When did you notice the "downfall" beginning?

[Walt]

Well, Robby, Bobby, Gray along with Russell Anderson are starting another on-line college. I am sure that he thinks he will fill in the gaps left by all the deficiencies of all the other ifb colleges.

They are actually offering a free course. Not Hebrew, Romans, John or anything like that but a course called "The Pastor and his Family".  I am not minimizing the importance of these but it just seems odd to me that these Bible colleges have so little Bible. And, knowing BG, any Bible classes would be "Jack Hyles on Romans, Jack Hyles on Hebrews, Jack Hyles on OT, and probably what Jack Hyles taught about the pastor and his family".

As long as Bob Gray, Sr and his ilk continue to worship Jack Hyles over God, nothing they do will be blessed by Him.  He will not give His glory to another.  I know Bob Gray would reject such a statement, but I've heard him speak in such glowing terms about Jack Hyles; God is not ascribed the same worth by Him.

Bob Gray wrote an article that was featured on Independent Baptist a while back called 'How I study the Scriptures'. In this article he made a statement that says actually not to spend too much time studying but just reading. He said, "It is far more important what the Bible says than what it actually means." Eye-Opening to be sure.

And Tom Brennan, in his excellent message "39 Years an Independent Baptist..." dealt with this statement in an excellent way.

I questioned him on this but got no response. This, in my opinion, is EXACTLY how you can have groups that handle poisonous snakes and all the other nonsense.

I also personally think that a lot of these ifb type colleges are having a harder and harder time drawing students. BG started this Independent Baptist website with the expressed intent of bringing back the principles that lifted their movement to prominence in the 70's. They started a couple of "Independent Baptist Conferences" around the country. They had 2 I believe and to read the reports the atmosphere was absolutely "electrifying". (his description) But they stopped after two. Probably for the same reason the college attendances are down.

I firmly side with Tom Brennan here; Bob Gray and his group would be far better served to concentrate on (a) exposing sin in their midst instead of covering it up  (b) returning to holiness and leaving the numerical success to God, and (c) preaching the Bible instead of their own opinions.

 

[Walt]

Each one of us on the HAC FFF has our own feelings and stories from our time at FBCH and HAC.  I'm sure most of us can remember a time when we felt things were going great and we were behind the program.  I believe we can all agree that somewhere along the way things started to slip.  It may have been while we were at FBCH/HAC.  It may have been after we were gone.  Here is the question for the OP - At what time did you notice things starting to fall?  Is there an event to which you can point?  What year was it?

In 1981 as a young middle schooler, I went to Youth Conference and saw FBC for the first time. It was the last one conducted by Dave Hyles. That week the Lord planted the seed and that later led to me attending Hyles Anderson College.

I separate Jack Hyles from Jack Schaap. Though one followed the pastorate of the other the 2 were not the same. Brother Hyles was a Baptist and he held long practiced Baptist beliefs. Though these were not popular with other fundamentalists Bro. Hyles believed closed communion, the Doctrines of Grace, and that Jesus started the local church while He was here on earth, not on Pentecost. Bro. Hyles referred to "brethren of like faith and order." He rejected "alien baptism" and would not receive non-Baptist baptism onto the rolls of his church. Remember the Pastor's School when he preached about the church. He had just completed a long study about the church and preached it at Pastor's School. The folks there with BJU & TTU ties were fit to be tied. He also moved his belief regarding the King James Version of the Bible in the later years of his ministry. None of this I regard as a downfall.

I'm just astonished to read this statement. He was so much NOT orthodox in many areas.  His demand of utter loyalty has no support in Scripture.  His teaching that there are three wills of God has no Scriptural support.  His teaching that everlasting life and eternal life are different things is heretical.  His teaching that if you win enough souls, God will overlook sin is not Baptist, but Catholic in nature (they have indulgences; JH had soul-winning).  His teaching that Jesus was always human is not a Baptist doctrine, nor is his blasphemous teaching that God the Father doesn't understand humans and would wipe us out but for God the Son.

There is no question that he taught these strange doctrines and passed them on to others as well.

Hyles never taught that God would overlook sin.

He believed that works brought you along the sanctification process.

Sorry, I don't agree.

JH called soul-winning and big numbers "stumbling insurance" and the  more souls you won, the more God would overlook your sins ("stumbling").  He taught that a preacher that saw a lot of people saved would cause God to overlook that preacher's sins.  To quote JH: " You’d better be worth enough to God, [have] enough merits built up, so when you stumble the demerits will not over-balance the merits."

 

[Walt]

Each one of us on the HAC FFF has our own feelings and stories from our time at FBCH and HAC.  I'm sure most of us can remember a time when we felt things were going great and we were behind the program.  I believe we can all agree that somewhere along the way things started to slip.  It may have been while we were at FBCH/HAC.  It may have been after we were gone.  Here is the question for the OP - At what time did you notice things starting to fall?  Is there an event to which you can point?  What year was it?

In 1981 as a young middle schooler, I went to Youth Conference and saw FBC for the first time. It was the last one conducted by Dave Hyles. That week the Lord planted the seed and that later led to me attending Hyles Anderson College.

I separate Jack Hyles from Jack Schaap. Though one followed the pastorate of the other the 2 were not the same. Brother Hyles was a Baptist and he held long practiced Baptist beliefs. Though these were not popular with other fundamentalists Bro. Hyles believed closed communion, the Doctrines of Grace, and that Jesus started the local church while He was here on earth, not on Pentecost. Bro. Hyles referred to "brethren of like faith and order." He rejected "alien baptism" and would not receive non-Baptist baptism onto the rolls of his church. Remember the Pastor's School when he preached about the church. He had just completed a long study about the church and preached it at Pastor's School. The folks there with BJU & TTU ties were fit to be tied. He also moved his belief regarding the King James Version of the Bible in the later years of his ministry. None of this I regard as a downfall.

I'm just astonished to read this statement. He was so much NOT orthodox in many areas.  His demand of utter loyalty has no support in Scripture.  His teaching that there are three wills of God has no Scriptural support.  His teaching that everlasting life and eternal life are different things is heretical.  His teaching that if you win enough souls, God will overlook sin is not Baptist, but Catholic in nature (they have indulgences; JH had soul-winning).  His teaching that Jesus was always human is not a Baptist doctrine, nor is his blasphemous teaching that God the Father doesn't understand humans and would wipe us out but for God the Son.

There is no question that he taught these strange doctrines and passed them on to others as well.

Hold everything.

Eternal and everlasting are the same, now?

I realize if one possesses one, then he also possesses the other.

Are you implying that Hyles taught that you could possess one w/o the other?

Or is this another Trinity debacle?
Where I say I believe the Comma, and you say you believe in the Trinity, but we both believe the same thing, when we boil it down?

Haklo

Hyles taught that eternal life was different than everlasting life; one was "qualitative", he said, and the other was "quantitative".  The problem is that the God used the SAME word translated both "eternal" and "everlasting".  The distinction is false. And yes, he taught that people could have one, but not the other.

Hyles taught that Jesus was always human and that he didn't merely become human at the incarnation. Again, this isn't what the Bible says: it says that the "Word BECAME flesh". Jack Hyles said "Jesus did NOT become human when He came to Bethlehem".

I heard him teach that quantitive, and qualitative were two different aspects of the same gift of God, and I spent 20 years hearing him speak 3 + times a week.
I dare say that you misheard him.

Possibly; he used to tell certain groups that they had one, but not the other, causing confusion.

Lol@ "translated" by the way, as if you speak Koine.
Eternal doesn't mean the same thing as Everlasting, and God put both of them in our English Bible (the language that you were born into speaking), so He had a reason to show the distinction.

I don't speak Koine, but I have studied it.

I do not believe that God wrote the KJV; God wrote (dictated) the Greek New Testament, and very, very intelligent men translated it in the KJV.  There *is* a subtle difference in meaning between "eternal" and "everlasting" in English, and, no doubt, the translators had good reason for choosing the one word over the other, but I am very skeptical of building a doctrine on such a nebulous foundation.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the same word that God Himself chose is translated as both "eternal" and "everlasting".

[/quote]

 

[BALAAM]

Well, Robby, Bobby, Gray along with Russell Anderson are starting another on-line college. I am sure that he thinks he will fill in the gaps left by all the deficiencies of all the other ifb colleges.

They are actually offering a free course. Not Hebrew, Romans, John or anything like that but a course called "The Pastor and his Family".  I am not minimizing the importance of these but it just seems odd to me that these Bible colleges have so little Bible. And, knowing BG, any Bible classes would be "Jack Hyles on Romans, Jack Hyles on Hebrews, Jack Hyles on OT, and probably what Jack Hyles taught about the pastor and his family".

As long as Bob Gray, Sr and his ilk continue to worship Jack Hyles over God, nothing they do will be blessed by Him.  He will not give His glory to another.  I know Bob Gray would reject such a statement, but I've heard him speak in such glowing terms about Jack Hyles; God is not ascribed the same worth by Him.

Bob Gray wrote an article that was featured on Independent Baptist a while back called 'How I study the Scriptures'. In this article he made a statement that says actually not to spend too much time studying but just reading. He said, "It is far more important what the Bible says than what it actually means." Eye-Opening to be sure.

And Tom Brennan, in his excellent message "39 Years an Independent Baptist..." dealt with this statement in an excellent way.

I questioned him on this but got no response. This, in my opinion, is EXACTLY how you can have groups that handle poisonous snakes and all the other nonsense.

I also personally think that a lot of these ifb type colleges are having a harder and harder time drawing students. BG started this Independent Baptist website with the expressed intent of bringing back the principles that lifted their movement to prominence in the 70's. They started a couple of "Independent Baptist Conferences" around the country. They had 2 I believe and to read the reports the atmosphere was absolutely "electrifying". (his description) But they stopped after two. Probably for the same reason the college attendances are down.

I firmly side with Tom Brennan here; Bob Gray and his group would be far better served to concentrate on (a) exposing sin in their midst instead of covering it up  (b) returning to holiness and leaving the numerical success to God, and (c) preaching the Bible instead of their own opinions.

They do talk a lot about holiness. However, their take is that holiness/law are one in the same and that you will never be holy apart from law. Probably a separate discussion thread in itself but this is one of my problems and to be sure, I don't have it all down in my mind or completely understand it. But, if the law taught us anything it is how inept man is at keeping the law and yet it seems that the ifb answer to ever problem (IMO) is more law.

 

[prophet]

Each one of us on the HAC FFF has our own feelings and stories from our time at FBCH and HAC.  I'm sure most of us can remember a time when we felt things were going great and we were behind the program.  I believe we can all agree that somewhere along the way things started to slip.  It may have been while we were at FBCH/HAC.  It may have been after we were gone.  Here is the question for the OP - At what time did you notice things starting to fall?  Is there an event to which you can point?  What year was it?

In 1981 as a young middle schooler, I went to Youth Conference and saw FBC for the first time. It was the last one conducted by Dave Hyles. That week the Lord planted the seed and that later led to me attending Hyles Anderson College.

I separate Jack Hyles from Jack Schaap. Though one followed the pastorate of the other the 2 were not the same. Brother Hyles was a Baptist and he held long practiced Baptist beliefs. Though these were not popular with other fundamentalists Bro. Hyles believed closed communion, the Doctrines of Grace, and that Jesus started the local church while He was here on earth, not on Pentecost. Bro. Hyles referred to "brethren of like faith and order." He rejected "alien baptism" and would not receive non-Baptist baptism onto the rolls of his church. Remember the Pastor's School when he preached about the church. He had just completed a long study about the church and preached it at Pastor's School. The folks there with BJU & TTU ties were fit to be tied. He also moved his belief regarding the King James Version of the Bible in the later years of his ministry. None of this I regard as a downfall.

I'm just astonished to read this statement. He was so much NOT orthodox in many areas.  His demand of utter loyalty has no support in Scripture.  His teaching that there are three wills of God has no Scriptural support.  His teaching that everlasting life and eternal life are different things is heretical.  His teaching that if you win enough souls, God will overlook sin is not Baptist, but Catholic in nature (they have indulgences; JH had soul-winning).  His teaching that Jesus was always human is not a Baptist doctrine, nor is his blasphemous teaching that God the Father doesn't understand humans and would wipe us out but for God the Son.

There is no question that he taught these strange doctrines and passed them on to others as well.

Hold everything.

Eternal and everlasting are the same, now?

I realize if one possesses one, then he also possesses the other.

Are you implying that Hyles taught that you could possess one w/o the other?

Or is this another Trinity debacle?
Where I say I believe the Comma, and you say you believe in the Trinity, but we both believe the same thing, when we boil it down?

Haklo

Hyles taught that eternal life was different than everlasting life; one was "qualitative", he said, and the other was "quantitative".  The problem is that the God used the SAME word translated both "eternal" and "everlasting".  The distinction is false. And yes, he taught that people could have one, but not the other.

Hyles taught that Jesus was always human and that he didn't merely become human at the incarnation. Again, this isn't what the Bible says: it says that the "Word BECAME flesh". Jack Hyles said "Jesus did NOT become human when He came to Bethlehem".

I heard him teach that quantitive, and qualitative were two different aspects of the same gift of God, and I spent 20 years hearing him speak 3 + times a week.
I dare say that you misheard him.

Possibly; he used to tell certain groups that they had one, but not the other, causing confusion.

Lol@ "translated" by the way, as if you speak Koine.
Eternal doesn't mean the same thing as Everlasting, and God put both of them in our English Bible (the language that you were born into speaking), so He had a reason to show the distinction.

I don't speak Koine, but I have studied it.

I do not believe that God wrote the KJV; God wrote (dictated) the Greek New Testament, and very, very intelligent men translated it in the KJV.  There *is* a subtle difference in meaning between "eternal" and "everlasting" in English, and, no doubt, the translators had good reason for choosing the one word over the other, but I am very skeptical of building a doctrine on such a nebulous foundation.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the same word that God Himself chose is translated as both "eternal" and "everlasting".

[/quote]
You believe that the Gospel of John was "given in Greek"?
I don't.
I believe John wrote in Aramaic, and a Greek translation was quickly made, since by the time John died, the majority of Churches were in Greek speaking countries, etc.

What about this?

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Isaiah:57:15

Is this from the same Greek word?

The difference between everlasting, and eternal is remarkable.
In fact, the only intersection that they share, is that something that is everlasting will continue when Time ceases to be, and will be joined with eternal at that time.

Eternity is where God dwells.

Eternity is everlasting, when viewed by those of us who look through the prism of Time.  But 'everlasting' is just that, a camera angle for those of us who have been taught by The Almighty to 'number our days'.

For us, there is a beginning.  Everlasting can describe something that has a beginning, but no end.
Eternal cannot.

Eternal life is in The Son.

He that hath The Son, hath Life.

Christ in me, is the Eternal Life which I possess.

The breath of God is Eternal.

The Word of God is Eternal.

"Forever" is not the same as "Everlasting".

None of which affects most of us, as we receive them both simultaneously, instantaneously.

Lastly, I believe that every good translation in every language is as much the Word of God as any copy in any language that has ever existed is.

I don't believe that a knowledge of 3 dead languages , A.H., K.G., and L, is necessary to understand the RV 1601, or the AV 1611, or The Geneva, or Luther's, or etc.

When the Spirit of God shows up, everyman hears in his own language, wherein he was born

Try the spirits


Haklo

 

[Walt]

Note: I erased the earlier conversion

You believe that the Gospel of John was "given in Greek"?
I don't.
I believe John wrote in Aramaic, and a Greek translation was quickly made, since by the time John died, the majority of Churches were in Greek speaking countries, etc.

Do you have a basis for this belief?  I've always heard that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

What about this?

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Isaiah:57:15

Is this from the same Greek word?

Sigh.

Isaiah was written in Hebrew, not Greek

The difference between everlasting, and eternal is remarkable.
In fact, the only intersection that they share, is that something that is everlasting will continue when Time ceases to be, and will be joined with eternal at that time.

Eternity is where God dwells.

Eternity is everlasting, when viewed by those of us who look through the prism of Time.  But 'everlasting' is just that, a camera angle for those of us who have been taught by The Almighty to 'number our days'.

For us, there is a beginning.  Everlasting can describe something that has a beginning, but no end.
Eternal cannot.

Yes, I am familiar with the argument; my understanding is that "eternal" means has no beginning and no end, while "everlasting" means only has no end.  The reasoning appears to be sound, but without a lot of chopping and twisting, it doesn't seem to fit what the Scripture says.

Eternal life is in The Son.

As is everlasting life -- see John 3:15 and 16 where both "eternal" and "everlasting" are used to describe the life we receive when we believe in Him - and this is the same Greek word.  Trying to make these mean something different is twisting the Scriptures, in my opinion.

He that hath The Son, hath Life.

Christ in me, is the Eternal Life which I possess.

The breath of God is Eternal.

The Word of God is Eternal.

"Forever" is not the same as "Everlasting".

None of which affects most of us, as we receive them both simultaneously, instantaneously.

So you say, but JH did NOT teach that.  Quoting from him, When a person receives Christ as his Savior ... God gives him immediately – and he is an immediate possessor of – everlasting life. Though he has a gift of everlasting life, he does not necessarily possess eternal life. For everlasting life is a quantity of life and eternal is a quality of life.

I am stating that this statement of his was made up and has no merit in Scripture.  That is separate from the discussion about the words "eternal" and "everlasting".

Getting back to "eternal" and "everlasting", God Himself is described as both "eternal" and "everlasting".  (Rom 1:20 and Rom 6:26)

I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the Scripture seems to use eternal and everlasting interchangeably, and I am very suspicious of teaching that tries to make a big deal about differences.

Lastly, I believe that every good translation in every language is as much the Word of God as any copy in any language that has ever existed is.

I have no quarrel with this statement.  I do have a quarrel with the statement you made that God chose certain words to be in the KJV.  God did not write the KJV.  He wrote in the ancient texts, of which we have reliable copies.  The KJV, in my opinion, is an excellent, unparalleled translation in English, but it was not written by God.

I don't believe that a knowledge of 3 dead languages , A.H., K.G., and L, is necessary to understand the RV 1601, or the AV 1611, or The Geneva, or Luther's, or etc.

I don't think one must know the original languages; good translations convey what God has said, and that is sufficient. I think we are in agreement.