Wonder what he would have thought about that happening?Yep.
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!
Wonder what he would have thought about that happening?Yep.
Jack Hyles changed his views concerning the KJV. In his book Let's Study the Revelation, Jack Hyles clearly was not KJV-only as Hyles advocated some readings in the book of Revelation that are found in the Critical Text.John R. Rice's Sword of the Lord promoted and published Jack Hyles' books in the 1960s and 1970s. This means that Rice also agreed with Hyles "Let's Go Soul Winning". One of the few disagreements between the two was on the topic of storehouse tithing.
But it appears that John R Rice always agreed with Hyles's methods of soul winning, or else they would have never been published.Jack Hyles changed his views concerning the KJV. In his book Let's Study the Revelation, Jack Hyles clearly was not KJV-only as Hyles advocated some readings in the book of Revelation that are found in the Critical Text.
At some point after John R. Rice passed away, Jack Hyles would change his earlier views to a KJV-only view.
You seem to be confused. Jack Hyles' new KJV-only view is evident in his 1993 book entitled Enemies of Soul Winning with its fifth chapter being entitled "False Bibles--an Enemy of Soul Winning". This 1993 book was published over 10 years after John R. Rice's death. That 1993 book is not the same as the much earlier book on soul winning published by the Sword of The Lord.But it appears that John R Rice always agreed with Hyles's methods of soul winning, or else they would have never been published.
Did Jack Hyles believe in free grace theology like Dallas Theological Seminary or was it more extreme?Was often blessed by John R's preaching and his kindness. Not a fan of some of the easy-believism of his theological methods, but a good brother. Sadly, watched another friend, Jack Hyles, go "off the rails". Jack gave me an autographed copy of his book on church administration when I completed grad school.
Sadly, since I was led to the Lord using a 1901 ASV and not the King James, I was lost according to Jack's later defection from the faith.
He believed and taught an "easy-believism" of simple faith without repentance or much understanding. 1-2-3 pray after me.Did Jack Hyles believe in free grace theology like Dallas Theological Seminary or was it more extreme?
I remember reading where a neighbor got tired of Hyles coming to his house multiple times - he remarked that he finally said the "1-2-3 prayer" - it worked - Hyles didn't come to his house any more!He believed and taught an "easy-believism" of simple faith without repentance or much understanding. 1-2-3 pray after me.
Zeal without knowledge. Thousands "think" they will go to heaven because of raising a hand, walking an aisle, or spouting magic words.
He would have strongly opposed the Sword becoming KJVO. His successor was Curtis Hutson, who later became so KJVO that he promoted Gail Riplinger's ridiculous book, New Age Bible Versions (published long after Rice's death). In my biography of Rice, I discuss his strong opposition to Peter Ruckman, who he called "a nut" in his book I Am a Fundamentalist. The chapter title in his inimitable prose was, "Be a Fundamentalist, but Not a Nut."Wonder what he would have thought about that happening?
The method of soul winning in the pamphlet by Hyles Let's Go Soul Winning is not that bad, IMO. It uses Scripture extensively, and doesn't appear to inform the prospect that he is saved just by saying a prayer. The problem was that if put soul winning above the glory of God, you rush through the Scriptures hoping to get a "convert" without the Holy Spirit. Edit: it's been many years since I read the pamphlet, since after Hyles' scandal I threw all his books away.But it appears that John R Rice always agreed with Hyles's methods of soul winning, or else they would have never been published.
Gasp! You poor man.Was often blessed by John R's preaching and his kindness. Not a fan of some of the easy-believism of his theological methods, but a good brother. Sadly, watched another friend, Jack Hyles, go "off the rails". Jack gave me an autographed copy of his book on church administration when I completed grad school.
Sadly, since I was led to the Lord using a 1901 ASV and not the King James, I was lost according to Jack's later defection from the faith.
Think John Calvin explianed this very wellHe believed and taught an "easy-believism" of simple faith without repentance or much understanding. 1-2-3 pray after me.
Zeal without knowledge. Thousands "think" they will go to heaven because of raising a hand, walking an aisle, or spouting magic words.
Thought DTS was "4 point Baptists"Did Jack Hyles believe in free grace theology like Dallas Theological Seminary or was it more extreme?
He would not have agreed to chapter about Kjv only version that would be used by the Holy Spirit to save lost sinnersBut it appears that John R Rice always agreed with Hyles's methods of soul winning, or else they would have never been published.
Do you know how he thought about the 1881/1901 translations based upon the Critical Greek texts? Was it still mainly use kjv, but also at times use those if they had improved certain passages?He would have strongly opposed the Sword becoming KJVO. His successor was Curtis Hutson, who later became so KJVO that he promoted Gail Riplinger's ridiculous book, New Age Bible Versions (published long after Rice's death). In my biography of Rice, I discuss his strong opposition to Peter Ruckman, who he called "a nut" in his book I Am a Fundamentalist. The chapter title in his inimitable prose was, "Be a Fundamentalist, but Not a Nut."![]()
Jesus made it pretty clear, that if one comes to him to be saved, can and must be prepared to pick up his own cross, and endure the world system and its crowd, not just say 'save me Jesus", and then just cruise down salvation Blvd until dead or rapturedThe method of soul winning in the pamphlet by Hyles Let's Go Soul Winning is not that bad, IMO. It uses Scripture extensively, and doesn't appear to inform the prospect that he is saved just by saying a prayer. The problem was that if put soul winning above the glory of God, you rush through the Scriptures hoping to get a "convert" without the Holy Spirit. Edit: it's been many years since I read the pamphlet, since after Hyles' scandal I threw all his books away.
At Hyles-Anderson College, the human actions were glorified more than God's actions. I have a friend who went there and one day went 'soul winning" as the chaperone for some young ladies. After just a half hour on the street they got back on the bus bragging about the many souls they had "won" in such a short time by simply having them "pray the prayer.'
I knew a man who went there and was the "Soul Winner of the Year" based on his claimed conversion rate. That glorifies man, not God. At the Bible college where I teach we have no such reward, and strongly encourage biblical discipling and Spirit filled personal evangelism. Don't just win them, develop a relationship with that spiritual baby and lead them gently in their Christian walk.
Caveat: I know the pastor who took over that ministry after Schaap's infamous infidelity, and he is a good man, more biblical than his predecessors.
Heaven help you if you were saved by the NkjvGasp! You poor man.![]()
John MacArthur's Lordship Salvation, anyone?Jesus made it pretty clear, that if one comes to him to be saved, can and must be prepared to pick up his own cross, and endure the world system and its crowd, not just say 'save me Jesus", and then just cruise down salvation Blvd until dead or raptured
He used the ASV for study, but did not preach from it. As revealed by his magnum opus, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, as clear as he was on inspiration, he did not have a high level understanding of textual criticism.Do you know how he thought about the 1881/1901 translations based upon the Critical Greek texts? Was it still mainly use kjv, but also at times use those if they had improved certain passages?