Critics of Bro. Jack Schaap

Pastor Larry,

I understand your viewpoint comes from a belief that what Bro. Hyles was accused of however many years ago, was actually true. There was never any real evidence that it was true. Those who KNEW Dr. Hyles have stated over and over that they do not believe it. This included his son-in-law, Bro. Schaap. If Bro. Schaap BELIEVED that what was accused was true, then I think you'd have a case for separation. But when you believe the allegations are false, why would you separate from the man?

Im not here to prove or disprove either way. I was not a part of his church, I think I was in college when all the ruckus was happening and so I was pretty isolated at the time from any news. All Im pointing out is that Dr. Schaap BELIEVED Dr. Hyles to be innocent, and so he stood by him.

There's nothing for Dr. Schaap to repent of in that regard.

Also, there is the idea floating around this board and other places that these men have some sort of responsibility to the ENTIRE country. No, they have only a responsibility to their own church and their own area of local ministry. They see/saw themselves as pastor of their own church. How many of you pastors would expect people at MY church to demand an apology from you if you did something they didn't like? And if they DID demand that sort of thing, how many of you would give it?

 

If so, "my bad." God bless.

 

What foolishness are you talking about? "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).

 

Pastor Larry, how can you say that we are following the Bible when we are involved with gossip? I am neither for nor against the FBC ministry nor do I m ake judgments on Hyles. All I am saying is that you and otjhers have obviously made a judgment that Hyles is guilty as charged in public opinion without having any first hand evidence. Have/had you ever personally asked Jack Hyles about these allegations? I doubt it. Yet you stand as judge on him. You are being hypocritical in this my brother.

 

GB, forgive me if I judged you wrongly here.

 

I hardly think these verses are talking about the pastor of a Baptist church who you disagree with on some things. Disagree with him, yes, but don't put him outside of Christ.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Ro 14:4).

And how do you know that Jack Schaap did not privately confront his father-in-law?

Look, Bro. Hyles was a friend of my family. When all the accusations came out about him I agonized. I read everything I could get on both sides, and still have the material. I concluded that Bro. Hyles had at least been unwise but that there was no smoking gun. Have you examined all of the evidence on both sides, or are you thinking of hearsay here? And if Bro. Schaap had gone public as you say he should have he would have split the church. That isn't right!

Bro. Schaap has an incredibly difficult job following a man like Jack Hyles, whatever you may think of Hyles. I say at least give him a chance. I've never been a member of FBC, but I've been to the church and heard each man preach and seen what they were doing. Bro. Schaap is his own man, very different from his father-in-law in preaching, ministry, etc. Give him a chance.

 

We will never know whether Jack Schaap privately confronted Jack Hyles or not. Should we give the benefit of the doubt that the confrontation did happen? I am willing to do so. If Jack Schaap believes that Jack Hyles was innocent, then there is nothing to repent of.

This may be true of Jack Schaap, but I don't think Jack Hyles thought this way. From everything I've read, he believed himself to be "the man" leading Fundamentalism. I don't think he did himself any favors with this attitude, but that's neither here nor there.

Until proven otherwise, I think we give Jack Schaap the benefit of the doubt.

 

First, the issues of which Hyles was accused many years ago were substantial enough to require public action on Hyles part and he took none. In fact, he hid and continued his ways. There has been solid enough proof to remove comments about this matter from doubt for people who are objective.

I realize there are some here who are "family friends." But we have to realize that sin always makes things hard. There are no easy answers when sin is involved, even when it is family.

Schaap may have confronted Hyles privately, but that is not enough. This was a public sin, and those elders who are caught in are to be rebuked in the presence of all. FBC Hammond never did that. The church was disobedient to God in that regard.

But that was not the greatest travesty of FBC Hammond. The greatest travesty is the theological heterodoxy and pragmatism that has come from FBC Hammond and HAC for many years. That group has rejected biblical admonition and warning to turn. In light of passages like Titus 3:9-10, 2 Thess 3, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and other passages, we have no recourse but to turn from FBC Hammond and expose them publicly until they get their house in order. I hope Schaap will prove to be a man of character and changes his ways.

Lastly, some say that they are responsible only to their own church. Have we forgotten the "Pastor's School"? They made themselves more than simply a local church issue by their actions.

These things are never easy, but the ministry isn't for weak people. We have to be willing to stand up and call a spade a spade. We can't back down because it is someone's personal friend, or son-in-law. We can't chicken out because it is a big church. WE need to be serious about truth and loving God.

 

Well said, Rhetorician, except that I find the BB fairly Baptist-ecumenical (if that makes any sense).

Pastor Larry, Schaap has made public statements to the effect that he is not Hyles and will do things his own way. Hopefully that means that some necessary changes will be continue to be made. At a minimum, he has shifted the whole focus of the church into a world evangelism mode and that is good. Another change is that the training union hour is no longer just the pastor pontificating, but is divided into many classes, with the main one be the missions hour in the main auditorium.

As for the first Jack, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I for one am not going to open up the whole Hyles thing again. He died 4 years ago, Jack Schaap is the pastor, I think he's doing a fine job but you don't, so let it rest.

 

Let me see. Plainly the Bible teaches that sodomy is sin, so I don't think anyone calling himself fundamental Baptist on this board will be for the practice of sodomy and the company of sodomites.

Drunkenness is sin, but drinking in and of itself is not. In fact Timothy was told to drink no longer water but wine, and no translation of the Bible says 'unfermented wine', neither does any translation of the Bible say that Jesus drank unfermented wine, and so therefore the orignial texts do not also state that Jesus drank unfermented wine, so apparently the question of drinking being a sin was concocted by those who feel high and mighty holier than others.

Stealing is a sin, and Paul adjures the Ephesians to steal no more. Sloth is a sin, and so the Bible tells us to work. Gossiping is a sin, and so James talks a lot about the tongue, and this is one sin where everybody on this board could honestly say he/she gets drawn into especially if the 'troll' is good.

Grieving the Spirit is sin, and a violation of any of the Ten Commandments is sin, and there is nothing in the ten commandments, or any of the sins enumerated in the New Testament, about smoking a pipe or a cigarette or cigars, or chewing tobacco.

Nothing in the Bible says that a Christian must be King James only. And while the Bible clearly says separate from erring brethren, the same Bible teaches to first confront and to labor in love to correct the error, instead of simply just separating and calling for non-fellowship based on unscriptural doctrines like the use of a translation of the Bible, or because they do not feel one's conviction about movies, or dancing. Speaking of dancing, can you please, like tobacco, show a clear, precise command in the Bible that cannot be left to one's private interpretation that says going to the movies and dancing are sin ?

At worst, I can only say about these things what Paul said:

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 1 Cor. 10:23;

 

I think this thread has very little to do with Dr Schaap as the title suggests - lets us make sure we stay on topic please.

[ December 22, 2005, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I hope so.

Is it? Unless he has changed his theology and philosophy, this is not good. I don't know, but if Schaap grew up in HAC and FBCHammond, it is likely that his "evangelism" is the same as Hyles' was, and that is hardly evangelism. It is a defective gospel, an easy believism, and that will not only not evangelize the world, it will bring great harm to the cause of Christ as it has already done.

I sincerely hope Schaap has changed.

 

Actually Pastor Larry,

Apparently you need to do a bit more digging around about Bro Schaap in order to get a true picture. Even I know he didn't grow up in FBCHammond.......(not sure of where, but I know he's not from Hammond.)

Pastor Schaap's gospel is the same as yours....hopefully. I know what Pastor Schaap preaches, so I know its the same as the Bible's.

Under Schaap Pastor's School has become much more varied. And btw, Pastor's school originally started because other pastors were asking Dr. Hyles to offer something like that....and he thought it sounded like a good idea. Since then it has evolved, and now includes classes on many many areas of ministry, including a large segment of them on missions each year. If ya don't want to have anything to do with FBCHammond....fine.....but this constant berating and criticizing is ridiculous.

In another forum there was a thread on John McArthur......yet no one started criticizing him for the fact that some of his people take everything HE says as "bible". But the same is not true if your last name is Hyles or Schaap.

Don't like them if you want, fine. But there's no reason to run him down constantly. Give Bro. Schaap a chance.

 

I could not be less concerned about where he grew up. My issues are theological and moral.

Then he needs to be more public that he has separated himself from teh gospel that was preached at FBC Hammond for years. There are many of us who would rejoice to know that Schaap has returned to the biblical gospel and repudiated the foolishness that Hyles resorted to.

That's fine. I don't really care. The point was that someone said that it was merely a local church matter. I pointed out that it was far bigger than local church.

 

Is it? Unless he has changed his theology and philosophy, this is not good. I don't know, but if Schaap grew up in HAC and FBCHammond, it is likely that his "evangelism" is the same as Hyles' was, and that is hardly evangelism. It is a defective gospel, an easy believism, and that will not only not evangelize the world, it will bring great harm to the cause of Christ as it has already done.

I sincerely hope Schaap has changed. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Schaap went to Pillsbury before HAC, and he talks about this in his messages and how he grew at Pillsbury.

But Pastor Larry, you seem to be confusing methods of evangelism with the Gospel itself. The Gospel as preached at FBC is just what 1 Cor. 15:1-8 teaches: that Christ died for our sins (as proven by His burial), and rose again the third day (as proven by the witnesses).

If some at FBC (or anywhere else) add that salvation must be obtained by saying a prayer (rather than the faith of the heart), I agree that that is a wrong Gospel. But near as I can see that is not what is preached. Their method of evangelism has people pray a prayer, but that methodology has been common for 100 years in Fundamentalism/evangelicalism. Hyles didn't start it.

Why can't we be glad that Christ is preached in Hammond? Phil. 1 says, as you know: "14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

 

I am not sure he is. Hyles salvation theology was bankrupt. He believed in an easy believism, 1-2-3 prayer after me routine. He believed at the end that you could only get saved from the King James Version. He did not preach repentance as the Bible commands.

This is not so much about methodology as it is the theology that leads to the methodology.

I hope Schaap has repented of that and has turned to preach the biblical gospel. And I hope he is correcting the years of bad theology that those people were taught.

 

Yes, but my point is that the methedology sprang from a bad theology. What needs to be fixed is the theology. Then the methodology will likely take care of itself.

BTW, I think you have a mistake. Shouldn't your second line read "Bad theology leads to bad methodology"?