More name calling. You won't debate, but you love to insult.
But now you are derailing the thread.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jack Hyles Versus John R. Rice
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
But now you are derailing the thread.
Accurately describing your behavior is not name calling. You and Dr Bob are very similar. You rejected rebuke. So Be It.
He is neither prideful nor arrogant. He is a follower of Christ.
I have never quoted anyone here in defense of my beliefs about the KJV Bible, but dead sure, if I decided now to quote some one it would not be Jack Hyles. But I am glad you in your own way finally addressed the op to some degree. No one has mentioned it yet but in addition to Jack Hyles other doctrinal and personal problems, I have heard him preach the Baptist Bride doctrines. The people who I know who have been associated with him and agree with what he and his school taught are generally anti dispensational or at least opposed to dispensational teaching, and this causes me to ask the question; what good to say you believe the word of God and deny all the covenant promises of God he made to Abraham and his family? The covenants he made with this family are everlasting covenants and God swore upon his own person with an oath of every one of them that they will surely be kept by him.
So, I generally do not have much confidence in many of the KJV Bible believers. Some of them have just as many problems believing the words of God as you have. I attempt to demonstrate from the scriptures why I believe what I do. Who really knows what is the motivation for people believing what they do.
Swearing to a covenant:
He 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
Also the Land Covenant
Deuteronomy 29:12
That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day:
Deuteronomy 29:14
Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; (read context)
The Davidic covenant of 2 Kings 7;
Ps89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
I doubt there is a Baptist currently posting on this board who believes this about David nor understands that part of this psalm transitions to David's offspring, Jesus Christ, of whom David is the typical metaphor. (history illustrated prophetically in advance). Or that God is able to, and will raise David from the dead.
Why didn't you accuse logos1560 of derailing the thread because he is actually guilty of it?
You fail to demonstrate that I have any problem believing the words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. You are not the Holy Spirit of God. You add to the word of God your human opinions that it does not teach.
Why do you try to condemn me for not believing the actual verifiable errors that have been found in the many varying editions of the KJV that are not every word the same? Do you believe the errors that were found in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Do you believe the errors that were found in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV?
You know, I was about to thank you for being careful about that. Oh well.
Look, it's my thread, so I get to decide what derails the thread and what does not. That's my view and I'm sticking to it.
I don't often tell people that they are derailing a thread, but I think I had good cause to do so with xlsdraw. One doesn't get to call someone "knucklehead," threaten to squeal on them, then tell them they are arrogant and prideful, and have them knuckle under to you. He claimed he was rebuking me. The way he did that was not a biblical rebuke. Look it up in your KJV.I have prayed about his characterization of me, and asked the Lord to tell me if I was being proud. If xlsdraw had pointed out to me some specific thing I said that was arrogant, things would have been different. But by saying that I am arrogant and proud without specifying the charges, he was attacking my character, not my posts. That's not only against BB rules, it is not Christian.
I almost posted to you that you were derailing the thread at one point, but you graciously said you did not want to do that, so I refrained. And after all you were responding to the article I posted by John R. Rice.
Well, now, it is certainly off topic to discuss dispensationalism here, but since you brought it up, I will allow myself a brief correction of your post. Dispensationalism does not deny the covenant promises in the Bible. That is a complete misunderstanding of the theology. We recognize the biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, etc. The covenants denied by dispensationalists are the two or three (depending on the theologian) made up covenants of covenant theology: the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace.
Enough of that. I hope you'll drop this about dispensationalism now that I've addressed it. But if you really want to discuss it, start a thread in the Baptist Theology section.
Jesus Christ said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus that he came to fulfill all that was written of him in the Psalms, Law, and the Prophets. To do this would have taken the cooperation of their faith in him. Part of what he intended to do for a fractured and scattered people is to unify their language so they would be speaking the same things. It is a promise;
Zephaniah 3:9: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
The context will show that pure is in the context of a single language, a national language, which is Hebrew. But the next prophecy will give clarity as to why he did not at his first coming restore the language;
1 Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Israel); and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Languages are a sign that this people are under the judgement of God.
Having said that, I am not going to die on this hill. If you want to believe God has given his prophecies through gentiles, it is okay with me. You could present a strong internal argument for Luke being a gentile. but if it were true it would cause some difficulties with several other things God has said about the subject in his word.
God prepared the application of Hebrew and Greek and English to effect many people of many cultures. He has done that with these three languages. I do not have a verse about these three languages but I have studied the "ways of God." which is clearly a legitimate way to ascertain biblical truths. But as I have said before, Bibles are for the saved, the gospel is for the unsaved. Scripture is written on paper. The gospel is written on the hearts of men.
Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
Psalm 103:7
He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
Hebrews 3:10
Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They (that generation) do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
The ways of God are nearly as important as his words, it seems to me.
I am not one to think that God works among men in sovereignty and determinism but I do think he works providentially, knowing the end from the beginning. Men who believes the gospel of Jesus Christ after hearing it preached are saved whether they ever have a copy of the inspired Bible. Some saved men are wrong about their Bibles but are saved and some men are unsaved and are wrong about their Bibles. Knowing this, I had rather be saved with a less than perfect copy of the scriptures than unsaved with a perfect copy. It would be nice to have both and I think I have. One thing I know and that is that I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ with all my heart and am depending on believing that to get me to heaven rather than having a perfect Bible.
Because that is likely the year of Acts 28 when Paul says he is quitting on his own nation and going to the gentiles. Since he had been preaching to gentiles since about 42 AD, this means his efforts would be strictly to them. After 70 AD there was nothing in the world except gentiles in the eyes of God, the nation being dead and buried in the graveyard of the nations of the world from then until just recently in history. Since then the ministry of the gospel has been one on one and whosoever believes will be baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, the church.
So, Jesus came preaching to Israel that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. (not many believe that) God had always dwelt in the midst of them in the tabernacle and the temple. They rejected him as Messiah and he left and went away and then the nation was dispersed out of their land and time for the nation stopped. Both the King and his nation are now out of the land. The King will return when God raises the nation from the dead and all, every one of them who are left are saved after their baptism by fire, which will leave few in number. The temple where God dwells in the midst of his people was not destroyed until that date.
Lu 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
I have no doubts that had Israel repented during the 40 years of probation she was given between the cross of Christ and AD 70, the fulfillment of the 70 year generation of Jesus Christ, he would have returned at that time and restored all things. The language of the epistle to the Hebrews seems to me to demand this understanding.
These Bibles were national or regional and God did not use them in the broad application of all the world. God used the Hebrews to get fame for himself, and he did. That was one of the four primary reasons for birthing the Hebrew nation.
Isa 66:19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. (read the context)
Two languages have been used greatly of God while Israel is out of the land and the church is being formed, Greek and English, and knowing the ways of God, that the number two is his number for testimony, it does not surprise me that he has used two languages to testify to his salvation. If you think that is silly, then so be it.
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
Hebrew will likely be the main language of the thousand year earthly reign of Christ. I am sure it will be for Israel.
Last edited:
I am not sure about these comments. I feel as if I have fallen into the twilight zone. I was not discussing dispensationalism, I was addressing the weakness of Jack Hyle's theology and saying HE was anti dispensational or weak on it at best, not that I am anti dispensational.
You know, I was about to thank you for being careful about that. Oh well.
Look, it's my thread, so I get to decide what derails the thread and what does not. That's my view and I'm sticking to it.
I have prayed about his characterization of me, and asked the Lord to tell me if I was being proud. If xlsdraw had pointed out to me some specific thing I said that was arrogant, things would have been different. But by saying that I am arrogant and proud without specifying the charges, he was attacking my character, not my posts. That's not only against BB rules, it is not Christian.
I almost posted to you that you were derailing the thread at one point, but you graciously said you did not want to do that, so I refrained. And after all you were responding to the article I posted by John R. Rice.
2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
I am thinking that xlxdraw had the above scripture in mind because the word is in the context of things that are condemned. He might have a point when one looks at all the applications of the word.
Ro 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate <2054>, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Ro 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife <2054> and envying.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions <2054> among you.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife <2054>, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates <2054>, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
Ga 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance <2054>, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife <2054>; and some also of good will:
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife <2054>, railings, evil surmisings,
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions <2054>, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
JD731 has now contributed three posts (one very long, like he likes to do) that are now completely off topic from the OP, so I'm going to ignore them and get back to the OP.
Now, xlsdraw chastised me and threatened to "squeal" on me to First Baptist of Hammond--something I had a good laugh at. ("Mommy, Billy stole my cookie!") So I gave him my name in the real world to make it easier for him. But the truth is, FBC of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College (HAC) have both withdrawn from the radical Ruckmanite-Riplingerite position of Jack Hyles.
It began with Jack Schaap, he of infamy who spent years in the federal pen for taking an underage teenage girl over state lines for nefarious purposes. He came to believe that his father-in-law Hyles was wrong, and we shouldn't apply the word "inspiration" to translations. For that he was roundly chastised in a Feb. 2009 letter by Russell Anderson (1932-2013), the co-founder of HAC. In that letter, Anderson bragged about himself and Hyles, "I've never known of or read of two men that God has used to bring more souls to Christ."
I call this the "argument from blessing" (an arrogant form of it), in which the KJVO advocate says, "Look how God has blessed the KJV. Therefore it must be the only true translation." This is an extremely illogical argument. But moving on. Schaap ended up in the pen, and rightly so, but not for his views on the KJV.
Dr. John Wilkerson took over from Schaap. He is a good man, and I respect him. He has done his best to clean up the mess left by Schaap. Unfortunately, he too came under the opprobrium of Russell Anderson for not holding to the exact stand on the KJV that Hyles had, which was that the KJV is inspired and perfect. His missive from Russell came on Dec. 17, 2015. He demanded that his name be taken off the college (did not happen) and all that pertained to it, pointing out that he had given $12,000,000 to the college and church. This letter is quite revealing. In it Anderson tried to control Wilkerson, the church and the college, and intimated that the institutions should be controlled by Hyles from Heaven!
Wilkerson's sin? He had not promoted the proper people in the college, people who agreed with his position on the KJV. He had retained personnel who had been installed by Schaap and thus did not agree with Hyles on the KJV.
Ironically, in Anderson's letter to Dr. Wilkerson he said at one point, "I have no respect for you," but then signed the letter, "Respectfully, Russell Anderson." Go figure.
Now, xlsdraw chastised me and threatened to "squeal" on me to First Baptist of Hammond--something I had a good laugh at. ("Mommy, Billy stole my cookie!") So I gave him my name in the real world to make it easier for him. But the truth is, FBC of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College (HAC) have both withdrawn from the radical Ruckmanite-Riplingerite position of Jack Hyles.
It began with Jack Schaap, he of infamy who spent years in the federal pen for taking an underage teenage girl over state lines for nefarious purposes. He came to believe that his father-in-law Hyles was wrong, and we shouldn't apply the word "inspiration" to translations. For that he was roundly chastised in a Feb. 2009 letter by Russell Anderson (1932-2013), the co-founder of HAC. In that letter, Anderson bragged about himself and Hyles, "I've never known of or read of two men that God has used to bring more souls to Christ."
I call this the "argument from blessing" (an arrogant form of it), in which the KJVO advocate says, "Look how God has blessed the KJV. Therefore it must be the only true translation." This is an extremely illogical argument. But moving on. Schaap ended up in the pen, and rightly so, but not for his views on the KJV.
Dr. John Wilkerson took over from Schaap. He is a good man, and I respect him. He has done his best to clean up the mess left by Schaap. Unfortunately, he too came under the opprobrium of Russell Anderson for not holding to the exact stand on the KJV that Hyles had, which was that the KJV is inspired and perfect. His missive from Russell came on Dec. 17, 2015. He demanded that his name be taken off the college (did not happen) and all that pertained to it, pointing out that he had given $12,000,000 to the college and church. This letter is quite revealing. In it Anderson tried to control Wilkerson, the church and the college, and intimated that the institutions should be controlled by Hyles from Heaven!
Wilkerson's sin? He had not promoted the proper people in the college, people who agreed with his position on the KJV. He had retained personnel who had been installed by Schaap and thus did not agree with Hyles on the KJV.
Ironically, in Anderson's letter to Dr. Wilkerson he said at one point, "I have no respect for you," but then signed the letter, "Respectfully, Russell Anderson." Go figure.
Last edited:
Maybe I was off topic and maybe I wasn't but I do not care if I am ignored. I only entered the conversation because of the posted article that JR Rice wrote about KJV only people, insinuating that we all are like J. Hyles..
A perfect God sends his perfect son to die for sinners so they can have his perfect righteousness that he requires and be saved but he cannot give a perfect written record and testimony of it because a bunch of fellows who are much too proud of themselves say so? Or that he could give a perfect testimony but he didn't because he was not motivated that way.
Worse, After nearly two thousand years he suddenly decides that what he has written is so confusing that he sanctions 150 translations and paraphrases between 1901 and 2024 in the English language to clarify but with the result being even more confusion. So much for the teaching that the NT offices of apostles and prophets being a foundational office.
This after he said somewhere in one of these translations these words;
Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
I might have fallen off the turnip truck at night, but it wasn't last night. I am not buying this default philosophy of the mainstream..
This will be my last post here and to the offended author of the op, I apologize for what you have designated off topic.
Carry on please.
Sorry about that. I was confused. But I had never heard that Hyles was anti-dispensational.
You know, I was about to thank you for being careful about that. Oh well.
Look, it's my thread, so I get to decide what derails the thread and what does not. That's my view and I'm sticking to it.
I have prayed about his characterization of me, and asked the Lord to tell me if I was being proud. If xlsdraw had pointed out to me some specific thing I said that was arrogant, things would have been different. But by saying that I am arrogant and proud without specifying the charges, he was attacking my character, not my posts. That's not only against BB rules, it is not Christian.
I almost posted to you that you were derailing the thread at one point, but you graciously said you did not want to do that, so I refrained. And after all you were responding to the article I posted by John R. Rice.
Not attacking your character, just describing it. Classic Pride of Scholarship as I see it.
And I am quite sure that I am a Christian.
And if you were serious about self evaluation, you could have utilized the pm option. But your pride requires that you joust publicly. You have not demonstrated a genuine desire to moderate your behavior and place the welfare of the Independent Fundamental Baptists ahead of your own pride. Which is exactly why you were rebuked. 1 Corinthians chapter 6 is still in my KJV.
Last edited:
That as a kingjamesonlyist you despise learning and scholarship is well know. You have "classic pride of lack of learning" that somehow makes you think you are better than others. I got news for you. You are not.
Then why do you act like you do? It's your pride in Onlyism that makes you act that way. Unreasonableness.
You are the one who is offensive.
I have heard Jack Hyles preach in person several times and my evaluation of his preaching comes from my own personal opinions from listening to him and from reading things he has written and interaction with those who considered him their leader in fundamentalism back in the day. The term I used, anti-dispensational, might be a bit strong but I did moderate it by saying he was weak at best. I did hear him preach once years ago in a preachers fellowship in louisville on a related subject that caused me to form my opinion. Maybe no one else shares my opinion and that is okay but I did understand his points and the emphasis of his message that day.
You accuse me of pride, but a rebuke should call out specific details. At this point you have not pointed out anything I said that was arrogant, so I really don't know what you mean by your criticism. So yes, at this point is a personal attack, having no substance.
I'm not a scholar. (My son is a .)
I don't doubt it. Never thought or said you weren't.
You're the one who took it public. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about in this post.
I know he was premil and pretrib, so he may have been historical premil, like his mentor John R. Rice. I'm sure his commentary on Revelation would tell us, but I don't have it.