The REAL Jack Hyles

[bapmom]

I can tell ya why I didn't go there, and it was mostly because of the attitude of a few kids who were on their way to going there, hadn't even made it yet.

But yet, Ive met many good people who went there, too. The truly meekest man on our staff with probably the kindest heart went to HAC and found a very sweet wife there, too.

 

[4His_glory]

Bapmom,

There was HAC stuff on your churches web site, thats how I know.

 

[bapmom]

HAC "stuff"?

two website links, amongst a list of, I think, six or seven? what in the world does "HAC stuff" mean?

You're sounding paranoid here, my friend.

"There's HAC stuff on your website....." Oh no! What is the world coming to?

Come on! We have a gentleman in our church who has made a website to inform others about us. Whats the big deal if he has put a couple links up to the Hammond sites? Our pastor considered Dr Hyles to have been a good, true friend to him, and thats exactly what Dr Hyles was.

Like Ive said, we don't hold them up as the "Baptist's Mecca", we don't play their church tapes in the place of our own preacher preaching, we usually don't even have their college tour groups come to our church, even though they're only an hour or two away.

But we aren't all "worried" about having things to do with them.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree with bapmom here - the church site is hardly a Hyles site. I have serious problems with HAC and the Hyles mentality, but don't see that from the church site by any means.

 

[4His_glory]

I agree it is not a hyles site, but it would be best for a church not to promote HAC in any way. I have know some good people that came from HAC, but they no longer support HAC and have cast off the problems of the Hyles mentality.

 

[bapmom]

well 4Hisglory, we don't agree that its wrong to associate with HAC in any way. Ive seen lots of good come from them.

ANd I would hope that that would be ok for us to disagree on.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by jarhed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please.
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!)

Man, this is too easy. Under the law, a man was supposed to obstain from the evil detailed. Under Grace we are to OBSTAIN from all APPEARANCE of evil. The Law demands you forgive your enemy seven times...Grace: 70 times 7. The Law makes you a debtor to man if you owe him money, but under Grace, I am a debtor to all men. Under the Law I am responsible to God, but under Grace I am responsible to God and to man as HIS AMBASSADOR.

I Could go on infinitum: Point is, GRACE DEMANDS MORE THAN THE LAW. That is just Bible.

Convictions are beliefs held because they are commands that God gave. Grace in no way "FREES" me from OBEDIENCE. This is an old problem (See Rom.6:1-3). If I am DEAD to SIN then I will not be offended at a PECULIAR CHRISTIAN. I will not attack him for not looking, stinking, and thinking like the world...as seems to be your bent. May God deliver us all from the compromise which makes the world COMFORTABLE in our presence but truly causes a lack of respect for our God! </font>[/QUOTE]As YOU stated, this is "too easy". Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio? I think you're confusing the meaning of grace and law.

As far as my "bent"...you know nothing about me, so you're making a false accusation...typical of a person who plays the pharisee.

 

[bapmom]

how was anything he said Pharisaical?

He's right......the New Testament "changed" the law from an outward command on appearance and actions, to an inward life of conforming our motives and heart to God.

its really the direct opposite of being a Pharisee. Grace changes you from the inside out, making the inside clean up first, so that it can affect the outside eventually.

but we can't let the idea get hold that since we are "under grace" that now we don't have to let our outside appearance conform to God's Word. The outside actions are still important.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio?

Gee I wonder if anyone buys gas from a company which sends its money to Muslims?

 

[bapmom]

gb.......

 

[jarhed]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jarhed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Jarhead, you state that Wescott and Hort were homosexual lovers and just put "documented". What is your source? Also, I believe you forget that WE are not under Levitical laws. We are gentiles, and we are under grace. We were NEVER under the law. Grace in NO WAY demands more than the law. I'd like to see your scriptures to back up that statement, please.
There is a difference between standards (personal preferences) and convictions (place of maturity and growth between the Holy Spirit and the person being led by Him). IFB ARE asking us to "bend the knee" to their preferences and their interpretation of what the Bible says instead of letting the Bible say what it says without interjecting their own ideology. I've been there, done that, and "ain't going back". Thank God for the "Fraternity of the Free!" (thanks to Evangelist Tim Lee for that phrase!)

Man, this is too easy. Under the law, a man was supposed to obstain from the evil detailed. Under Grace we are to OBSTAIN from all APPEARANCE of evil. The Law demands you forgive your enemy seven times...Grace: 70 times 7. The Law makes you a debtor to man if you owe him money, but under Grace, I am a debtor to all men. Under the Law I am responsible to God, but under Grace I am responsible to God and to man as HIS AMBASSADOR.

I Could go on infinitum: Point is, GRACE DEMANDS MORE THAN THE LAW. That is just Bible.

Convictions are beliefs held because they are commands that God gave. Grace in no way "FREES" me from OBEDIENCE. This is an old problem (See Rom.6:1-3). If I am DEAD to SIN then I will not be offended at a PECULIAR CHRISTIAN. I will not attack him for not looking, stinking, and thinking like the world...as seems to be your bent. May God deliver us all from the compromise which makes the world COMFORTABLE in our presence but truly causes a lack of respect for our God! </font>[/QUOTE]As YOU stated, this is "too easy". Do you buy from companies that support homosexuality? Do you own a television? Do you listen to the radio? I think you're confusing the meaning of grace and law.

As far as my "bent"...you know nothing about me, so you're making a false accusation...typical of a person who plays the pharisee. </font>[/QUOTE]In answer to your questions (1) Not knowingly, and if I find out I am (which I have), I quit. For instance...there is NOTHING from Walt Disney in our house. (2) Only for Christian Videos and Homeschool Materials...the world has nothing to offer me but TRASH. (3) Not very often...I confess to listening to a little talk radio once in a while and some news, but ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE WORLDS MUSIC (I have a new song).

I am not a pharisee, Sir...I serve out of love, not constraint. That is WHY Grace demands more...because if I allow myself to be self-determinate I am being an ingrate and doing despite to what Christ did on Calvary. The Pharisees thanked God that they were "not as other men," while I thank God that I am not getting what I deserve.

Def: Grace. The unmerited (unearned) favor of God. It has the function of delivering to the subject the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what it (I) deserves.

Law. The declared standard of God. God is RIGHTEOUS, in that he is holy and lives (acts or does) like it.

And, my friend, by commission of the NT, I am subject to it (Be ye holy as I am holy), and I STILL am bound to reach the standard of Righteousness...that is why Christ "fulfilled" the Law...so that he could JUSTIFY me FREELY by Grace (Rom.3:24).

I am free from the law as a CONDEMNING force, but NOT as a standard of obedience. You, sir are confused. GRACE is not the opposite of the Law at all, it just makes salvation possible because by the works of the Law shall NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED in his sight.

Please read Rom.6. You are the slave of sin (conditionally) or the Instrument of God (conditionally)...there is no middle ground. This is not pharisaicle, it is Bible. Your position does not change, for GRACE is the only means of Justification by faith, but that is no excuse to return to the vomit of sin and eat out of the bowl of self-satisfaction and compromise.

I am bought with a price...I have no right.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by bapmom:
well 4Hisglory, we don't agree that its wrong to associate with HAC in any way. Ive seen lots of good come from them.

ANd I would hope that that would be ok for us to disagree on.

We can disagree, thats fine with me. If I am going to be a consistent sepratist, I will not support a ministry like HAC that has done more harm that good to the cause of Christ, I am sorry that you don't see that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry 4HG, I think that is a bit harsh.

I am no fan of Dr Hyles, HAC, ot FBH. I have serious philosophy problems with all of that.

I would not condemn a church for their tempered support of such however. Would I go to church there, probably not. Would I seek their support? Probably not. But I can rejoice in the work they are doing for the Lord in their area.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I am just a little bit curious.Does the fact of some of Dr. Hyles activities negate everything he did or wrote. I find his books,specically"Let's use forms and letters,Hyles Church Manual,& Hyles Sunday School Manual" to be packed with practicle useful information.Should I throw these books out or maybe burn them?

 

[4His_glory]

The thing is if we separate from John Piper because of things we disagree with, and unbiblical philosophies, then why don't we separate for HAC. It seems like incosistentcy to me.

This is a big problem with in IFBdom (remember I am unashamedly a fundamentalist), why is it we may disgree with the KJVOism of some shcools, yet it is ok to display their information in our churches, but if we display information about Masters College and Seminary sudenlly we are New-Evangelical ( I don't consider J Mac a NE), and worthy of being separated from.

This just seems inconsistent to me.

 

[bapmom]

(I don't know who John Piper is, so I can't answer to that, 4HG)

John McArthur....Ive heard a couple of sides about him. When we lived in California we were only about 45 minutes away from his church. Id already heard all the stuff about him saying that it wasn't necessary for Jesus to shed His blood in order for there to be atonement....but then I also heard that he recanted those words, or he clarified them. I don't know either way anymore.......

Obviously you can separate from any ministry that you see as unBiblical. I haven't seen or heard any unBiblical philosophies actually taught from the FBC Hammond pulpit, and this is why we don't separate from them. I think you'd agree, unBiblical philosophies is saying something different than just philosophies you don't agree with.

YOU might have a different opinion on that.....ok.

BTW, being KJVO is to me one of those things where if you are NOT of that belief than you can handle supporting a school that IS. There is nothing wrong with the KJV, and being willing to add other versions to your study should not have to preclude you from joining with a ministry that limits themselves to ONLY the KJV. Does that make sense? The two viewpoints do not have to clash, if you are of the opposite view. Basically Im saying, a kid can go to a KJVonly school, even if he doesn't hold that view, and get a perfectly good education.

OTOH, I understand why KJVOs separate ecclesiastically from nonKJVOs, because they/we see it as compromising to use an inferior version. Im not trying to make this a versions thread....just presenting the difference in the views.


Plain Old Bill, I don't think it should negate his great books, either. We've got many of them....and they are very useful. We've even got some of his preaching tapes, and find them very good, as well.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charles E Smith:
It's people like Dr.Bob and some of the folks on the FFF that turn me off more from Calvinism then anything John Calvin ever said. If they were more like Spurgeon and Whitefield and less like pharisees I might consider becoming a Calvinist!

No fear, Bro Smith, about becoming a Calvinist. You are not worthy of the name. Wallow in your finneyesque man-centric religion while Calvinists rejoice in a Sovereign God.

The modern cult of "soul winning" has replaced biblical preaching/teaching and holy Spirit conversion in many ifb churches. Sadly.

The demons believe. Believing is not enough. But then, you do know the NT is way more than the 1-2-3, right? </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds like the self-righteous Gandhi who never understood it was his sin, not the actions of Christians, that kept him from Christ. If only we had been as pious and humble as he.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
The thing is if we separate from John Piper because of things we disagree with, and unbiblical philosophies, then why don't we separate for HAC. It seems like incosistentcy to me.

This is a big problem with in IFBdom (remember I am unashamedly a fundamentalist), why is it we may disgree with the KJVOism of some shcools, yet it is ok to display their information in our churches, but if we display information about Masters College and Seminary sudenlly we are New-Evangelical ( I don't consider J Mac a NE), and worthy of being separated from.

This just seems inconsistent to me.

Why condemn Piper, MacArther, or anyone else with a blanket. There are things than can contribute to our study of God's word and our service for Him.

Criticise their errors, of course - but we can also glean.

 

[4His_glory]

Thats a refreshing spirit C4K, the trouble is that man who consider themselves fundamentalist do not think this way.

As far as Hyles goes I have more of a problem with what I consider unbiblical, yes bapmom, unbiblical philosophies, than I do with JMac. And the thing on blood was a case of people taking what MacArthur said out of context.

 

[bapmom]

yes I know, 4His.....and my belief is that most of what many don't like about Hyles is ALSO them taking him out of context.