Here is the second part and conclusion to the "Well Fed" post. In Part 1 I explained that Pastor Schaap goes to great lengths to emphasize the fact that the FBCH congregation was and still is very well fed from the Word every week. As I read this passage in his book, I was wondering how he came to this conclusion--I do, however, realize this is a very general claim that any pastor would claim concerning his respective church. Pastor Schaap goes on to explain how he defines a "well fed" church. This is how Pastor Schaap came to these conclusions regarding the flock in Hammond and the extended FBCH flock across the globe. On page 11 of "Principles of Church Growth", Pastor Schaap opines:
"I think of all the soul-winning teaching of Brother Hyles through the years. How many times he pounded his fist on the pulpit, thundering out to the First Baptist Church members to be soul winners. Two of Brother Hyles' greatest messages, "If You Can't Be A Soul Winner, Be A Soul Warner" and "The Four Calls To Soulwinning" were filled with powerful, powerful truths.Did anyone else notice how Pastor Schaap describes being "well fed"? In his world the foundational truths that need to be "thundered" from a pastor's pulpit ministry are:
Again and again Brother Hyles thundered out the truths about soulwinning, the King James Bible, separation, the body of Christ, and the blood of Jesus Christ. His studies of the Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon gave us teachings that helped us with our marriages, our child rearing, and our families. These truths make us more accountable because we have received much.
The First Baptist Church people continue to be very richly nourished from Brother Hyles' many tributaries: his books, his Bible studies, his preaching, and his counseling. First Baptist Church and Christians across the world are recipients of a rich, flavorful menu as we have our libraries stocked with Brother Hyles' materials; our minds and our memories are filled with his voice and his teachings. We have been well fed."
1. Soulwinning
2. King James Bible
3. Separation
4. The body of Christ
5. The blood of Christ
These are the ingredients of a well fed church flock according to the leader of IFBxdom. I don't think that anyone would disagree with the last two, but even these would be considered foundational doctrines that all Christians regardless of their maturity would need to embrace. I believe that we see here what truly motivates FBCH whether Hyles is pastor or Jack Schaap--they can try to say that things have changed for the better--statements like these are what cause me to doubt the veracity of those claims.
Until FBCH changes her philosophy of ministry those who attend will NOT be Biblically well fed. As long as their ministry focus follows the above list, the dear people in the congregation will continue to be malnourished. Members of FBCH may believe sincerely with all of their hearts that they ARE well fed--I believe they are sincerely wrong--unless they go elsewhere (radio preachers, good books, the Word of God without the IFBx filter, etc...) they will never grow up into Christ. I certainly do not wish to imply that I have arrived in my spiritual walk--nothing could be further from the truth. I am still daily learning and studying so that I might bring forth fruit to the glory of God. I am burdened by the delusional statements that emanate from the pulpit of FBCH on a regular basis--let's pray that eyes will be opened and the ship will be righted or that folks will abandon ship and seek a Christ-centered church.
Here are some questions: Is a "powerful truth" sometimes different than a Biblical truth? Is a church only well fed when they hear the topics of soulwinning, separation, KJB, the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ thundered from the pulpit on a regular basis? Can a church truly be well fed outside of regular and systematic expository preaching? Is it possible for a man-centered and numbers driven church to be well fed? We would love to hear your thoughts on this--maybe I am way off base and just don't realize it yet.
Colossians 1:3-6;9-14 ESB "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing —as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth...And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Phineas
42 comments:
Matthew,
I liked the "ESB" plug. Perhaps we could start a new "ESV only" movement that claims we have the one true bible. Or, we could stick with the historical teachings of Christianity and Scripture itself that teach only the original writings were inspired and that what we have today is a copy and translation.
As I read your post I tried to compare what Schaap said was healthy to what Paul admonished Timothy to do in 2 Tim. 4:2 - "Preach the WORD" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure I find anywhere in Scripture to preach a particular version of the Bible. Then again, when you have a man centered philosophy of church growth, your methodology will ALWAYS determine your theology.
Have a fabulous day!
Mike
Without sounding like I know it all, there are so many doctrines, which aren't ever covered. It's as if we live in that period prior to the reformation when there didn't seem much need to defend Justification by Faith and some other doctrines.
However, now is the time to defend it-- and others too.
But nowhere do I ever get the sense that it's the time or the place to part company based on separation issues associated with Pants, Movies, Music, and the such. And the notion that KJV is the only inspired word is ridiculous. What about when Paul asked for his scriptures? Was he a heretic for his request? I'm pretty certain he didn't have KJV.
Anyway, we keep talking of change when we're really talking revival. A good old-fashioned revival is due-- like the kinds recorded in the 1st Great Awakening. Now that's something to earnestly pray for FBC.
-Mike
Jerry Vines, pastor Emeritus of First Baptist Jacksonville speaking of his early preaching years in Georgia said he went by the philosophy of that time; "If you weren't hoarse on Monday, that met you'd compromised on Sunday."
In Jerry's 2 decades at FBC, he was a delightful teacher/preacher. He had long since given up yelling and bellowing; instead he just took the bible verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book. It doesn't mean he couldn't get excited, it did mean that he'd come to realize that pastoral yelling didn't feed the flock.
Mike H, Mike, and rabbi:
thanks for your comments. I was truly hoping to find that Schaap would have a more Biblical philosophy of ministry than his FIL--if this chapter in his book is any hint things are even worse than I anticipated. What we have here is a ministry that has adopted the book of Acts as their only for ministry. We should look forward to more "Pentecost Sundays" and 48,000 convert big days!
I am hoping that some of the folks from FBCH who are reading this blog will offer some sort of a sane defense of these antics--I really want this to be a dialogue. Have a blessed LORD's Day tomorrow!
Matthew
rabbi-philosopher:
I also had Jerry Vines as a pastor!
I don't know how Jerry Vines preached in his early days, but by the time he got to West Rome Baptist Church in Rome, GA,(1969- I was only ten years old), his sermons were already expository sermons through the Bible. He was usually going through three books simultaneously- one on Sunday morning, another one Sunday night, and still another on Wednesday night! I no longer agree with ALL of his theology (the Scofieldism and anti-Calvinism, for example) but I DID learn to appreciate God's word.
We need to teach the whole counsel of God, nonetheless if you need to choose a book to follow as the only book, the book of Acts wouldn't be so bad to base the church on. The only thing is, in FBC, HAC, the full counsel of ACTS isn't even being taught and practiced. IN Acts, the apostles' doctrine, teaching of the Word,prayer, breaking of bread and fellowship are what happened in 2:42.And Acts tells us THE LORD added to the church DAILY such as should be saved. In HAC and FBC with the attempts to be the ones adding to the church,it seems their application of the verse is the breaking of records, teaching of Brother Hyles books and philosophies once in a while a few verses thrown in, communion once a month, a two minute prayer to start and end and fellow-competition for "souls" instead. Besides that, the Bible says that the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, easy to be intreated, etc. If we want Holy Spirit power, it is given to humble men and women for the purpose of building up the church and reaching the lost. It is not gained by antics and hollering added to proud declaration that we are the "largest church since Pentecost." If they would just look at what happened at Pentecost, they will see the example was that God came down to enable the church, while the men and women were praying and praising God speaking of the "wonderful works of God". It does not say they were screaming about the horrible works of men or even the wonderful works of men. IMO, the best way to build a church is to PREACH AND TEACH THE WORD, PREACH AND TEACH THE WORD, PREACH AND TEACH THE WORD followed by loving God, living the life, and loving the people. God will add to the church DAILY those who will be saved. Then we are to disciple them to do the same: teach and preach the Word, love the Lord, live the life and love the people.
Edward! R U a Karl Rove plant?
Not sure this is exactly a "trashy" website.
I would encourage you to be more specific as to your criticisms ok. I'd certainly like to hear them. jb
Edward,
It is unfortunate that YOU are so venomous and anonymous for that matter. It would make more sense for you to actually attempt to refute what is posted here than just "slap us on our wrists".
You stated that: "Your bitterness and venom are no surprise once I found out who was behind this trashy site."
Care to elaborate on that statement? Our email addresses are posted in our profiles. I would encourage you to send something our way.
Edward,
A couple of things here that I noticed are common denominators from most (but not all) FBCH people who post comments here -
1. Consistently giving out accusations and labels without ever being able to back them up (e.g. accusing Voyle Glover of not being worthy of association, and accusing Matthew and Joshua of running a "trashy" site). Your generalizations are very disturbing.
2. Accusing us who dare to speak out against the nonsense that goes on in Hammond of not knowing what we are talking about. Keep in mind that both the Richards brothers spent over forty years combined under the big top of FBCH.
3. Never answering the legitimate questions that we give to you. Instead, we are met with the incredible vanishing show of supporters who seem to do a better disappearing act than a Tim LaHaye novel.
Edward, I would love to hear you substantiate your claims but I am no holding my breath. But since you have forgotten more bible than we could remember (your comment shows evidence of that - no humility at all) we should all just stop asking questions and realize we are nothing more than "quitters" (even though I am a pastor).
Have a fabulous day.
Mike
Edward,
I couldn't disagree more with you. While I do understand the reaction to seeing what you love "under attack", your response still lacks some rationale.
I'm speaking mostly of your insistance that the KJV is inerrant and preserved. That's actually a very foolish stance. Let me ask a question in a non-hostile fashion. Do you believe that God used men of God to pen the scriptures in their original language? Do you believe the scriptures they penned were God-breathed?
If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then how can you have any hope for preservation and inerrancy? If the answer is "yes" then would you agree that if there's any significant difference between the original text and the KJV that one is right and the other must be wrong?
I ask this because this happens to be the case. Before you get all over me, I don't prefer any English version over KJV. I only carry a KJV with me besides my NT and my BHS OT. The reason for this is simple. I've committed too much to memory to want to re-learn in another version. And I can always find subtle differences in other versions too.
Anyway, this is my primary concern with your statements. I could also go down the path of showing where prioritizing soulwinning above teaching violates the word of God. But I'm also very opposed to those who keep the Gospel a secret. I would just like to see those in FBC and at HAC as grounded in the faith and defenders of doctrine vs. defenders of standards. I believe that will go much further.
Aside from that my family still has too many friends there to go and simply cast stones. I'm trying to provide some constructive criticism and do hope you have the maturity to take it as such, even if you disagree with it.
-Mike
Edward,
Whether or not you are a real person I do not know, but since you asked a question I would like to answer it. You asked if anyone here did not believe that the KJV was inerrant and preserved--I do NOT believe it is inerrant. I DO believe that the originals were inerrant and any translation is only inerrant where it agrees completely and accurately reflects what the originals say.
I realize that sounds like heresy to your clan, but far greater men than you or I believed this as rock-ribbed fundamentalists. James Gray, R.A. Torrey, and the KJV translators themselves believed this and it has been a part of orthodox Christianity for centuries.
We have God's Word today in English in many different translations. I have copies of various ones and they are trustworthy and reliable. To claim any translation is free of error and 100% perfect is foolishness and a new fangled teaching of man.
If you are not real, just disregard this post--if you are real prayerfully consider and study the issue for yourself. You must be worried when any group or teacher requires that you arrive at his conclusion on these extra-biblical matters.
Matthew
Ed,
Thanks for clarifying your shaving habits for us. This will help me sleep better at night as well.
If you truly believe that historic fundamentalism is represented by the nonsense of KJV onlyism then I would ask you to back that up with some historical evidence from someone else besides Hyles (who is far from representing historic fundamentalism in many respects). Did Spurgeon talk about being KJV only? How about Moody? What about John R. Rice (I challenge you to look that one up)? Jonathan Edwards, Billy Sunday, J.Greshen Machen, George Whitfield, or W.B. Riley? The list goes on and on. Bottom line, KJV onlyism has NEVER represented historic fundamentalism.
Ed - a quick question - Does preservation equal inspiration??? If it does then you would hold to a re-inspiration view of preservation. Again, this is nonbiblical nonsense.
Have a fabulous day!
Mike
I shave in the shower, so I cannot look at myself in the mirror when I shave
Ed and All,
Spurgeon is oft referred to as a great independent fundamental Baptist. Shall we see what he says regarding the KJV/ Bible translation issue? Does he think only the originals are correct? Are there mistakes in translations? let's hear Mr. Spurgeon:
"I would not even change the expression of our translation in many a place: not that I
am bound by a translation, for God’s original is that which we accept as infallible; but yet there are translations which are evidently accurate, for the Lord’s own Spirit has made them unutterably dear to his saints."
"You cannot change Holy Scripture. You may arrive more and more accurately at the original text; but for all practical purposes the text we have is correct enough, and our old Authorized Version is a sound one."
"I do not hesitate to say that I believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired; but even the historical facts are correct."
"Mistakes of translation there may be, for translators are men; but mistakes of the original Word there never can be, for the God who spoke it is infallible, and so is every word he speaks, and in that confidence we find delightful rest."
"I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation; but if we could get at the original text, just as it was first written, I am not afraid to say that every jot or tittle—every cross of a t or every dot of an
i—was infallibly inspired by God the Holy Ghost."
Apparently, Mr. Spurgeon preferred the KJV, as do I. Yet he also knew there to be mistakes in any translation, and he also believed that only the originals were infallible. I guess Spurgeon was not a true IFB as Ed insinuates. Of course, Dr. Rice wasn't KJV only either.
By the way, the above quotes were taken from spurgeon.us. I highly recommend the site.
Edward,
No, I have not seen the original manuscripts. I am grateful that the Lord has preserved His Word for us in the totality of ancient manuscripts and resulting translations. Recently, I have been blessed in using the English Standard Version of scripture. Amazingly, I have yet to find any orthodox doctrine(s) that is omitted!
As for the KJB being the only real Bible, a study of the history of the Bible would be in order. Unfortunately, you wouldn't find your type of rabid KJBOnlyism if you were to do so.
In short, KJBOnlyism as espoused by FBCH/HAC is a NEW DOCTRINE and could rightly be considered heresy.
I would encourage you to visit Bread and Circuses again!
Edward,
NO! I have not seen the originals. Now, please enlighten us.
Have a fabulous day!
Mike
Edward, please don't leave us. Seriously; stay and bring your friends. Let's have a real give and take.
I've never attended Hammond. I don't know or have known any of the principals; Hyles, Glover, or Schaap.
I truly do worry about anybody who wants the coeds of his student body to sing about how big and strong he is.
However having not been there; is that true or is that simply "urban rumor." Did Hyles want the coeds to sing to him? jb
Rab-philos,
I would sincerely recommend Voyle Glover's book "Fundamental Seduction". As a "First Baptist boy" it sure hit close to home and was alarmingly accurate from my perspective.
A common practice by some of the church youth was to sing "we love you preacher oh yes we do we don't love anyone as much as you when you're not with us we're blue" to Hyles. He certainly didn't discourage that nor the other manifestations of worship that his people offered to him. Hence the theme of idolatry in Mr. Glover's well-written expose.
Ed said:
"Nobody here posting has ever seen the originals yet you vow them to be prefect."
Ed, you've never seen the originals, don't you vow them to be perfect?
Ed said:
"If I honestly believed the way some of you do here about the scriptures, I would throw in the towel and live it up. How can you depend on a less than perfect Bible?"
Ed, were English Translations before 1611 "less than perfect"? I'm glad our Baptist ancestors didn't throw in the towel because they didn't have a King james version. Do you not admit that there are differences in the KJV and earlier English translations? Doesn't that mean that before 1611 there was no Word of God for the English people?
Ed said:
"By the way, I do not follow Spurgon or Torrey or Jim Gray...I only follow Christ and that is it."
When did Christ say that the KJV was the only Bible? You say you do not follow men but only Christ...yet you have followed Hyles and Schaap into KJVonlyism.
My point about Spurgeon should've been obvious. You insinuated that true IFBers are KJVO, yet Spurgeon (whom Hyles and Schaap both have praised as a great fundamental Baptist) and Dr. John R. Rice (the "captain of out team") were not KJVO, not to mention numerous other famous fundamentalists that were not KJVO.
Spurgeon believed that there were mistakes in the KJV, so did other great men of the past. yet they lived lives marked by a great faith. I think by God's grace you and I can too.
Still KJV Preferred,
reglerjoe
Ed,
I'm not sure how to say this without coming across as mean. So, I'm going to dismiss you with a pretty clear opinion in mind.
To answer your question, no I haven't seen an original. But if I follow your logic and reasoning, and still came to the same conclusion as you, I'd be regarded as the stupidest person on the face of the planet. But I don't follow your reasoning and I wouldn't dare call you such a thing.
Anyway, the argument has been for studying text in the original language. No one has argued for studying the original penned documents. The parchement would be a little fragile by now, don't you think?
Anyway, if such manuscripts aren't sufficient for us, these days, how were they sufficient for the KJV translators?
Good luck to you and with your faith.
-Mike
Edward,
What did believers do for the 1600 years prior to your AV? Pray tell what did the first century Christians do without their King James Bible? They didn't even have a NT, so I guess they were on "shaky ground" as you call it.
I don't mean to be rude, but you need to do some homework, friend.
Don't forget that your beloved Jack Hyles was not always heretical KJBO either. You also seem to be caught up biblioatry.
Ed and all:
Could we possibly return to the original thrust of the post instead of addressing this KJVO heresy? Believe you me that we will be discussing this at great length over the next few years here at B&C! I appreciate all of the points made--I just don't want them to get lost at the bottom of this thread.
Is FBCH a well fed congregation? If you say "yes" please explain how you arrived at that conclusion. If you say "no" please explain as well. I want to re-affirm that I believe it is NOT a well fed church. Having attended for over 20 years helps me come to this conclusion as well as the statements cited from Schaap's sermons and books. I have posted just one example.
Matthew
Yes, Matthew, I believe that they are well-fed, just not well fed on the right things.
If you are going to be well-fed on the Bible and sound doctrine, then you must hear it preached and taught not taught about. Psalm 119, Joshua 1:8and on, as well as many other verses tell us to meditate on the Word. This means, study, dissect, chew and digest it.
This was not done at HAC/FBCH, instead, we heard about fighting for fundamental standards (I beg to differ with the standards being fundamental, but we'll give 'em this one) and taking a stand. The problem was the stand was on ideas of man not the Word. I recall not one inductive bible study or course there (a few surveys)the whole time I was there. How do you meditate and feed on the Word if you can't observe, study, interpret, and apply it? How can you apply it without doing the first two? You can't. You are then only applying your own understanding of it (See Prov 3:5-6). You must study it and compare it to other scriptures.
I used to be enamoured with Jack Hyles and sat on the front row at church and college trying to soak up some of his teaching and power. The big problem is that when I began to study the Word and feed myself, I found that what I was fed in the sermons was not the same food that was in my KJV Bible.
I personally got well-fed when I was at HAC via 24/7 dorm speakers. The only problem is that what I was fed was like soyburger instead of steak. It looked and smelled similar and I tasted it for a while and began to get use to the taste but then when I would feast on the steak of studying God's Word, and the soy became an obvious impostor. I discovered this before ever looking into the KJVO controversy. I challenge any FBCH'ers and HAC's to do more than just read your KJV, study it, dissect it and see if what you are eating in church and school is soy or steak. By the way, I saw the idoloatry and improprietous-appearing behavior that took place by the encouragement of Bro Hyles at the Hyles "girl's meetings" on Thursday nights that I began to examine his teaching more. If he would allow obvious idolatry, then what else was there in his philosophy that was wrong? A person often does what actions they entertain. Sure enough, I found self-praising, arrogant dogma in the sermons. That was not all I was fed, but mostly. The other side orders served were bitter vanilla beans and sour grapes about other Christians. How does this line up with the Bible? No thanks, I'd rather eat steak.
Hi Edward,
My primary Bible is the New King James. Is that acceptable?
Edward, I do hate to see you support a Roman Catholic Bible.
And of course, Erasmus, editor of 5 Greek New Testament editions (1st-1516; 5th-1534) which set the standard for all the later textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs, was a lifelong Roman Catholic (which some fundamentalist Baptists in flights of pure self-delusion have recently attempted to deny; see my published article, Erasmus, His Greek Text and His Theology noted above). He was ordained as priest and ultimately offered the office of Cardinal (which he refused). Erasmus left in writing his decided opinion that Matthew 6:13; John 7:53-8:11; and I John 5:7 were not original parts of the NT but later scribal insertions (see my above-mentioned article for documentation), opinions shared in common by Westcott and Hort. It is common knowledge that in several places, Erasmus deliberately altered the text he found in Greek manuscripts and fabricated readings based solely on the Latin Vulgate! One among several such places is Acts 9:5,6; also the last 6 verses of Revelation were entirely Erasmus’ back translation from Latin into Greek, since his one Greek manuscript completely lacked these verses. Erasmus the Catholic was sole editor of his various NT editions; therefore his Greek NTs can honestly and accurately be called Catholic Greek texts. The presence of just one Catholic scholar on the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament is hardly noteworthy by comparison.
Personally I'm always a little leary about Roman Catholic Bibles; leary about the priest Eurasmus who was the numero uno editor of the Textus Receptus?
Sorry Edward; I shouldn't "gig" you. jb
Another "touch" from Doug Kutilek!
Should we not find this revelation stunning, even appalling-that the KJV NT in nearly 3,000 places indeed is a “Catholic Bible” that is, it reproduces wording borrowed directly from, and only from, the first Roman Catholic translation of the NT into English. And of course there are thousands of other places where the wording of the KJV agrees exactly with the Rheims NT where it in turn happens to agree with some one or more of the earlier English versions also consulted by the KJV translators.
More problems for the original KJV.
And then there is the somewhat embarrassing fact that the original 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha (as did all editions of the KJV for decades after 1611, and as did most editions until about 1800) - Kutilek
Tsk
Edward. Following your line of "reasoning" - Have you ever seen the originals? If not, how can YOU conclude that the KJV is perfect?
Please answer this question for us.
I just got a call yesterday from a former IFB pastor of mine. The issue? KJO. I was told 4 seperate time "I wish we lived closer so that I could go over scripture with you". What?? I can take my ESV and come to the same conclusions regarding preservation and claim that it must be ESV only! This line of reasoning is so backwards. He then went on to say (hear comes the old fall-back plan) one of the main reasons he believes in the KJV is that it doesn't have a copyright. Oh... OK. Not THATS a good reason to decide what Bible is God's Word ;)
sorry for the spelling errors. Since I do not believe in double inspiration I believe that men can make mistakes when they write something down. duh.
Guys,
I actually think Edward has a tare-rific viewpoint on all of this. As he makes quite clear, he'd much rather be in his shoes when he stands before God.
My take is that this is a pretty good example of how "well fed" folks are at FBC. I think you have your answer Matthew. It's a shame.
Again, I bring you back to the image of Matt 7.
-Mike
Edward,
Since when did you become so familiar with all of our evangelism habits??? All of us live in different parts of the country (or world for that matter) and it would be impossible for you to know how often we share the Gospel. Isn't that being a bit presumptious now Edward.....
Have a fabulous day!
Mike
Howard,
We would appreciate it if you would tone down the rhetoric a bit. Mike referred to you as a tare simply because you mentioned that you would never change. When we have arrived and close our minds off to the ministry of the Word to change us--a red flag ought to go up. You have basically shown a stiffnecked and stubborn spirit in your refusal to search out this KJV issue--you very well may read the other side of the issue and reject it--no one here is requiring you to agree with us on everything.
You must simply be honest in looking at what historic fundies believed for decades in regards to the Holy Scriptures. I pray that your heart would be softened and that you would search this issue out in its totality. God bless you!
Edward,
Please! Stop! You're really quite insulting in your comments. The issue we have with you isn't your stance against other translations. As I've said before, give me a translation and I will be happy to point out where they haven't accurately translated.
And once again, no one has ever, ever argued that you have to have the original letters. Our argument is for the use of the original languages. And this is in order to remain consistent with orthodox historical/grammatical hermeneutics. In case you're not familiar with that term, it's the science of interpreting scripture, which pastors and teachers are called to do.
Since there is absoloutely no existence of the aorist tense in English, and since the English does not make use of the double negative, and since the English does not change word order for emphasis, you cannot fully interpret scripture from any English bible.
But you do not need to be concerned with this. This is something the various pastors and teachers who regularly blog here are dealing with. You see, they're very concerned with rightly dividing the word of truth.
I have absolutely lost my patience with you, not because you're closed minded and in your own world. But because you consistently twist what is said to suit your purpose.
And yes, I do consider you to be a tare, based on your rhetoric, your spirit towards the children of God who do not follow KJVO, and for your failure to recognize God's word in any form. Plus, you're guilty of idolotry.
These are things I've observed in your behavior on this blog. Each of these men has extended a warm welcome to you to try and edify you. Each has either come from HAC or has a spouse that has come from HAC. Each has spent 10+ years in Hyles style of fundamentalism.
You, on the other hand, know diddly squat about how we live our lives to make a statement that we take away from scripture. And furthermore, the warning in Revelation is against taking away anything in the book of Revelation. But you would know that if you studied it.
And finally, check Colossians. If you were truly concerned with being a blessing for Christ, your speech would be full of grace and seasoned with salt. You lack grace and you're utterly deprived of doctrine (salt).
I would rather you simply go away and please get someone else to represent you. Please get someone you consider to be a mature and wise Christian. This will be hugely beneficial for future dialogue. Or, you can pray and repent for your attitude.
Lastly, bear in mind that if you are a Christian, you have a mandate to ernestly hold and defend doctrine-- not a church, not a false teacher, not error, not dogma and not tradition. Think I'm wrong-- probably do-- take a look at Revelation and the church of Sardis (http://wildernessvoice.com/revelation/rev3-1to6.html). They too were utterly deprived of doctrine, yet survived for several centuries after their rebuke by Christ.
In his address, Christ tells the elders of this dead church that despite their poor attention to doctrine a few believers actually walked amongst them without their knowledge. The bulk of the church was comprised of tares. The eldership was comprised of tares.
You don't like me calling you this. Fine. Please take it up with Christ. I'm just an evangelist. My only duty is to interpret and preach/teach the word of God. I have no fanfare. I have no loyal followers. And I don't get a penny. Reprove, rebuke and exhort is what an evangelist is instructed to do. We're not to merely be scheduled for a week at a time to tickle your ear. Sorry, I'm not entertaining enough for you. But I do believe you have adequately been reproved, rebuked and exhorted by all the men on this site.
My prayer for you is that the Father will lead you unto repentance and that he will send forth his Holy Spirit to regenerate your heart and mind by way of faith-- his faith, which is the gift of God-- and that you will walk in grace.
I regret being so firm with you on this. And I hope I'm wrong about your spiritual condition. Perhaps one day I will embrace you as a brother. I will rejoice should that day arise.
-Mike
I noticed that the feeding was not the word of God, but the words of Dr. Hyles.
Bob,
Your observation is spot on. I read the Bible for years with my IFBx goggles on and always wondered what Hyles thought of certain hard passages. Certainly even a blind squirrel will happen on an acorn every once and again--for the most part Hyles was only concerned about building his image and circling the wagons so to speak.
Matthew
Re: Well fed???
Yesterday (27 July) I listened to four random downloaded sermons by the following preachers: Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, Bob Gray (Texas), Allan Domelle. Not one Bible verse or passage was quoted in any of these sermons. Not one. Not even a tiny mention. Zilch. This seems to be regular FBCH style preaching.
Let the Bible speak for itself!
Ozimax
Ozzi,
You are right on the money--a truly Theocentric sermon full of Biblical exposition is the exception to the rule in IFBX circles. When you travel into the historic IFB orbit you will not find much in the way of storytelling or fantastic personal illustrations as foundations for sermons.
I recommend that you stay as far from IFBX as possible except for entertainment purposes.
Matthew
Michael,
"I recommend that you stay as far from IFBX as possible except for entertainment purposes."
I don't necessarily agree with you on this one. There are some pretty good churches still in IFBXdom.
I am a former IFB pastor. I believe I have a pretty fair understanding of what goes on in IFB churches. I believe in and only use the KJV. I do not support CCM or commercialised Christianity. I believe in and practice personal witnessing. I believe in the autonomy of the local NT church. (I too have attended Pastors' School in Hammond numerous times. I too was caught up in the hoopla and fol-de-rols.)
I know what the numbers game is all about. I've been personally instructed to "get the baptismal numbers up", any way you can. Re-baptise the bus kids if you need to, but get the numbers up.
There are multitudes of genuine, Christlike, humble, sincere members of IFB churches who are being worked to death. I was. In America. These "average Joe" church members are among the finest people there are. They are simply starving to death spiritually because they are not taught the Word of God. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book.
Preachers, illustrate it, humour it, outline it, do whatever you will, but let the Book speak for itself. Feed the flock.
Ozzi,
I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the spirit in which you posted it. I still stand by my statement regarding IFBX. They may not be involved in the CCM craze or the "Bible of the month" club as Hyles liked to call it--they are still dangerous in MANY regards.
I believe that the heresy of King James Onlyism is one of their largest warts--typically IFBX would be of the arepentance persuasion as well--usually believing the Great Commission is all about 1-2-3 pray after me and not the making of disciples.
A well placed illustration during a sermon is one thing--a sermon with 50% stories or even 25% stories is an utter outrage. Pastors must be able to expound upon the text of the scriptures in their proper context and feed the flock that the LORD has entrusted to their care.
I think we agree on most of these issues--I suppose it all depends on whom you throw into the IFBx category. Some would no doubt throw my church into that pile as well--I would profusely disagree, but you get the idea. BTW, I am Matthew--we have two Michaels who post regularly, but I think you were directing your comments at me.
To the praise of His Glorious Grace,
Matthew
Hi there:
"typically IFBX would be of the arepentance persuasion as well"
I try to keep a balance on this issue. Realising that feeding the flock is the thrust of this column, not repentance as such, it is however an interesting and exceptionally important consideration. I was for a long time a participant in the "1-2-3 pray with me" line of witnessing, but thank the Lord no longer.
Repentance is taught in the Bible, no doubt about it, but keeping (as one blogger says "between the ditch and the gutter" or similar) from extremes is the only way of keeping sane. The "numbers are everything" philosophy is rampant, but so are dead do-nothing churches. I commend zealous believers in the former camp for their zeal, and I will preach against dead Christianity that sits by and allows people to tumble into Hell.
However, it is true that God must do the convicting and drawing to Himself. He must do the saving, the changing, the "born againing", not a zealous believer supercharged at a pep rally to get first prize in the Spring programme being an all-you-can-eat-dinner certificate. (Our Lord knows we need less of them and more fit preachers, but I digress.)
The sinner must repent eg turn about from his way, that way that seems right to a man but is leading to Hell, be it drugs, booze, charity, good works, kindness, whatever it is, and turn to God through Jesus Christ alone and His finished work on Calvary.
Bye for now.
Ozzi,
Thanks for your comments--I am in agreement with you. Wouldn't it be great if churches could strike the proper Biblical balance of ministry? I trust you will have a blessed LORD's Day tomorrow!
Matthew
Post a Comment