The REAL Jack Hyles

[AVL1984]

Pipedude, please, stick to the subject of Hyles. If you want a Finney thread, please start one yourself.

 

[Paul33]

Pipedude,

Thanks for the information.

AVL, chill out. Threads often are winding, but that doesn't mean they aren't on topic. Finney and his theology is very relevant to the discussion of Hyles and his theology.

 

[4His_glory]

Absoulutly right Paul, Hyles was very "Finneyesque" in his ways and theology.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As for me, I'd rather this discussion stick to putting Mr. Hyles into a historical perspective rather than dwelling on the tawdry elements of his time on Earth.

 

[Salamander]

Yeah, but then the gossips would be displeased.

 

[4His_glory]

If somthing is public knowledge its not gossip.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

If you are not a part of the problem or a part of the solution, then you are gossiping when you speak of it. Regardless if it's public knowledge or not.

 

[4His_glory]

Gossip seeks to destroy ones reputation. If the information is public knowledge already, then the individual birngs that destrution to his own reputation.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

"Gossip seeks to destroy ones reputation."

I agree, but that is not the sole objective of gossip. Those who engage in gossip are feeding a carnal appetite for information that they do not need to know. They are trying to elevate themselves by making others appear inferior. They are putting themselves in the position of being an authority on the matter when, in truth, their information was received from another gossip.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The problem is this situation is still to close to us in time for it not to take on the guise of gossip. If the same actions took place say fifty years ago, the distance of time would help to take out some of the heat of this discussion.

 

[gb93433]

When one is neither part of the problem nor solution it is gossip.

 

[Paul33]

Warning others to separate from false teachers is the "mark" of fundamentalism. Since Hyles is the self-proclaimed face of fundamentalism, applying this fundamental principle to Hyles and his ministry is the fundamental thing to do! Hyles would be so proud!

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Warning others to separate from false teachers is the "mark" of fundamentalism. Since Hyles is the self-proclaimed face of fundamentalism, applying this fundamental principle to Hyles and his ministry is the fundamental thing to do! Hyles would be so proud!

Paul has a valid point. George Dollar identified fundamentalists as belonging to one of three categories (this summary is from a post of Dr. Bob's dating from 01/04/2004):

There are three basic divisions within "Fundamentalism" today - all of whom believe the basic fundamentals from 1895

(1) MILITANT FUNDAMENTALISM interprets the Bible literally and exposes all compromise and error. "Expound and expose." Hardline separation from ALL forms of sin and from tolerance of sin.

(2) MODERATE FUNDAMENTALISM accepts all the doctrines of the Bible, but refuses to expose error, wrong attitudes, questionable habits and defection from biblical discipline. They are not hardline and avoid issues of personal separation. They reject the role of the soldier in a battle.

(3) MODIFIED FUNDAMENTALISM affirms the basic Bible doctrine (evangelical) but bases everything on love and tolerance, dismissing doctrine as "divisive" and have absolutely no use for separation or militancy.

Today we would call "fundamentalists" all "evangelical" in theology. But it would stop there. There are but few truly historic MILITANT fundamentalists still building and battling for truth and against error.

[summarized from "History of Fundamentalism" by George Dollar, 1973]

According to Dollar's synopsis, those who point out the errors of Hyles are simply exercising their responsibilty as militant fundamentalists.

 

[Paul33]

Exactly. Isn't it interesting that when "fundamentalism" is directed at Hyles and his legacy, his followers all cry "foul"?

I'm just being militant! Hyles was in error and all those who follow his legacy must be pointed out and separated from, unless they repent!

It's not gossip! It's truth telling. Something that even the most ardent fundamentalist should admire!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

"It's not gossip! It's truth telling."

Proverbs 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
22 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly. (KJV)

I do not think gossip is determined by the truthfulness of the conversation. I believe that it is in the intent of the talebearer. I can't believe that all involved in this thread did so for the sakes of warning others of this man's false teaching.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Gee, I wonder if those who cry foul when Hyles' credentials are questioned would also rise up to defend Billy Graham...

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Why don't you ask some of them?

 

[RightFromWrong]

I've already posted what I thought about both of them

 

[David Ekstrom]

No one can know the hearts of others. It's possible that Pastor_Bob is right. Some may have been sharing the dirt on Hyles because of a desire to gossip.
If I know my own heart, that is not the reason. I am angry with Hyles and HAC and the IFBdom that created him. But I don't think I'm bitter. And I don't post on him because I'm out to get him.
There's revisionist history going on right now regarding Hyles.
So which is the REAL Jack Hyles? The Finneyesque, pragmatic, authoritarian, psuedo-philosopher who could care less for theology of any stripe and was only interested in building his empire by means of easy-believism? Or is the REAL Hyles the Baptist brider, Ruchmanite, and separatist, the defender of historic fundamentalism which he morphed into to deflect criticism?

 

[David Ekstrom]

To show how Hyles had his followers brainwashed one must only consider that Hyles did a major shift in his theology and virtually experienced no fallout from his followers over it. He did lead a bible college by the way. One day, it was not Ruchmanite. Then Hyles embraced Ruchmanism and without missing a step, the entire admistration, faculty, staff and student body became immediate Ruchmanites. Did any of his deacons ask him about this change in his theology?
The same regarding Landmarkism. In the early days of HAC, you didn't have to be a Baptist to go there. My Greek professor was shagged from Olivet, a Nazarene school. In fact, many nonBaptists attended Pastors' School every year in those early years.