Today's Top News....

[16KJV11]

I think the applause was for Mrs. Hyles and I have no idea if JW would have had Dave stand had he been alone.

I think they were both, or all 3 actually, standing when they got the ovation.

8. Pastor Wilkerson seems like a genuine and caring pastor. I do not know him well, but he was gracious to me in spite of the fact that a couple of his own staff men would be displeased at him treating me like a human, Just acknowledging our presence, I am sure brought him criticism, but he was gracious anyway, and it allowed others who love us to know we were there so they could greet us. It is evident that he has won the hearts of the people and we are all pleased to see that. When he spoke about God touching his heart at the 1980 Youth Conference when the theme was 'So You Want To Be a Star" I kinda felt that was for me because I was the one who was still leading the Your Conference then.

When did HAC pronounce Dave restored?

Anklebone, you are correct. When John Wilkerson gave an ovation for Dave Hyles, no one objected. When HAC pronounced Dave Hyles unscripturally  restored, no one objected. When HAC awarded eight ungodly students academic awards they hadn't earned, no one objected.

Was the ovation for DH or was it for Mrs. Hyles?

I honestly believe that Bro. Wilkerson would have recognized Dave Hyles had he been there alone, but there would not have been any applause
B/C Mrs. Hyles was there, I believe he was showing respect unto her.
To read into that situation any more than showing graciousness to a former pastor's wife is not using  rightious judgment that Jesus speaks about John 7:24.

He has every visitor stand, at least he did when I went to visit there last year. 
Every visitor identified themselves and where they were from.
Can you hear it now?
Ok, if you are a visitor, could you please stand and let us know who you are and where you are from?
Everybody stand now, except you over in the pie section, Dave Hyles, you stay seated you slimy buzzard.

 

[AnkleBone]

Ok, if you are a visitor, could you please stand and let us know who you are and where you are from?
Everybody stand now, except you over in the pie section, Dave Hyles, you stay seated you slimy buzzard.

Dave Hyles should not have been allowed into the church at all. He has walked unworthy of any profession of Christ he ever made. According to the Bible, he should not have been allowed into the church.

 

[fishinnut]

Ok, if you are a visitor, could you please stand and let us know who you are and where you are from?
Everybody stand now, except you over in the pie section, Dave Hyles, you stay seated you slimy buzzard.

Dave Hyles should not have been allowed into the church at all. He has walked unworthy of any profession of Christ he ever made. According to the Bible, he should not have been allowed into the church.

Sarcasm alert!

Hey a church with TSA type security for keeping out the unwanted or unworthy. 

Could you give us a Bible chapter & verse for that type of church?

 

[Vince Massi]

"Dave Hyles should not have been allowed into the church at all. He has walked unworthy of any profession of Christ he ever made. According to the Bible, he should not have been allowed into the church."

"Could you give us a Bible chapter & verse for that type of church?"


1 Corinthians 5:11 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

 

[IFB X-Files]

"Dave Hyles should not have been allowed into the church at all. He has walked unworthy of any profession of Christ he ever made. According to the Bible, he should not have been allowed into the church."

"Could you give us a Bible chapter & verse for that type of church?"


1 Corinthians 5:11 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

Even though he doesn't know how to do a proper quote, I think he's got a good one there, Maynard, even if he failed to use the King's English.

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Good job, earthling.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

 

[Twisted]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

That's interesting.  Are you saying that FBCH had formerly placed David Hyles under church discipline?  I have never heard that.  I don't think the alien was saying that FBCH did or didn't, just that a church would have to do that.

If he was publically disciplined, then the church had a responsibility to let him know he was no longer welcome on the property.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

That's interesting.  Are you saying that FBCH had formerly placed David Hyles under church discipline?  I have never heard that.  I don't think the alien was saying that FBCH did or didn't, just that a church would have to do that.

If he was publically disciplined, then the church had a responsibility to let him know he was no longer welcome on the property.

No. I would not call it that albeit it was the closest thing to it I have ever seen done at FBCH.  None of the formal steps given in scripture were taken and it was done much too late after the fact of multiple sins to really say FBCH disciplined DH.  But what I stated really did happen.  I was there, it was a very sad service, not so much because of DH, but for Bro Hyles.  I was given a heads up it was to occur and that is the reason I made sure I attended that night although that night I had much more pressing matters in which to attend to. 

On another note I was there during all these things. I have (maybe not first hand knowledge but common knowledge of the things that occurred as they occurred) I am not just making up things. I stayed at the Evans house several times during those years as well as many other deacons and inner core families(supper club, those who know what I mean, know) .  I lived with all these people on every side, went to school and youth group and SS.    I knew all the little stories, all the secrets and sins.  I am not at all blinded understand many failures of people.  Not to dismiss any one of them and not to state that their sins are wicked as hell itself.  But so are mine.  And that is why we have a Saviour in the first place isn't it?

One more note. Biblical Church Discipline is being practiced now at FBC and the past has been repented of, not in mere word but in deed.

 

[16KJV11]

Mrs. Hyles, your son is no longer allowed in the church, but you are welcome.
In fact, they should have posters on the walls of the church with those verboten in the assembly, (kind of like the 'no welcome list at HAC that some of you were on'), along with black trench coat wearing men in hats patrolling the premises for those undesirables. 
Awkward.
Now, I could see if he moved to the area and tried to join the church, then, deacons from the church should make a visit and tell him the truth.  But for a one time visit, it would have made for an awkward scene to tell him to vamoose.
If he tried to come again, then it would not be improper to tell him that his attendance at the church would be dependent upon a complete confession of past sin that has not been repented of.

 

[Twisted]

Mrs. Hyles, your son is no longer allowed in the church, but you are welcome.
In fact, they should have posters on the walls of the church with those verboten in the assembly, (kind of like the 'no welcome list at HAC that some of you were on'), along with black trench coat wearing men in hats patrolling the premises for those undesirables. 
Awkward.
Now, I could see if he moved to the area and tried to join the church, then, deacons from the church should make a visit and tell him the truth.  But for a one time visit, it would have made for an awkward scene to tell him to vamoose.
If he tried to come again, then it would not be improper to tell him that his attendance at the church would be dependent upon a complete confession of past sin that has not been repented of.

Wouldn't they just hire Vince's Roadway Gang to do the dirty work?

 

[Twisted]

Mrs. Hyles, your son is no longer allowed in the church, but you are welcome.

Isn't it interesting that Mrs. Hyles had no problem bringing David with her?

Is she totally oblivious to what David had done?  No.  Wouldn't she realize the discomfort of him being in the service?  I would hope so.

Or....did she do it to slap back on how Schaap had treated her?

 

[fishinnut]

"Dave Hyles should not have been allowed into the church at all. He has walked unworthy of any profession of Christ he ever made. According to the Bible, he should not have been allowed into the church."

"Could you give us a Bible chapter & verse for that type of church?"


1 Corinthians 5:11 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

Even though he doesn't know how to do a proper quote, I think he's got a good one there, Maynard, even if he failed to use the King's English.

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Good job, earthling.

I have NO PROBLEM with a church exercising Scriptural discipline. But that is not what I understood the ankle guy to say. It hit me that he thought that there should be some kind of guards at the doors to keep the unwanted SINNERS out.

Besides, to my knowledge to this day FBCH had not brought Davey-boy to task over his many act of immorality.

 

[Twisted]

https://oldpathsjournal.com/publish-it-not/

 

[TidesofTruth]

Besides, to my knowledge to this day FBCH had not brought Davey-boy to task over his many act of immorality.

Because it was handled unscripturally in the past it made it impossible to do now.  Without his being a member FBCH has no standing.  Do it God's way and it may have been possible to have restoration.  Now we have a man of constant sorrows of his own making, a scourge on Christendom and no real way of having godly justice, mercy, grace, and forgivness this side of heaven.

 

[Teri in NC]

After reading Part 1:

The only new information here is the admitted regret by Dr. Evans.  I am happy to hear that he has repented for the decisions that he made back then and acknowledges that they were incorrect.  At this stage, that is all that can be expected.  I also found it good to know that Joy and her dad have a good relationship.

This is obviously written from the perspective of a former IFBer.  The IFB has not cornered the market on this sin.  Other denominations, religions, business and sectors of society have the same issue running rampant in this culture.  To blame the entire IFB is somewhat ignorant.

The investigative reporter, Sarah Smith, is not a former IFBer. 

 

[Teri in NC]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

Your vendetta against JER makes you an ass.

 

[Norefund]

Agree completely. There was no other way to handle it.

Mrs. Hyles, your son is no longer allowed in the church, but you are welcome.
In fact, they should have posters on the walls of the church with those verboten in the assembly, (kind of like the 'no welcome list at HAC that some of you were on'), along with black trench coat wearing men in hats patrolling the premises for those undesirables. 
Awkward.
Now, I could see if he moved to the area and tried to join the church, then, deacons from the church should make a visit and tell him the truth.  But for a one time visit, it would have made for an awkward scene to tell him to vamoose.
If he tried to come again, then it would not be improper to tell him that his attendance at the church would be dependent upon a complete confession of past sin that has not been repented of.

 

[Norefund]

Maybe. But more likely she still had a good relationship with her son and needed his assistance in traveling. So, if she wanted to attend FBC, Dave felt he had to take her. It was probably uncomfortable for both of them, thinking about it.

Mrs. Hyles, your son is no longer allowed in the church, but you are welcome.

Isn't it interesting that Mrs. Hyles had no problem bringing David with her?

Is she totally oblivious to what David had done?  No.  Wouldn't she realize the discomfort of him being in the service?  I would hope so.

Or....did she do it to slap back on how Schaap had treated her?

 

[TidesofTruth]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

Your vendetta against JER makes you an ass.

Your words betray your heart. 

 

[WESLEY]

Of course, this would mean the church leadership would have to admit he was guilty of such sin.

Really?  How many times and in what form do you require to understand that the church leadership for years has not only admitted the sin but preached about the sin by name, by position, by offender and even Brother Hyles formally from the pulpit has not only publicly admitted such but directly spoke on a Sunday Night before PS of March of 1991 when I was there but was not a church member that DH had horribly sinned and the membership  was to have no contact with him any further.  Multiple repeated attempts were made by leadership to contact those who wish to prop him back up in ministry to warn them about not doing it. 

The initial reactions and not disciplining him were absolutely wrong.  It created a mess.  On both sides.  Bro Wilkerson did biblically what he was to do in dealing with church discipline with JER.  But her and her ilk did not want to use biblical methods to resolve this issue.  Her recollections in this "story" have pieces of truth enough to get one to believe it was true but the facts of the matter that we who were there at the time know the truth of the matter and others of us also know the truth of continued sin that led to the demise of a marriage and missionary ministry. But we dare not think for a moment that those matters should be brought to church discipline now do we.  It doesn't fit the #MeToo narrative.  RED AWAY Snowflakes!  You will see someday the truth.

RIGHT ON -  It's amazing how many people "get saved" (again ) or "remember more details" when they get caught.

Was Dave Hyles guilty of Statutory Rape with Joy?  I think without a doubt.
Did he "hold her down..." -  I have my doubts, but who knows.
Did Joy have a reputation @ HAC for being.... loose?  Definitely

I think it's funny we don't hear a peep.... until it's convenient for her.

P.S. -  I think Dave should serve out his life in Prison for what he did to her and others like her.  But -  It doesn't give her an excuse on continued sin.