Comments?
- Thread starter Twisted
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
This is the first time that I have heard that it was Jack Hyles who was mainly responsible for promoting local-church-only among Baptists and denying the Universal Church. The Universal Church teaching was strenuously opposed by Landmarkers going back to J.R. Graves in the 1850s, and more recently in the mid-20th Century by S.E. Anderson and many other authors. Opposition to the Universal Church has always been one of the main principles that Landmarkers have emphasized, long before the time of Jack Hyles. Admittedly, most Baptists of the past and present accepted the Universal Church concept, but some have not accepted it, even prior to the time of J.R. Graves.
Article 33 of the First London Confession in 1644 reads, "That Christ hath here on earth a spiritual kingdom, which is the Church, which he hath purchased and redeemed to himself, as a peculiar inheritance; which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible Saints, called and separated from the world, by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King." Sounds like local-church-only to me.
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 makes no mention of a Universal Church. Its author, J. Newton Brown, said, "Christ has had for 1800 years past, a visible church in earth - made up of the entire body of particular churches formed under the general constitution of the New Testament. . . . The term 'church' is here used, it will be seen, not for the whole body of the elect which is ever invisible on earth."
Modern-day Landmarkers have for the most part not associated with Hyles, cited him, or regarded him as one of them. My own belief is local-church-only, but not because of anything that Hyles taught. Hyles' teaching from 3:20 to 4:00 on this video is just plain wacky - I have never heard anything like that from any Landmarker. I do not accept the "Baptist Bride" concept and there are many Landmarkers who no longer believe that either.
Article 33 of the First London Confession in 1644 reads, "That Christ hath here on earth a spiritual kingdom, which is the Church, which he hath purchased and redeemed to himself, as a peculiar inheritance; which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible Saints, called and separated from the world, by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King." Sounds like local-church-only to me.
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 makes no mention of a Universal Church. Its author, J. Newton Brown, said, "Christ has had for 1800 years past, a visible church in earth - made up of the entire body of particular churches formed under the general constitution of the New Testament. . . . The term 'church' is here used, it will be seen, not for the whole body of the elect which is ever invisible on earth."
Modern-day Landmarkers have for the most part not associated with Hyles, cited him, or regarded him as one of them. My own belief is local-church-only, but not because of anything that Hyles taught. Hyles' teaching from 3:20 to 4:00 on this video is just plain wacky - I have never heard anything like that from any Landmarker. I do not accept the "Baptist Bride" concept and there are many Landmarkers who no longer believe that either.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks for posting this. I was just discussing this with my new pastor regarding his belief in the "local church only" position - or, as I call it, LC-Onlyism. [emoji12]Twisted said:
Even before, during, and after Bible College, I never ascribed to it... And still don't, because it's not found in the Word of God. Much of the confusion is the failure to make a distinction between water baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit... And, of course, the latter takes place at the moment of regeneration and conversion. Water baptism is a type and has no impact on a believer being baptized by One Spirit into One body, the church.
Whoever made this video is spot on through Parts 1-3 of the full documentary... Although he's starting to lose me on Part 4 regarding the Bride of Christ.
What are your thoughts? Or have you even watched the full documentary?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Points
- 113
HammondCheese said:
I've watched most of them. The "author" has certain quirky positions and an obvious dislike of Jack Hyles, however, he is correct about this subject.
Over the last 10-15 years, I've become more aware of all the "man-made doctrines" of many Baptists (LCO being one of them). This, IMO, does a huge disservice to the things of God.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Twisted said:
Yeah, I didn't see why he felt the need to pin this heresy on Bro. Hyles alone. Every major IFB college teaches this and has for decades.
Although I've always stood against this teaching, even at HAC, he made me think more on the WHY... And I think a big part of it is the establishment of dictatorial, pastoral authority - as well as "church growth" and the distorted focus on "number of baptisms"... Like Pentecost Sunday at FBC Hammond, which is based on the false premise that the 3,000 baptisms in Acts 2 were in water and not by the Holy Ghost.
But to your point, identifying man-made doctrines and basing your belief-system on the Word of God alone is liberating and really helps the pieces fall into place in Scripture.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
The video, from about 2:00 to 3:20, expresses opposition to dictatorial, abusive authority of the pastor as practiced by Jack Hyles, and I agree on that 100%. However, I am not convinced that there is any cause-and-effect connection whatsoever between rejection of the Universal Church and dictatorial abuse of pastoral authority. Over the years I have been aware of, and have personally witnessed and experienced, abusive pastoral leadership in churches that were Landmark, and also in churches which were non- or anti-Landmark. The problem of abusive authority is one that cuts across movements and denominations. Not all pastors who are Landmarkers or who reject the Universal Church are abusive leaders, by any means. A few years ago the Baptist Monitor, published by Texas Baptist Institute in Henderson, Texas, a staunchly Landmark institution of the American Baptist Association, printed a denunciation of the dictatorial pastoral position of the Baptist Bible Fellowship movement.
I can totally sympathize with anyone who had a run-in with a "bully pulpit" preacher who was a Landmarker and who now avoids all Landmark preachers as a result. But they are just as likely to encounter the same problem in a non-Landmark church from a preacher who believes in the Universal Church.
So, be careful out there.
I can totally sympathize with anyone who had a run-in with a "bully pulpit" preacher who was a Landmarker and who now avoids all Landmark preachers as a result. But they are just as likely to encounter the same problem in a non-Landmark church from a preacher who believes in the Universal Church.
So, be careful out there.
- Joined
- May 14, 2014
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
I find it amazing HDS still exists some 18 years after the man was entombed.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks... Now I have that theme song stuck in my head. HahaTwisted said:
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
Logically, if we accept the premise of this video, that churches that do not believe in the Universal Church are more likely to have abusive and dictatorial leadership, because they do not accept outside oversight, then this would also apply to all Baptist and independent churches with a polity of congregational rule, even if they do believe in the Universal Church.
Some have taken this notion to its logical conclusion, and advocated that churches should not be independent, but should be under the Episcopal or Presbyterian form of church government, in order to prevent abusive leadership. I do not accept that logic. Roman Catholic parishes are not independent and are under the strict oversight of bishops (and their priests believe in the Universal Church) but that hasn't stopped the priests from molesting the altar boys.
Some have taken this notion to its logical conclusion, and advocated that churches should not be independent, but should be under the Episcopal or Presbyterian form of church government, in order to prevent abusive leadership. I do not accept that logic. Roman Catholic parishes are not independent and are under the strict oversight of bishops (and their priests believe in the Universal Church) but that hasn't stopped the priests from molesting the altar boys.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
You are missing the point of the full documentary. The segment in this preview about authoritarian pastors is the extent of its mention in the 4-Part series. The real issue is the denial of the One, Universal, Invisible Church taught in Scripture that consists of ALL born-again believers and make up The Body of Christ - regardless of local church membership, water baptism, etc.illinoisguy said:
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
illinoisguy said:
Yes, well said.
I listened to the short video on Hyles and it seems that he is pushing some agenda.
I started to listen to the long series; he makes some interesting points, but he clearly seems to be a Ruckman kind of follower about the KJV as he was saying how evil concordances are.