certain points. I agree that dissenting opinions add greatly to the blog. I pray God blesses you in this work and continues to grow your faith.
One other quick note: D.J. Cimino was just sarcastically replying to Jean. He actually would agree with us--just read his blog.
And, by the way, thanks for the good post. An absence of "confrontational soulwinning" does not mean that soulwinning (or Biblically, planting/watering) is not prized.
God bless you both--and keep the popcorn coming. (I wouldn't mind some ice cream, every once in a while, either!)
Josh,
What I have found most disturbing about the recent replies from FBC/HAC people is the fact that (for the most part) they fail to answer the questions that are posed at them. Normally, we get the typical - "You have no idea what Bro. Hyles did for me and you" type of response.
Alright, that is fine but you still have a Scriptural responsibility to defend your ministry.
It is also interesting to point out that very few in the history of Christendom practiced their "form" of soul winning. The "concocted prayer method" is a rather recent phenemenon due to its pragmatic success.
Obviously, this blog is getting through. You can see now that teen agers at HBHC are reading this. In time I think more will come to objectively read these posts (by God's grace). I also agree with "Fundamentally Reformed" that it is an imperative to maintain a Christ-like spirit when posting on this. I know that perhaps there are times that I fall short on that but my prayer is that we will approach this Scripturally and not emotionally.
It is good that Matthew and Josh have done this blog. The detractors disagree but so did we several years ago. We as believers have a responsibility to the truth!
Keep up the good work and have a fabulous day.
Mike
Good questions. I look forward to reading some substantive answers from the other side of the aisle.
One question for the name takers at the big altar call:
jeansheaffer said:
"Every time someone comes forward, the assistant Pastor asks why they’ve come. The convert tells them. If a worker offers the information for the convert, the alter worker will ask the convert, “Is that right?”
Does anybody in their right mind honestly believe that a truly unregenerate person will at this point offer a protest? C'mon! Of course they're going to parrot what the worker said! They're standing infront of 7,500 people! What glassy-eyed teenager is going to buck the machine at that point?
Go read some of the testimonies on David Cloud's website, and you'll realize what's going on in the minds of some of these "converts".
I do not deny that many have truly and sweetly been saved at FBCH. but the system is broken and needs to be fixed...er...replaced.
I am for soul winning, I am for baptising new converts, and I am for getting as many as you can, or as God will give you.
None of my converts in Chicago "panned out". Yet, ever since I changed my outreach methods to model Scripture, those that are baptised in my ministry truly "continue in the Apostles' doctrine.
They're even driving into Wednesday night church.
Go figure.
"One other quick note: D.J. Cimino was just sarcastically replying to Jean. He actually would agree with us--just read his blog."
Yes... Thanks for clearing that up Bob!
:)
My point was with the IFBx gimmick culture, you won't get kids to listen to a detailed Gospel presentation... they are too interested in the "main attraction", the gimmick.
Instead, kick the gimmicks out and stick with the Bible. It actually works pretty well.
;)
D.J,
I meant to jot you a note after he cleared that up for me. I don't mean to lump you into this.
Even without the clarification, I don't think I really meant to single you out in my response in a negative fashion. My inclusion of you was really to distinguish between the "simple" Gospel vs. the "whole" Gospel.
Our job as ministers is to be faithful to the word of God, which includes the Gospel in its entirety. This includes more than the death, burial and resurrection. It includes who Jesus is and the ontological trinity. It includes justification by faith and so on.
I'm glad that you are among those who embrace the truth and aren't simply satisfied to preach a 12-step program.
Anyway, that was basically the thought when I put your name in as an addressee. My apologies to you.
-Mike
Not a problem Mike... I can see where my reply could have been interpreted the way it was. My bad for not being clearer on that :)
Hmm, I wonder if that was actually Jack with the post?
Would he actually believe that the "whole world would be going to hell" if not for the efforts of Hyles, Himself and other IBFxers? That would pretty much eliminate God from the equation wouldn't it.
"Soul Winning!" It's all about US. jb
Well, I suspect it's ruse. If it were the real Schaap, he should rejoice over Matthew and Josh. I just completed my commentary section on Revelation 3:1-6 and the letter to the church at Sardis. The elders of that church received the equivalent of a tongue lashing from Christ for being dead. We're not talking about works, here. They were found dead over neglecting and watering down their doctrine.
At the end of the charge, Christ rubs in the fact that despite their neglect, there were some among them who were saved, keeping to doctrine and who would be robed in white. Furthermore, their names would not and could not be removed from the book of life.
Since there appears to be some accountability over the souls of these former students, I would expect this man to jump for joy. He has sown fields of tares and now he finds a remnant. I wish the real Jack Schaap would take note and turn from his false doctrine of works.
-Mike
Jack Schaap,
Well, my assumption from the very first posting is that this has been a ruse for comic relief. I cannot picture the real Jack Schaap actually blogging and commenting online.
Anyway, assuming it is just a joke, please stop and please delete the corresponding blog site. Whether or not you're a true fan and supporter or someone who is simply having fun, the behavior is wrong. It's a form of identity theft and I do object to the behavior. And if you persist, I will utilize my background and my contacts to sniff you out and expose you to the folks on this blog as well as to the leadership at HAC. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to let the authorities deal with you. And I'm not threatening. This is serious business and while I laughed at first, it's gone way too far.
Whether or not I agree with Schaap is moot. He is a real individual with a real family. Please don't mis-represent him. Please just stop.
Thanks,
Mike
I agree with Mike as to the Jack Schaap parody. I thought it was funny at first but now it is getting a little too strange. I doubt you are the real deal especially judging by your favorite music on your profile. If you do not choose to stop I will just delete your comments. I am the Ken Christianson of this blogsite and don't forget it!
Matthew
My take is I welcome the challenges and the questions that me expressed by Jean and others. I will try my best to respond both doctrinally and textually. That's about it. I'm really not out to reform fundamentalists.
I believe there is an occassional person who will notice the inconsistencies, but not necessarily know how to connect the dots as to what's wrong. That's the person I'm trying to reach.
I too have heard the irrational arguments over and over. I have a copy of the Hyles Church Manual, I should review it in case that's covered. Just kidding.
Personally, I don't see what it will accomplish to bash. I have friends there and in various other IFB churches. Sometimes we have nice things to talk about. Other times, not so nice. It's like talking with my Hindu and Buddhist friends. We tend to disagree regarding doctrine. The difference is that my non-professing-Christian friends don't get hostile.
Anyway...
-Mike
Jean... The KJV is a translation.
If it was a "perfect" translation, then the translators would have to be inspired.
Do you believe in double inspiration?
If so you are extra-biblical in your KJO stand. It really is that simple.
Jean,
Thank you for your response--I would love to respond now, but on top of being very busy, I am having my wisom teeth pulled at noon today. I have read your comments a couple of times and there is much with which I agree. I also have trouble with some of your points that I will address when I wake up from my "fog". I pray that you will have a blessed weekend and LORD's Day.
Matthew
Jean... Double Inspiration?
All those verses you listed can be listed form a nasb or esv and the same conclusions argued from them for those versions...
Double inspiration??
Jean,
I have to say I'm a bit concerned about your response. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears you're taking sarcastic jabs again, when it's not necessary.
You said: "This is how I established what I believed about the King James Bible. I didn’t go looking for men to prove it to me. I asked God to do it. This was what Bro. Hyles suggested I do. I know, pragmatic and man-centered isn’t it?! "
When you make a comment like this, it suggests to me there is no way to have a conversation with you, which is anything but irrational and argumentative. I'm sure Matthew and Josh would also agree with me when I say I would always encourage you to search things out for yourself. That's really the essence of this site.
Regarding the KJV and your Greek/Latin training, I'm glad you've got some training. Do you use it? If not, it's doing you no good.
Do I believe God will preserve every jot and tittle? Yep! That's my point for going back to the original languages. We're talking of both letters and punctuation. Think we're talking merely semantics? Then you should go back to your language professors and chew them out. It is impossible to capture the grammatical distictions of the Greek and the Hebrew within our English language. And as I've said on numerous occassions, it is not enough to just do a word search. You ask "...I’m not so good at but we can always look it up – can’t we boys?" Can we really?
Now, I feel as if I'm nitpicking and I don't desire it. I discuss this because you brought it up in your response. If you were in a pastoral or teaching position I would expect you to writely divide God's word. And it is impossible to do so without being able to deal with text in a grammatical fashion.
Let's take for example your casual tossing in of John 3:16 in your argument about the KJV. What it has to do with your point, I'm still trying to understand. But I always enjoy it when the verse is hijacked and used, not as an explanation, but as a banner.
What does this verse say? Is it applicable to the whole, wide world? Who is Jesus addressing and why is it significant in dealing with this verse?
I'd love to go into it. But for now, I'd just like to deal with the text. Within the text you have a participial phrase, "pas ho pisteuwn eis auton". Impressed? I hope not. This isn't where Greek comes in handy. Transliteration is a weekness. This isn't Greek. But let's continue looking at what this means. Pas takes on several meanings depending on whether or not the definite article is present. Since it is absent, the word is translated as "Every". "Ho pisteuwn" is very important. This is a present participial form of the word for believe. It is preceeded by the use of the definite article, which is a significant combination in Koine Greek. It is best translated as "the constantly believing ones". Then eis auton is a prepositional phrase meaning into him.
So, when you combine all of this with the context, the fact that Jesus was talking to "the teacher of Israel", along with the beginning of the declaration in v14, you have a powerful truth that completely confounded Nicodemus as it confounds many professing Christian this day.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up, in order that every single one consistently believing in him will not perish but have everlasting life. For so loved God the world, so that his son, his only begotten one, he gave in order that every single one consistently believing in him might not perish but have eternal life.
There is absolutely no use of the english word "whoso ever". It's not generic and vague. It's very specific and inclusive. But of whom? Every one that asks Jesus into his heart? Nope. It applies to every one who believes, trusts, and relies upon Jesus from the point of regeneration till the very end-- either death or the return of Christ.
Ahhh, but doesn't John say this for the whole world? Not in that context. Kosmon takes on many meanings in the Greek and is solely interpreted based on context. It can mean the physical world, the economic world, the world philosophical system, cosmetics and organization. Here, Jesus uses it to denote the promise of God, the covenant, was not to a physical race, but to a spiritual children consisting of both Jew and Gentile. So, world is used here to denote both Jew and Gentile.
This was shocking to Nicodemus as he had always believed and taught that the covenant was to the physical decendents of Israel. So, Jesus had to tear him down and rebuke him for not knowing differently. The promises of God were by faith, just as some in Israel were spared by looking up to the serpent of Moses, some will be spared by faith and belief in Jesus.
But this was no casual belief or knowledge of Jesus. The belief is persistent in the life of the child of God.
-Mike
And Jean,
I meant to express to you at the close of my last post, I do not intend to simply throw the Greek at you as a means of showing off. It's a means of providing a full explanation of the text and allowing the text to fully defend itself.
Why rely on commentaries and on concordances when we can rely on the text and the context.
It sounds like you'd agree with that as an overall premise. But we often say we believe a lot of things we may never actually put into action.
Anyway, I am glad you've taken the time to chime in on this. And please note I don't hold any malice towards you. I am probably as passionate about the original text as you are about your church and about the KJV.
And, both of these guys have been trying to do a Christ honoring thing and not simply engaging in bashing of folks. You and your husband should be proud of them.
-Mike
All,
No, those deleted comments weren't mine. Just for the record :-)
-Mike
I deleted mine because the Mike deleted his... i was thanking him, so Mike thanks!
Again, Jean, the easiest way for him to show his concern would be to go directly to the source. I sincerely do appreciate the concern for me. As for my church being a "soulwinning" church, it would most likely not be considered one by FBCH/HAC folk as there is no obsession with numbers at the expense of discipleship. Heritage Bible Church believes strongly in sound, Biblical preaching and Holy Spirit-led witnessing to a lost world. We even occasionally read from the NKJV or ESV...:) It is linked on B & C in the sidebar.
We understand that some of the content has upset you. Please realize that it is not strictly meant to do that, although it is typically unavoidable.
Tell Wayne that I said hello.
Josh
Jean,
I'm glad that you actually did respond but at the same time I am disappointed that you have failed to answer our questions. You insisted on staying with your irresponsible KJVonlyism. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your kind words about my wife Christina. She is a wonderful lady indeed. But only because of God's grace and sovereign will, not because of Hyles, Young, and Schaap. Both Christina and I have a very clear understanding of that. My hope is that some seeds have been planted in the hope that you will objectively look at the unbiblical practices of HAC/FBCH.
Have a fabulous day.
Mike
Jean,
I wanted to take this opportunity and simply respond to a few of the points you made in your last comment. I appreciate your participation here at B&C and hope that you come back and see us from time to time. Here are some of my own thoughts:
1. I don't believe that anyone here attacked your testimony or faith. I suppose that you may "feel" as if your faith was attacked only because your definition of "the faith" is faulty. If analysis of your church, "preacher", and favorite Bible translation is attacking your faith then we are guilty as charged and proud to suffer shame for His name.
2. I do not think that your response was a "mindless attack". I think that the word, "attack", has been overused and does not fit here whatsoever. You claim that we have "attacked your faith" and again I believe that accusation has no merit. I think I can safely state that everyone that posts here at B&C stands for the Blood of Christ, the Word of God, and the Body of Christ in His church.
3. We do not nor expect any "expository answers" to the questions posed. I cannot control how others respond to your comments (unless they are using profanity or vulgarity) here at B&C. People are free to come under the big top and enjoy the attractions--as long as they abide by our rules they are free to voice their opinions.
4. The poster who pretends to be your "preacher" is certainly NOT Jack Schaap. The chances of him not being a troll are next to nil. My brother and I have simply gone back to orthodox and historic fundamentalism. FBCH has changed and accused others of drifting away from fundamentalism. We have rejected man-centered ministry as a whole and all other man made doctrines. We are to study the Scriptures and be like those Berean believers of old--if you cannot question your church leaders a red flag ought to pop up in your mind. I appreciate the fact that you have prayed for my family--I certainly do not mean you or anyone else in Hammond any harm. Josh and I are fundamentalists and have not forsaken that which is Biblical and right--my prayer is that you and your dear family can say the same.
My wife and I have well over 20 family members who still attend church in Hammond. Our desire is that they would thrive and grow up into Christ by the sound and exegetical preaching of the Word of God. My desire is that FBCH would cast off the extra-Biblical foolishness and simply preach the Word for the Glory of God.
5. You said: "Please read it then get off the internet, get on your knees, read the King James Bible through and ask God to show you if it is indeed His perfect, infallible, inspired Word."--that is great advice as we all ought to read more of God's Word. My problem is that no translation is perfect--God did not promise any translation would be perfect. I understand that this is what FBCH has been teaching for well over a decade now--that does not make it right.
6. Most all Bible versions have had a copyright of some sort. These are needed in order to protect the work done and compensate the major cost of producing a translation. You can scoff all you like about the KJV not having a copyright but that is completely false--if this is what seals the deal for the KJVO position then you will be glad to know that only the Tyndale Bible and first edition of the Coverdale did NOT have copyrights. I recommend that you ditch your KJV and try to find a Tyndale or Coverdale Bible and start your new faction of IFB who are TVO or CVO! I am obviously jesting here but it makes as much sense as the KJVO position. The false teaching about the copyrights was not invented by Ruckman, but he is the one person who took that lie and ran with it--it has now been handed down as a fable and propagated by most KJVO advocates.
7. The University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge have enjoyed great amounts of money from their KJV copyright privileges--this is not an issue and never has been for historic Fundamentalists.
8. You claim that the Word becoming flesh in John 1:14 refers to the KJV? This is heresy plain and simple. I understand that this is what you have been taught at FBCH but that does not make it right. Over the centuries orthodox Christianity has always believed in the Word of God perfect in the originals.
Jean, what would you do if you were a German, French, Russian, or Hispanic believer? It is estimated that there are more Christians in China worshipping in underground churches than there are in America--which version or translation is their "Word that became flesh"? You cannot put the LORD Jesus Christ into any translation—the KJV is a good translation--but there are others as well.
Since Pastor Hyles suggested that you decide what translation you use based on this method, what would happen if someone did this and God showed them that the ESV was perfect? Hyles would have thrown a tantrum and pitched a fit! There was a teacher in the HS who did not agree with the new teaching of KJVO and he was forced out! Don't you see how wrong that is? Do you agree with Hyles' throwing Bible versions into the crowd and cheering them on to rip and defile them? You make it sound as if he was so wise in his advice when it was all smoke and mirrors--if you didn't come to his conclusion about the Bible then you were cut off.
Lastly, I would ask that you look in your KJV at Luke 4:16-21. This is a direct quote from Isaiah 61:1-2. Compare the two passages and ask yourself why Jesus Christ was not reading from the correct manuscripts? I understand that you believe that Jesus was the KJV at that moment, but wouldn't he KNOW how that passage would read? Jesus did not view His Word as a "magic spell" that needed to be read word for word--do you not see this?
Also, if you are so concerned about "every jot and every tittle" then why are you not using the 1611 edition of the KJV? If God meant every jot and tittle why did there need to be grammar and punctuation corrections to the 1611 with numerous revisions?
I hope that my response is not viewed as an "attack" on you or your church. I did not mean it to be such and pray that we can continue to have a civil dialogue on this important topic. God preserved His Word and I have multiple copies of reliable translations of it--KJV, NKJB, NASB, ESV, and others. We have not changed--the KJVOnlies have.
To the praise of His glorious grace,
Matthew
Jean,
I just wanted to comment on the issue of the supposed inspiration of the KJV. Did you know that the translators did not feel that their version or translation was inspired? In fact, they stated that it it was not, but merely a translation and encouraged others to study and change it if they found mistranslations.
Also, the translators included a dedication in the front of the King James version which to me, could come across as blasphemous. "To the Most High and Mighty Prince, James..., Most Sovereign, etc." Does that mean that the KJV is bad? NO but this clearly out of line dedication was included in the copyright of the KJV Bible translation. My point is just to show that infallibility of that particular version is in question. No translation is infallible. God's Word itself is infallible and was preserved for us in spite of man's mistranslations or added and/ or deleted words. Even the KJV has some added and deleted words. (Does this surprise you?)
As far as the idea of praying about it and asking God to show you if KJV is the only inspired Word of God, I did just that. I was a gung-ho KJVO proponent until I did this. Then God opened my mind to see that there were other translations God could use as well as the KJV. I just never dared to share this when I was at HAC because I knew that if God showed me something different from the parroted line, I would not be able to share it. I saw what happened to dissenters. However, this praying and asking is not a foolproof method of learning God's will. God does not lie, but man can hear other voices besides the voice of God (not literally, but figuratively, I speak). I know of someone who became a Mormon because they prayed and asked the Holy Spirit to tell them if the Book of Mormon was also the Word of God. They never checked to see if the doctrines in the Mormon faith lined up with the doctrines of the Bible. They thought God told them it was. God's Word is infallible, but we are not. The true test of whether or not something is of God is what it witnesses about Jesus and if it lines up with known Scripture. Several modern Bible translations line up on their teaching about Christ as the Son of God, God incarnate, the Savior, the One who bought us with His blood, etc. Far from what you are told, many of the current translations do teach those doctrines.(I do not even want to get started on the Riplinger book's false accusations about Bible versions, read the versions yourself and see if they teach the doctrines.) The translations who do not, are obviously erroroneous because they do not line up with the inpired Word of God and the Gospel. In that case, God's Word is true and every man a liar. Look at each translation, the whole text and not picking parts out of context. Don't believe what man tells you. Read them for yourself. Hyles, Schaap, nor any of us are infallible. Be willing to search it out, not just accept dogma.
hacerman,
Looks like your heresy radar is up an running! Now you might want to mix in a little spell check here and there!
Matthew
Post a Comment