Jack Schaap, Jeffery Fugate, and the Ditch on Both Sides
Our theme for the month is on the issue of truth, in particular on the subject of ranking doctrines. And, one reason that this issue has achieved the rank of “controversy” is because of inconsistencies within our worldviews. If we believe that God is the truth, that truth exists because God truly exists, and that all truth proceeds from God as both flowing from His very nature and as absolutely known by Him, then we have no choice but to say that all truth is equally essential. We can know the truth because God has revealed it to us, and whatsoever God has revealed is essential to us. And never is this more true than in the realm of God’s Special Revelation, as found in the pages of Scripture.
A Biblical, Trinitarian worldview demands that we acknowledge the sufficiency of every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. Mankind is morally obligated to accept every word as it is in truth, the very Word and Words of God. And furthermore, mankind is morally bound to seek a full understanding of every Word, and to seek to fully apply that meaning to every area of life. This obligation excludes any sort of “cafeteria approach” to Scripture, whereby a man determines for himself what is essential and what is non-essential, or perhaps more accurately, what is more to his liking and what is less to his liking. The reason should be plain enough: when I shop the pages of Scripture the way a housewife shops the Pop Tart section of the grocery store, choosing this flavor and that one, and none of the others, I make myself the master and judge of Scripture, of what is important to me, and what isn’t. I become the judge. And if I am the judge of Scripture, then I will not be judged by Scripture.
In all of this, we see the necessity of a Trinitarian Worldview as the basis and foundation for all thinking, including all thinking about God’s Word and God’s People. A right approach to Scripture is defined, not by what the current big-shots in Fundamentalism and/or Evangelicalism say it is. It is not defined by what the Blog-o-Maniacs say it is. A right approach to Scripture is defined by God, and we must receive that instruction, or we will be judged by that instruction.
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Scripture is very clear on this, that every word is essential. We get our doctrines, our standards, our convictions, and our practices from God’s Word, then. Scripture is sufficient. And while there will be controversies until the day when Christ sets all things right, we must strive to draw all our theological and doctrinal boundaries Scripturally. Will there be some fuzzy boundaries? The fuzziness is not because Scripture is not clear. Fog is the result of sin, and our fogginess about Scriptural boundaries is the effect of fallen men interpreting the infallible Word of God.
To Separate or Not to Separate
Nevertheless, while there certainly will be disagreement, we still find that in every case, the line where confusion becomes blatant disobedience is clearly marked. Our churches must labor to identify those lines, and then to apply them in the realm of fellowship. When a church is clearly disobeying Scripture, we must separate. The Bible teaches this plainly in Romans 16:17, in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 14, in 1 Timothy 6:3-5, in 2 Timothy 3:5, and in Titus 3:10. This separation principle applies both personally and from church-to-church. It is the duty of every God-fearing New Testament church to clearly identify where those lines are, and to seek to apply the separation principle, found so frequently throughout Scripture, within their church and surrounding community.
But, that being said, this does not mean that churches have a Scriptural right to separate for “light and transient reasons.” Unfortunately, much of the separation practiced by churches in this day and age is over trivialities, personalities, and so forth. One glaring example of this comes from the Evangelical side of things, in particular from the kinds of churches represented by men like Frank Turk of Pyro-Maniacs, and Phil Johnson of the same. These men, who openly ridicule the kind of separation principles held by those in the more Fundamentalist-oriented circles, practice a kind of separation of their own choosing. They don’t separate on Scriptural grounds, that is for sure. But they do separate on personal grounds, as has been well-documented already by Kent, and has been punctuated by their public separation from Kent. Make no mistake about it — these men practice separation. They separate from every brother who does not follow their “big-tent” philosophy.
Similarly, we find this kind of separation, on a practical level, being practiced by those in the broader movement known as the Fundamentalist Movement. It is a separation that consists, not in convictions and standards set by Scripture, but by Camps and Circles. “I am of Bob Jones,” says one. “I am of the Sword of the Lord,” says another. “I am of Jack Hyles,” says still a third. “I am Unaffiliated,” says still another. And thus the lines are drawn.
I will not tire, any time soon at least, of pointing out that we are not following Scripture in all of this. What is the standard? What determines right and wrong? Who gets to draw the lines of separation? If not God, then who? We are not a law unto ourselves, drawing our own lines and marking who we will be avoiding and who we won’t. Unity is a church doctrine, but 1 John also requires God’s people to love all those whom God has saved. If God loved them enough to forgive their sins, we are to love them. But, if they walk in a way that is disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture, we are to mark them and avoid them, to have no fellowship with them.
Get Your Own Ditch
The recent controversy between Jack Schaap and Jeffery Fugate illustrates this point very nicely. In the January/February, 2009 edition of the Church Bus News, Jeffery Fugate very publicly announced that he is separating from Jack Schaap. Or at least, that he will not be speaking at Pastor’s School 2009. Now, I will not be speaking at Pastor’s School 2009 either — just in case any of you were wondering. I won’t be speaking at Pastor’s School 2010 either. But I don’t feel a need to take out an ad in the Sword of the Lord, or publish my own magazine for the sake of announcing that little tidbit of information to an anxiously awaiting world. But Fugate needs to inform all of us who are fortunate enough to be on his mailing list that he will not be speaking at Pastor’s School — that, in essence, he is separating from Schaap. Fugate says,
Until Dr. Schaap makes plain the fact that he believes that the King James Bible is the Inspired Preserved Word of God and stops sowing doubts about it I will not speak at Pastor’s School or in any ministry of First Baptist Church. I will not send my preacher boys nor recommend any others to HAC. The Church Bus News will no longer give bus scholarships to HAC.
So, he is separating from Schaap, and doing so in a very public way.
Now, this blog has been fairly vocal on the issue of Jack Schaap and Jack Hyles. And, I for one am not at all surprised by any of this on the Schaap end of things. In case you don’t recall the earlier series we did on the Hyles issue, I would remind you of something we said in our post, “What You’ll Find Beneath Peach Trees:”
Schaap, in my not so humble opinion, preaches heresy for the same reason Hyles did. Sure, he twists a different set of texts than Hyles did. But he does not bend texts for the sake of bending texts. Rather, he does this to force us to make a choice about him. Are we with him, or are we against him. Which one? Make your choice. Take your stand. Fall to the right of him, fall to the left of him, or stand with him. Those are your choices.
I still say that Jack Schaap is all about having a following. He wants to be the Rick Warren of IFBXdom… The Church Growth Guru of Fundamentalism. And, I have long predicted that he would lead the First Baptist Church of Hammond into a more neo position. In fact, I believe that, considering how enamored Schaap is with the Charismatic movement, and the historical position that FBC Hammond has taken on the Holy Spirit, Schaap will likely lead that church into some kind of hybrid “Fundamentalist/Charismatic” movement. I won’t be surprised.
But is Jeffery Fugate separating from Schaap because he has violated Scripture? One has to wonder, on the basis of the published material in the January/February 2009 issue of the Church Bus News. For one thing, the magazine features a prominent article on what Jack Hyles taught about the King James Bible — and have no doubt, that is as close to being inspired material in the minds of Hyles’ followers as Scripture itself. The magazine also features an article by Gail Riplinger, “7 Infallible Proofs,” and then an article by Fugate, “The Inspired, Preserved Word.”
Having read through each of these articles, it is very apparent that Fugate, like Riplinger, is an English Preservationist. The Riplinger article is abridged from her upcoming book, Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers: The Voice of Strangers, The Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning Bibles Word by Word. Riplinger offers a somewhat disjointed proof that the English Bible is equally inspired with the originals — for example, since the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a translation of Isaiah, and since the book of Acts calls this translation Scripture, and since 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, therefore “vernacular editions are given ‘by inspiration’.” She further argues that John Wycliffe and Miles Coverdale say that God, not them, was the author.
Fugate adds these thoughts:
Let me go a step further. Breath is tangible, which means you can feel it, smell it, etc. Spirit is non-tangible. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance – all are non-tangibles. Do you see the difference between breath and spirit? It’s important to understand because some conclude that the Bible was God-breathed, or the words were spoken and only when they were spoken were they inspired. However, the Bible says inspiration means His words are given by His spirit. I had someone tell me recently that there is no way the English version could be inspired because God doesn’t speak English. He spoke Hebrew and Greek. I wanted to tell the young man, “Maybe when you get to Heaven you can teach Him English, and He’ll appreciate that.” God is not limited by language!
He says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” I want you to understand something that is very important. It is not just the Originals that are inspired. Deuteronomy 17:18 says, “…he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites.“ Joshua 8:32 speaks of writing a copy. Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.“ If only the Originals are inspired then what happened to the copies. Don’t believe the statement that says, “Only the Originals are inspired.” If I didn’t believe that I had a copy of the inspired, living, preserved Word of God I would quit. God promised He would preserve His inspired words. I believe if God can create and sustain the world, He can give and preserve His Bible.
The word “scripture” or the usage of the word “scripture” in the New Testament never refers to an Original. The word “scripture” simply refers to copies of the Word of God. Acts 17:11 says the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily. Did they have the originals? No, they didn’t have them. They were reading copies of the Word of God. Acts 18:28 says Apollos was showing the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Matthew 21:42 has Jesus asking the question, “Did ye never read in the scriptures?” In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.“ If the scriptures were only accessible in the Originals then why would he chide them for not know(sic) something that wasn’t available. Do a study of the word “scripture” in the New Testament and see how many times it appears.
And here is the point of quoting all this. Fugate takes a wrong position on preservation. There is no Scriptural warrant for placing a translation on the same level as what was inspired by God. Nor does Fugate give any. Nor does Riplinger. Instead, they both play Gumby with texts and words in order to force their position on the Scriptural doctrine of preservation. I feel very sure (having had this discussion with more than one English Preservationist) that Fugate would deny that we have the very words that God spoke in the very language (Hebrew and Greek) in which they were spoken. The promise of preservation only works after 1611.
Fugate exemplifies the modern-day practice of taking a position because it “makes sense” and then separating from all those who disagree. Schaap has, apparently, joined the ranks of those who deny that we have a preserved Word today because we don’t have the originals. But then again, the Hyles camp has never attempted to take a Scriptural position on this. I found it ironic that Fugate made the statement that
“Admittedly, there are some that have had a wrong disposition in their defense of the King James Bible. There are also those that have taken a stand that goes to the right – such as saying that you must be saved by the King James Bible or you are a two-fold child of Hell.”
Actually, didn’t Jack Hyles say that?
But I digress. My point in all of this is two-fold. First, what we have here is an example of two men who have yet to identify a Scriptural position on the issue of preservation, and as a result, both stumble into the ditch. But Fugate has now determined not to be in the same ditch as Schaap, has announced to the world that he is leaving the Schaap ditch and going to the ditch on his own side.
And secondly, we have two men who have never made an effort to identify what the grounds would be for separation. At what point should we separate on the issue of Preservation? No Scriptural warrant is given for why this should be a separating issue between Fugate and Schaap. Although indeed, among the English Preservationists, there is no sin like the sin of not being an English Preservationist.
The doctrine of perfect preservation is an important issue. But one of the reasons that we can’t even have a rational debate about it is because the English Preservationists have never attempted to get their position from Scripture. As a result, our opponents on the Critical Text side of the issue have gone the same route. On the English Preservationist side, we have fideism — they believe what God says, and they could care less what history shows. But on the other side, we have evidentialism. James White might be a presuppositionalist in other matters. But when it comes to the textual issue, he is most certainly an evidentialist. He and his side looks at the history as more weighty than the promises. So, on the one side we have those who hold to the promises, and ignore the evidence. On the other hand, we have those who hold to the evidence and ignore the promises.
And this is why we can’t even conduct a rational debate on the issue. When we get back to taking a stand on Biblical grounds on this issue, we might once again see the pure Words of God preached with power and effect. We pray for such a day to come again.
The funniest thing about this to me is that when I was at HAC (nearly 30 years ago) they shipped students for spreading the same King James Only teaching they now espouse. Dr. Hyles routinely “corrected” words that “should have been” translated as something else and said he didn’t place his faith in the “bunch of baby-sprinkling Anglicans” who translated the King James.
Things have sure changed. Now they’re fighting over who’s more pro-King James and who says shibboleth wrong.
Both of these guys are so out to lunch and so irrelevant when you look at the big picture. The only waves they’re making is in the little pond they have separated themselves to….long removed from the vast ocean of Christianity and the rest of the body of Christ.
to add to that, what makes me laugh is that you write about them as if you take them seriously.
Reforming Baptist, if they are so irrelevant, why do you write about them on your blog too? Do you also like to write about the irrelevant?
why do i write about them? To show people who are still following these clowns, just how rediculous they are.
Will,
It made me laugh to read Don’s response. And it made me laugh to read your response to Don. And then, it made me laugh again to visit your blog and discover what you wrote. Do you seriously hope that these guys “divide themselves into oblivion?” You write about them as if you take them seriously.
I’m being serious here in this criticism — one of the reasons that we have the troubles that we have today is that we don’t take these guys seriously. Someone should have taken them seriously years ago, and maybe we wouldn’t have the circus side-show that we have today.
Another reason that we have this mess is because, rather than take the time to take error seriously, all we can do is say things like “you make me laugh.” And, another reason is because we don’t take the time to define preservation Biblically, instead relying on the reeesearch of textual critics, who have told us that God preserved his word through forensics and CSI Erasmus down at your local DNA lab.
Dave:
Thanks for the post. You illustrate your point perfectly using Schaapp and Fugate.
Well much has been said and to what point. This world is going to hell and men are not willing to stand in the gap. Ok you have your own gap I understand you have your own view I understand. What is the single most important issue to a child of God? Your answer will be salvation and trusting Christ, ok, or it will be faith, or it will be the perfect will of God, shall I go on. No I will not.
You and I came to know Christ How? Through the Living Word of God, through this Holy Bible I have here on my desk. This is the God I serve, this is how I came to know Jesus as my Saviour, this is what thousands and milloins have died for over the years. This is why our for fathers left England to come to America.
You can write all that you want about Bro Jeff I know him personally, I like him, agree with his stand against this rising ecuminical mentallity coming from HAC, this denial of the inspiration and preservation of Gods word. You believe in all the accounts in the bible all the biblical stories from Adam to Moses to Daniel to Noah to Jesus, and you want to argue about the inspiration of it, you believe these are inspired stories right , our school master right,so why don’t you get off the fence take a stand for the book and believe what GOD said,that he preserved it, complete ,every word just as it is for the english speaking people. Why so that one day the world who needs God, would be evangelized by english speaking missionaries , who are fulfilling that great commission to Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
how? through this english KING JAMES BIBLE! GOD ‘S plan is working out just the way he wanted it, then the smart guys come along and decide they know more than God and they’ll sraighten out his word for him since he makes so many mistakes,(lol) I’m sure he appreciates all the help. Now you want to doubt the inspiration of it, why then do you believe any of it the (Bible) if it’s not inspired then nothing is.
I know that you will have some thing really profound to say, but atleast Bro Jeff Fugate is willing to take a stand for something that he believes, not his ditch, his belief is in something that you have not settled. As for Jack Schaap he has moved far left into a place that only a cultish movement will follow, will he be drinking the coolaid next and if so how many will follow?
I am a Fundamental Independant, KING JAMES ONLY, pre millenial, dispensational BIBLE BELIEVER.
Greg: “You can write all that you want about Bro Jeff I know him personally, I like him…”
So, then you’re being objective here…right?
Greg: “As for Jack Schaap he has moved far left into a place that only a cultish movement will follow, will he be drinking the coolaid next and if so how many will follow?”
Far left? Koolaid? Cultish?
Oh, the irony hurts!
I am wondering, did Fugate take this stand because Russell Anderson bankrolls him? Follow the money honey, and you will find out where this is all coming from. I read Anderson’s letter, a really freakish one, where he writes to Dr. Jack Hyles, dead for many years, as if he is alive today. I think the cheese fell off of their crackers a long time ago.
News flash Bro Anderson has sent out a letter stating that he will no longer support HAC. He says that he is a King James only Bible believer and he will not endorse the college untill Jack Schaap gets it right.
Oh, did Russell Anderson give some people some money ($$$$$$$)? How did we ever know that? And if you start them, you might have a college named after you. Or maybe it wasn’t the twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) that caused that, but the brotherly relationship with Hyles. Maybe I should start businesses so I could have an influence too. Is the message that we need men to start businesses so that they can make money so that they can support indigenous missionary works. Oooops. Does that support the indigenous principle?
How is it that we so consistently get comments like Greg’s (above) from supporters of those types of men?
Explain what you mean by this statement. I will support the God in whom has given me eternal life, I will support and follow the Word of God that he has inspired and preserved unto this day, and I am willing to die for him as well, as for men I am not a man pleaser nor a man follower in the sense you are implying. Men of God who stand upon the principles and the doctrines of this book and who fight for the old paths that we are told to seek and to follow these men will I stand beside and encourage and fight with, did not David say is there not a cause that is worth fighting for! I stand with the side of right and faith and truth and for all those who have died for the same thing that men all over the world are fighting for, not just for Jeff Fugate not for Mr Anderson but for my pastor and for my sons and daughters that will one day have pharisees of this world take away, the truth.
We need men that will take a stand against these visious attacks on the Word of God, if not you and they will stand before almight God at the judgement seat and give account of the thousands of lives that were lead astray by the lies and false teachings of men like Jack Schaap.
I believe that not one man alive is one hundres percent correct on everything but I can stand one the one thing that is and that is the Word of God preserved within the KING JAMES BIBLE.
Apparently Jack Hyles lives on. Who knew?
Greg,
I would respond to your tirade, but it hurts too bad to read what you wrote.
Apparently, it hurts you to read what I wrote as well. Because you didn’t.
But, for the sake of other readers who read my post and Greg’s comment, and perhaps wonder if they are seeing things… (1) We believe that God inspired His Word. Every Word of it. In Hebrew and in Greek. (2) We believe that God has preserved the very Words He inspired. (3) We believe that the Words we have are the Words God preserved — in Greek and in Hebrew.
So they are not preserved anywere else? So then God has Lied.
How many people in this world have the Greek and Hebrew preserved word today? And how many different Greek and Hebrew text are there and in which one is the preserved in? Are you limiting God and saying that he isn’t capable in preserving it in our English? Are you saying like many that God does’t speak English? What kind of God do we serve?
{I guess I need to work on my HTML coding — that last post was a mess. . . I will try to clean things up on this post. . . the blog owners are welcome to delete my original “mess”!}
Brother Greg,
You have claimed that the position of these men (on this blog) indicates that they see God as a liar. You go on to reveal what appears to be a belief that God has made an expressed promise to preserve His Word in the following ways:
1) For a majority of people – based on this question:
2) In one Greek and Hebrew manuscript – based on this question:
3) In the English – based on this series of questions:
It is my understanding that calling God a liar would be based on a denial of of the truthfulness of His very words. What very words would you cite as being promises of the things you seem to suggest in your questions?
Please do not make any assumptions about my own position. . . I have not revealed anything about that accept the fact that I believe we should take God at His Word and be careful not to expect more (or less) than what He has actually promised. If in fact there is divine truth revealed in the Scriptures from the mouth of God that demonstrates the promise of God to preserve His Word in the manner you indicate by your questions, then I will readily join you. . . however, if there is divine truth that indicates differently, I will have to take another position. Again, I remain silent as to my actual position on preservation.
For His Glory,
Christian Markle
Greg: “Are you saying like many that God does[n]’t speak English?”
Are you saying, like many, that God doesn’t speak Greek and Hebrew? pfft.
Why is denying double inspiration of any translation denying that God speaks the language of that translation?
We have to have the inspired words of God somewhere here, or we can all go home. I believe the KJV is it. I have read some of Dr. Schapp’s books, and that concerned me enough to route a grandchild away from HAC. I know Jeff Fugate’s church and camp, and doubt he would do this without plenty of prayer and soul searching. I love Dr. Schapp’s preaching, but some of the things he puts in print are very hard to understand, or support. I know all preachers say crazy things at times, so who knows?? I would like to read the Church bus news article and the Russell Anderson letter.
I have it and I am willing to send it to you,
can you please forward me this letter?? my email adress is glorybound02@hotmail.com
and I am sorry if I sound like an idiot, but did Bro Hyles believe you could only get saved from the KJV, and what about Bro Schaap?? I am confused by it all, I thought the scripture on a two-fold child of hell would be the people who believed that working their way to heaven is what got them there. I mean people have gotten saved through hymnals, songs, testimonies, stories, not always using scripture, does this mean that they aren’t saved either, since they didn’t use the KJV. I don’t know your stance on it, because I didn’t take the time to read all of it, but I would like to know what Dr Anderson’s letter was about, and what Bro Hyles, and Bro Schaaps views are on this….. Thank you
I would encourage everyone that hasn’t to read the article on this same blog entitled “Not all KJVO’s are the same”.
I have since come to the conclusion that I am not only a preservationist but also an original language preservationist. If you read the article its all but too plain that English language preservationist have done innumerable harm to KJVOs.
I believe ,although I can be corrected, from what I have read Bro Anderson and Fugate are ELPs. This is a shame. I support Bro Hyles and Schaap only because I haven’t yet seen irrefutable (audio of them speaking) evidence that I should separate from them yet. I said all that to say that its a shame because I really didn’t figure anyone or thing that came out of FBCH could be all that bad.
Lastly, I am not fully gone yet. I would separate from that “faction” ,if you will, I just haven’t seen the irrefutable evidence yet. I know that Bro Schaap isn’t infallible. Thank you Jackhammer again for helping shed light on my position and Greg for the entertainment.
R/S
Bro Steve
Gal 2.20
Glad to amuse you, Brother.
I would suggest that everyone purchase Kent’s book, “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” It is the best and most important book I have ever read on the subject of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture.
I taught a series at my church on this subject, and my people were excited about it.
Mike: “I know Jeff Fugate’s church and camp, and doubt he would do this without plenty of prayer and soul searching.”
Mike, no one’s questioning Fugate’s sincerity in this, but he’s sincerely wrong. Soul searching and prayer does not orthodoxy make. I’s sure Schaap’s supporters would say the same thing.
Mike:“I love Dr. Schapp’s preaching, but some of the things he puts in print are very hard to understand, or support.”
I agree. This is why we need to be objective. Schaap has said/written quite a few doozies, but in this matter, he’s more correct than Fugate.
I went to HAC. I recently reviewed my Bible Doctrines class notes (Hyles era). HAC hasn’t changed on this matter, and Schaap hasn’t changed it. Fugate is out of line, and so is Anderson.
Then Hac doesn’t agree with Jack Hyles stand on this issue or they have dooped everyone for many years.
You’re right, Greg. I can’t believe Hyles, Anderson, and Fugate have been duped all these years by those wily faculty members of HAC. How they’ve managed to hide this heterodoxy for the past 36(?) years is beyond me. I am thankful, though, that Fugate and Anderson have finally discovered the truth.
Hyles and Anderson – duped by Hyles-Anderson!
Greg and Mike,
First, Christian asked some great questions — you guys should try to answer them. To boil it down, you should try to give a Scriptural defense for what you are arguing.
Preservation didn’t begin in 1611.
My personal beliefs concerning preservation are that inspiration is carried on through proper translation, and that the KJV is a proper translation. For men like me that have not taken the time to learn Hebrew or Greek, our opinions are often the result of parroting back what we have been taught. Unfortunately, many of the so called Greek experts also only have the ability to parrot back what they have been taught as well, and do not possess any real knowledge either. I am not so impressed with many of the Greek scholars of today. I had dinner with a self proclaimed, institute trained, Greek-educated Pastor person. I differed with him on the infallibility of a Spanish translation. He challenged me and went on to explain to me about the Greek “originals” and how the KJV was wrong too. I started to probe him about his Greek knowledge, and when the waitress came to take our order, I informed her of my dinner partner’s great intellect and language abilities, and told her that he would be ordering for both of us in Koine Greek. He looked puzzled. Then he looked embarrassed. Then, in the spirit of brotherly love, I lowered my expectations and just asked him to greet her in Koine Greek. (He couldn’t do that either!) Then he was angry with me. I used this opportunity to show him that he is not qualified to make judgments about translations from Greek to English with his lack of expertise of the Koine Greek language and also his general lack of good sense. He did not care for my method, but I believe that he understood my point which was, if you are not an expert (or at least functionally fluent) in a language, YOU are not qualified to give an opinion based on YOUR expertise. Having said all of that….
In my mind, changing the words from Greek or Hebrew into English does not change or remove the inspiration. For simple minds like mine, I give the example of a restored car. The color of the paint on the restored car is different, but the car itself is the same, (and obviously superior to any of the junk coming out of union corrupted Detroit these days). Therefore, if the mode of translation was of a literal bent, and intellectually honest, the translators would not have to be inspired, yet the translation would preserve the original inspiration. I understand that this relies on human logic, but this logic, mingled with the promises in the bible, (and dare I say, my personal faith and experiences also influence me here), land me to a comfortable trust in the KJV.
For the purposes of preservation, I do not think it adds any value to discuss what God can or can’t do, because it seems clear from scripture that He can do anything, except lie. The real question lies in what DID God do.
In my heart, the assurance that I have in the KJV is derived from sitting under the preaching of a Godly man who has proclaimed it and lived it, observing his life and the lives of others in the churches that use a KJV, familiarizing myself with the history of all of the translations and translators, and looking at other historical proofs around trends in Christianity for English speaking peoples when the KJV was the option vs now when the basic argument is that all translations are correct except for the KJV.
A good 4 set series of sermons on inspiration here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com
Go to find speaker; J Hanson Smith
A good 4 set series of sermons on Preservation here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com
Go to find speaker; J Hanson Smith
I’m still amazed (in a way) that this has festered this long. Schaap has very plainly and thoroughly stated (and re-stated) his position. It hasn’t changed. It’s the same as Dr. Hyles’, which is evident if you read his whole book and sermons – not just rip out a few words here and there. I’m not a HAC person, just went up there a couple of times for meetings. I have however heard numerous Fugate sermons, and I’ve never heard anything that didn’t come right out of the Bible.
This fued, however, is embarrassingly stupid. Pastor Fugate used his PERSONAL publication to attack Schaap. Why? First Baptist isn’t his church. He has his own college. Why couldn’t he quietly advise young people he didn’t agree with Schaap. Why did he have to write a 16-page attack on the man. I think Pastor Fugate has enough things to worry about in his own church.
The Anderson influence might very well have something to do with it. I believe things changed for Dr. Anderson at 1st Baptist after Dr. Hyles went to heaven. I heard Anderson moved his membership to Clays Mill.
I’m embarrassed for Pastor Fugate. He’s a wonderful preacher and a good man, but making this a national issue, trying to force pastors to take sides, is foolish and self-serving. I’m afraid he’s gone so far on this silly attack that his pride won’t let him back out of it.
Can you help me with something? Where do you find that Pastor Schaap is merging with some Charismatic teachings? Is it in his books or newspaper? I would like to read that.
Very interesting site glad I came across it. I used to attend FBC
I am saddened that all believers can do is to fight one another. And, as far as Hyles and Schaap, shame on those of you so hung up following mere men. Both have idiosyncrasies, both have preached heresy, and both have, apparently, covered up sin when it benefited them (or their families). Let it go. Get back in the Word, look to our Lord, and stop letting the world laugh us all to our own shame. God is God and Christ is the Savior…and God does not share His glory with anyone, not even Hyles and Schaap. Suck it in, realize we were misled and even lied to, then give to Jesus. I learned some things from HAC but I have learned most from the hypocrisies. Stop fighting among yourselves and start letting the world see Christ in you.
I have grown weary of critics. No matter what is said, right or wrong, there is always a critic. You get a group of disgruntled former FBCers and former HAC students or teachers; what do you get? A group of ultra-critical people who wouldn’t know any more about what they believe than the average church member who never reads his Bible or walks with God. Honestly, if we were all busy walking with God and winning lost souls to Christ, would we really have time for all of this nonsense? Common, let’s get real. I’ve grown tired of a bunch of wimpering, tired old gossips, who have nothing more to do than read each others websites and blogs. They then begin commenting about things they have no good facts to support. They don’t even take a clear stand themselves. True Christianity…I don’t believe I see it exemplified here. How many souls have any of you led to the Lord this week? How many people’s lives have you sought to touch and change this past week? Hmmm…too busy writing gossip? Now I understand true Christianity.
you might not need a church bus news mag, or big church to get your words out but your making good use of the Internet, so quit acting holier then thou.all of US are part of the same gossip hypocrisy. with mush baptist love,
David Mallinak said…”There is no Scriptural warrant for placing a translation on the same level as what was inspired by God.” WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!
I think more then Jack has slipped from what true Christians used to believe.
“The Orthodox Creed of 1679 was written by a group of General Baptists in England, with a desire to emphasize doctrines that were held in common by all Bible-believing Christians. The following is what they believed about the Bible:” Cloud
“And by the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”
The Westminster Confession 1646
1:2 Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Old Testament
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel
II Samuel, II Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Song of Solomon), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
New Testament
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life (Luke 16:29, 31; Eph 2:20; 2 Tim 3:16; Rev 22:18, 19).
It seems to me these old believers believed the English KJV was inspired.
Christopher
” Unbelievers emphasize man’s part in the writing and preserving of the Bible. Believers emphasize God’s part.”Dr. Bruce Lackey
Christopher,
I just saw your comment. You have quoted one creed and one confession. That is fine. Give me a Scriptural warrant for saying that a translation is inspired in the same exact sense as the Greek and Hebrew.
By the way, I am in agreement with both statements from the creed and confession that you quoted. My point in the post was that we are claiming that God inspired a whole new set of words — English words — from what he originally inspired.
What would be the Scriptural arguments for claiming this?
This was in the paper today
“Marc Grizzard, pastor of Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N. C. said his
church believes that all versions of the Bible other than the King James one
are ’satanic’ and ‘perversions’ of God’s word, so members will burn those
translations on Halloween.”