Reply to a Schaap Supporter

[Brother Rick]

I just wanted to insert something here. I've never heard Bro. Cloud claim that being a watchman was his calling (I don't know him really well, but I do know him). He is actually a missionary to Nepal, who also happens to have a writing ministry. And he is in no way jealous of Schaap being Hyles' successor (and would probably laugh uproariously at the thought!! )

There are things Schaap has said and written that are unbiblical. Just as Hyles taught some things that are unbiblical. Unbliblical, taught as biblical truth would be heresy, no? As to what they might be, perhaps you could do a search here, because there have been threads about both in the past. That would save a lot of time and perhaps argument (not that we EVER argue here ).

And we have all posted about people with whom we disagree, so why can't Bro. Cloud?

You make some good points, but I don't think for a second that Cloud is jealous or anything. What I thought was over the top was this, "We don’t hate Jack Schaap, but we are disgusted with his pomposity and we’re not going to ignore his heresies." He followed that up by slamming Hyles. If you're going to make a charge like that you had better back it up and I don't see anything that Cloud said that backed it up.

Disagreeing with someone and calling them a heretic are two very different things.

[HappyChristian]

You make some good points, but I don't think for a second that Cloud is jealous or anything. What I thought was over the top was this, "We don’t hate Jack Schaap, but we are disgusted with his pomposity and we’re not going to ignore his heresies." He followed that up by slamming Hyles. If you're going to make a charge like that you had better back it up and I don't see anything that Cloud said that backed it up.

Disagreeing with someone and calling them a heretic are two very different things.

I'm sorry, I misread your phrase ("bent against"...somehow I thought I read jealous). But his problems with JS aren't from his being JH's successor.

He has, in the past, specified. Perhaps he didn't here because of length?

Yes, disagreeing with someone and calling them a heretic are two very different things. But did he actually call JS a heretic? Or did he say "his heresies?" I would say that would indicate that there is truth mixed with error in some of JS' teachings (which would be true).

And by the way: I am mad about the list you wrote. You left out a name:
Joe Boyd. (of course, you may never have heard of him or heard him preach )

[John81]

Well, there's certainly a place for it as pastor, but I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where someone is "called" to ministry of being a watchman pointing out everyone else's mis-steps. I don't like it when anyone does it, and I really hate it when it's about ticky-tack things like this. If that's really Cloud's calling, which I honestly don't think it is because he does a lot of other things (he has several commentaries), then it's an unbiblical calling.

Cloud's accusing Shaap of heresy here. I watched the video in it's entirety, and there's nothing in it that is heresy. There's personal opinion, and he clearly sites much of his sources as being extra-biblical. However, he was also careful to point out several biblical facts: Jesus was and is God, Mary was a godly woman, Joseph died before the crucifixion, Jesus' brothers didn't believe on Him at first, Joseph was a good man, and that there's no account of Joseph having a conversation with Mary about the pregnancy before deciding to put her away.

He put in a lot of his own personal opinion, but he clearly stated it as such. Every preacher does that, for crying out loud! Even if he was wrong, this doesn't warrant accusing him of heresy. Cloud has over-reacted on this one for sure. If I had to guess, I think he has a bent against Schaap because he's Jack Hyles' successor. That's why (other than the first sentence) he spent the entire response slamming Hyles to the Schaap supporter. Furthermore, in that first sentence he says, "We don’t hate Jack Schaap, but we are disgusted with his pomposity and we’re not going to ignore his heresies." Okay, example please? His pomposity? Where are his heresies? Cloud hasn't listed them.

If Cloud really believes his mission in life is to be an attack dog to other believers, well, all I could say is that's a shame and disappointment.

I get so tired of the infighting amongst IFBers. You can't mention anyone's name anymore without someone blasting you because of something.

Here we go, I can make everyone mad by saying I appreciate these men and the good they did:

J Frank Norris.

Peter Ruckman.

Sam Gipp.

Lee Robertson.

Jack Hyles.

Jack Patterson.

Bill Grady.

John R. Rice.

Bruce Cummons.

David Cloud.


Okay, how many of you just got mad at me? Probably a lot, and I don't even care who it was. Did I endorse every action by them? No. I said I appreciate these men for what they do/did for the Lord and they all did something. If you're mad at me for that, then it just shows your spiritual immaturity and lack of grace. We need to have more grace with other believers, even if they're not perfectly in line with everything and they "followeth not with us."

Luke 9:49-50, “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

So as not to be misunderstood, I'm not a "Cloud is 100% right all the time and support all he says" person. I also don't know much about the particular topic regarding Schaap. Cloud does many things and he's pointed out he's called to do these things. In a manner of speaking, all Christians are called to shine light upon darkness and error.

Sometimes Cloud seems on target with what he writes and there are times I really don't understand what it is he sees as being so wrong he needs to sound an alarm.

I admit that since so many of his commentaries are of a "negative" nature, they can weigh on a person, but as LuAnn and some others may have pointed out too, Cloud does other things as well such as being a missionary, putting forth written materials, preaching, etc.

Some things Cloud raises an alarm about certainly need to be addressed. Perhaps others do to but I don't always see it that way myself.

With regards to the list of names you put forth, I'm certain there is good and bad which could be stated regarding each, but I wouldn't be upset to discover someone found something good from them or if someone pointed out error from any of them.

IFBs are not a denomination so there are differences among them. Some are minor while other differences are very serious indeed. We shouldn't expect all IFBs to be buds, but we should expect that outside of serious doctrinal error we could at least tolerate one another in a measure of peace.

[Seth Doty]

Cloud's accusing Shaap of heresy here. I watched the video in it's entirety, and there's nothing in it that is heresy. There's personal opinion, and he clearly sites much of his sources as being extra-biblical. However, he was also careful to point out several biblical facts: Jesus was and is God, Mary was a godly woman, Joseph died before the crucifixion, Jesus' brothers didn't believe on Him at first, Joseph was a good man, and that there's no account of Joseph having a conversation with Mary about the pregnancy before deciding to put her away.

He put in a lot of his own personal opinion, but he clearly stated it as such. Every preacher does that, for crying out loud! Even if he was wrong, this doesn't warrant accusing him of heresy.

I watched that video too and it certainly contained a lot of garbage. Some of it can indeed be dismissed as just personal opinion but some of it is stated as if it is fact too. Beside the fact that his projection of Mary as an "older" lady is pretty far fetched given that biblically we know Mary had at least seven children counting Jesus, Schaap also goes pretty far in trash talking Joseph when there is zero scriptural basis for doing so. He condemns Joseph for being minded to "put mary away privily" when he found out she was pregnant prior to their marriage. He talks as if this was somehow evidence that Joseph wasn't really a very good guy and didn't love mary very much. Nevermind the fact that Matthew 1:19 says that he was "a just man" and "not willing to make her a public example". Also nevermind that when the angel appeared to Joseph to tell him it was ok to take her as his wife the angel said "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife", showing that he wasn't exactly getting "rid" of her as schaap seems to be implying but was doing it because he feared God and believed it was the right thing to do. Schaap then goes on to say(around 6:25) that Jesus grew up in a "disfunctional family", a home of strife and contention, and that Mary was the only one in the family who believed he was God. While his brothers truly did not believe in him according to the scriptures we have no record of what his sisters believed one way or another and from the fact that Joseph believed the angel it is quite safe to assume that Joseph did indeed believe Christ was God.Schaap is qualifying some of this completely unsupported and oddball stuff as opinion but is also presenting a lot of it as if it is fact. Whew, it has been a while since I have listened to hyles anderson style preaching, I had almost forgotten how shallow on substance, careless with truth, and big on opinion and entertainment much of it is.


Even if you don't think anything in that crosses a line into "real heresy", at the very least building such an elaborate and lengthy story without any basis in the scriptures is taking great liberties with the truth and God's church.

I mean if you look at the biblical model:

"1 Timothy 3:2-5 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) "

You will see a signification portion of the qualifications have to do with being a careful person not likely to lead anyone wrong either with word or example. Frankly from behind the pulpit is a poor place to launch an extensive and dubious story line without scriptural basis. If such an extensive story line cannot be supported by scripture then what is the point of presenting it from the pulpit at all? Does a lengthy personal opinion on biblical matters without any scripture to back it up matter much? Way to many preachers seem to forget that they are standing behind th pulpit to teach people Gods word not to speculate and make stuff up. About the only reason I can think of to present such a story is to entertain and tell people something they probably haven't heard before. I don't think that is very worthwhile at the best, and at the worst it is pretty shameful. See, this kind of thing where a lot of hyles anderson style preachers loose credibility. On the one hand many are very big on talking about how they are "Gods man" and so forth, but when you hear them preach rather than honoring the word of God and acting like a man of God they do it a disservice by a great amount of unfounded speculation. A man of God's job is to bring the word of GOD to the people. When preachers are in the habit of generously mixing in their completely unfounded opinions with the word of God it is a serious red flag. After watching that video, ask yourself seriously, doesn't it come across more as a man preaching his opinions and mentioning the word of God occasionally rather than a man preaching the word of God and occasionally giving an opinion?

I certainly don't expect preachers to be perfect, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to preach Gods word rather than their baseless opinions.

"Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Edited January 20, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[irishman]

I apologize for my comments about Bro. Cloud, I am as guilty as he which I condemn, that said, Let's all try to act more like Christ would have us to act, and keep the "warnings" in their place--as mere warnings with no more rambling on. I can't help but think of the way Cooper was treated, though he did have some strange ideas. His "strangeness was more in practice than in doctrine, and I am glad to say that I did not utter one word against him, because he is on our side. He seemed to want lost people saved, and to glorify the Lord with his life, although, again I say, I don't understand how he reasoned those things.

I cancelled the "Sword of the Lord" shortly after the "new" guy took over, because it seemed to spend a lot of every issue attacking the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe that much of what they said was true, and I do not hold to many of the Southern Baptist beliefs or practices, but I grew weary of constant onslaughts against them. the lord has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, while, in the meantime, we all grow together.

Some of our discussions (I was told they are not "debates") get pretty rough at times, and we all get caught up in them, but remember, if we search hard enough, we could find much to criticize any preacher about. Maybe we need to spend less time searching their lives, and more time searching the will of the Lord. I know I need to.

Each of us have a mental picture now of the other, according to the doctrines we have discussed, and they will be hard to get away from, but we need to function as one body, and do things in one accord, according to scripture; no schisms; no backbiting; no whining, etc. With the Lord's help, we will walk together with Him.

[John81]

I watched that video too and it certainly contained a lot of garbage. Some of it can indeed be dismissed as just personal opinion but some of it is stated as if it is fact too. Beside the fact that his projection of Mary as an "older" lady is pretty far fetched given that biblically we know Mary had at least seven children counting Jesus, Schaap also goes pretty far in trash talking Joseph when there is zero scriptural basis for doing so. He condemns Joseph for being minded to "put mary away privily" when he found out she was pregnant prior to their marriage. He talks as if this was somehow evidence that Joseph wasn't really a very good guy and didn't love mary very much. Nevermind the fact that Matthew 1:19 says that he was "a just man" and "not willing to make her a public example". Also nevermind that when the angel appeared to Joseph to tell him it was ok to take her as his wife the angel said "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife", showing that he wasn't exactly getting "rid" of her as schaap seems to be implying but was doing it because he feared God and believed it was the right thing to do. Schaap then goes on to say(around 6:25) that Jesus grew up in a "disfunctional family", a home of strife and contention, and that Mary was the only one in the family who believed he was God. While his brothers truly did not believe in him according to the scriptures we have no record of what his sisters believed one way or another and from the fact that Joseph believed the angel it is quite safe to assume that Joseph did indeed believe Christ was God.Schaap is qualifying some of this completely unsupported and oddball stuff as opinion but is also presenting a lot of it as if it is fact. Whew, it has been a while since I have listened to hyles anderson style preaching, I had almost forgotten how shallow on substance, careless with truth, and big on opinion and entertainment much of it is.


Even if you don't think anything in that crosses a line into "real heresy", at the very least building such an elaborate and lengthy story without any basis in the scriptures is taking great liberties with the truth and God's church.

I mean if you look at the biblical model:

"1 Timothy 3:2-5 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) "

You will see a signification portion of the qualifications have to do with being a careful person not likely to lead anyone wrong either with word or example. Frankly from behind the pulpit is a poor place to launch an extensive and dubious story line without scriptural basis. If such an extensive story line cannot be supported by scripture then what is the point of presenting it from the pulpit at all? Does a lengthy personal opinion on biblical matters without any scripture to back it up matter much? Way to many preachers seem to forget that they are standing behind th pulpit to teach people Gods word not to speculate and make stuff up. About the only reason I can think of to present such a story is to entertain and tell people something they probably haven't heard before. I don't think that is very worthwhile at the best, and at the worst it is pretty shameful. See, this kind of thing where a lot of hyles anderson style preachers loose credibility. On the one hand many are very big on talking about how they are "Gods man" and so forth, but when you hear them preach rather than honoring the word of God and acting like a man of God they do it a disservice by a great amount of unfounded speculation. A man of God's job is to bring the word of GOD to the people. When preachers are in the habit of generously mixing in their completely unfounded opinions with the word of God it is a serious red flag. After watching that video, ask yourself seriously, doesn't it come across more as a man preaching his opinions and mentioning the word of God occasionally rather than a man preaching the word of God and occasionally giving an opinion?

I certainly don't expect preachers to be perfect, but I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to preach Gods word rather than their baseless opinions.

"Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

Excellent analysis!

[irishman]

Excellent analysis!

Partial quote:"A man of God's job is to bring the word of GOD to the people. When preachers are in the habit of generously mixing in their completely unfounded opinions with the word of God it is a serious red flag. After watching that video, ask yourself seriously, doesn't it come across more as a man preaching his opinions and mentioning the word of God occasionally rather than a man preaching the word of God and occasionally giving an opinion?" (Only quoted the last part of your post because i didn't need the rest!)


You mean like many on this forum do?

[John81]

Partial quote:"A man of God's job is to bring the word of GOD to the people. When preachers are in the habit of generously mixing in their completely unfounded opinions with the word of God it is a serious red flag. After watching that video, ask yourself seriously, doesn't it come across more as a man preaching his opinions and mentioning the word of God occasionally rather than a man preaching the word of God and occasionally giving an opinion?" (Only quoted the last part of your post because i didn't need the rest!)


You mean like many on this forum do?

This is a discussion board and for the most part the only preaching put forth here is in the articles section or through links.

That said, yes, sometimes we do get into discussions that are based more on opinion than Scripture. For the most part, I don't see much value in this and we need to be very careful when we have such discussions. There are also times when opinion may be presented as fact, even sometimes with some Scripture. Sometimes the one posting such truly believes they are posting a scriptural post while at other times it may be they are simply trying to get Scripture to back their opinion. (To be VERY clear, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, or even trying to, just considering threads I've read or been involved in over the past several years)

Yet we must remember that those who preach are held to a higher standard, as Scripture declares. They are to be very careful to adhere to the Word of God. At the same time we (those who hear) are to be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if what they say is true. Also, as Scripture examples, we are to confront error when it crops up and we are to name false teachers by name.

This should all be done in the hope that error will be corrected, the Word may be held to truly, wayward brothers may be restored and those who are truly false teachers may be exposed as such and the brethren warned away from them.

[Seth Doty]

The conversion of a sinner is a work of God, not a work of man. So, it doesn't matter how much I am willing to turn from my sins/have my life changed around, that is up to God.

Biblically salvation is a work of God, but yet one only performed if a man desires it and comes to God on Gods terms asking for it. So while on the one hand the will of man can do nothing to accomplish salvation on its own, and so in a sense is completely dependent on God, yet on the other hand God chooses not to accomplish salvation without the will of the man and so in a sense it also is dependent on the will of man since God made a choice to make it that way and refuses no one that will come to him with the right heart and in obedience to what Gods word says about how to be saved. If salvation were all of God regardless of the will of man you could not have verses like 1 Timothy 2:4, Revelation 22:17 and Ezekiel 33:11, yet if it were all of man you could not have verses like John 6:44 or John 1:13. It is the combination of the will of God and the will of man, the place where repentance and faith meet grace, that salvation occurs.

It most certainly does matter if the lost person is "willing" to turn to God and away from their sin, if it did not there would have been no point in God sending the prophets to sinners and calling for people to turn to God and there would not be verses like this either:

"Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

Gods desires for men can be thwarted by their refusal to listen to him. If the God did not allow the will of man block his desire for them to be saved the only two options would be that God either does not wish to save certain people from hell or that everyone will be saved eventually. Neither of those options fits the teaching of the scripture. Edited January 21, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[Daniel Gladu]

Who is Daniel Gladu?

Just a newbie here. But, this is the only forum I have found to be interesting and actually mean when they say, "We are strictly Independent Fundamental Baptists." I have been to another one but they weren't real IFBs and I was kicked off for being 'too Baptist'. I have been to this forum and watched it a few times as an observer and it looks pretty good to me.

[Daniel Gladu]

Biblically salvation is a work of God, but yet one only performed if a man desires it and comes to God on Gods terms asking for it. So while on the one hand the will of man can do nothing to accomplish salvation on its own, and so in a sense is completely dependent on God, yet on the other hand God chooses not to accomplish salvation without the will of the man and so in a sense it also is dependent on the will of man since God made a choice to make it that way and refuses no one that will come to him with the right heart and in obedience to what Gods word says about how to be saved. If salvation were all of God regardless of the will of man you could not have verses like 1 Timothy 2:4, Revelation 22:17 and Ezekiel 33:11, yet if it were all of man you could not have verses like John 6:44 or John 1:13. It is the combination of the will of God and the will of man, the place where repentance and faith meet grace, that salvation occurs.

It most certainly does matter if the lost person is "willing" to turn to God and away from their sin, if it did not there would have been no point in God sending the prophets to sinners and calling for people to turn to God and there would not be verses like this either:

"Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

Gods desires for men can be thwarted by their refusal to listen to him. If the God did not allow the will of man block his desire for them to be saved the only two options would be that God either does not wish to save certain people from hell or that everyone will be saved eventually. Neither of those options fits the teaching of the scripture.

The only thing a saved person must be willing to do, in fact more than willing to do, is to trust Christ alone for their salvation. Repentance is a change of mind and as someone else said it earlier in this post, an agreeance on what God says about salvation. I believe that H. A. Ironside defined repentance in the simplest form for everyone to understand it.

Very often the real difficulty arises from a misapprehension of the meaning of repentance. There is no salvation without repentance, but it is important to see exactly what is meant by this term. It should not be confounded with penitence, which is sorrow for sin; nor with penance, which is an effort to make some satisfaction for sin; nor yet with reformation, which is turning from sin. Repentance is a change of attitude toward sin, toward self, and toward God. The original word (in the Greek Testament) literally means 'a change of mind.' This is not a mere intellectual change of viewpoint, however, but a complete reversal of attitude.

Now test yourself in this way. You once lived in sin and loved it. Do you now desire deliverance from it? You were once self-confident and trusting in your own fancied goodness. Do you now judge yourself as a sinner before God? You once sought to hide from God and rebelled against His authority. Do you now look up to Him, desiring to know Him, and to yield yourself to Him? If you can honestly say “Yes” to these questions, you have repented. Your attitude is altogether different to what it once was.

You confess you are a sinner, unable to cleanse your own soul, and you are willing to be saved in God’s way. This is repentance. And remember, it is not the amount of re pentance that counts: it is the fact that you turn from self to God that puts you in the place where His grace avails through Jesus Christ.

Strictly speaking, not one of us has ever repented enough. None of us has realized the enormity of our guilt as God sees it. But when we judge ourselves and trust the Saviour whom He has provided, we are saved through His merits. As recipients of His lovingkindness, repentance will be deepened and will continue day by day, as we learn more and more of His infinite worth and our own unworthiness.

~H. A. Ironside, Full Assurance

I can't say any better than that so I will leave it as that.

[Daniel Gladu]

You make some good points, but I don't think for a second that Cloud is jealous or anything. What I thought was over the top was this, "We don’t hate Jack Schaap, but we are disgusted with his pomposity and we’re not going to ignore his heresies." He followed that up by slamming Hyles. If you're going to make a charge like that you had better back it up and I don't see anything that Cloud said that backed it up.

Disagreeing with someone and calling them a heretic are two very different things.

Cloud does slam a lot of people with his ministry and like all big-time people in fundamental circles, he can be prideful. On the other hand, Cloud is right on spot here. Jack Schaap is the jock strap of Independent Baptists. The good that Hyles did do in his life is now being crumbled away little by little. What is sad is that older preachers who should be the example are not separating from him. Jeff Fugate did right to separate from Schaap and the affiliates there. The Bible says that to whom much is given, much shall be required. I've known some Schaap-followers who have said, "We should stop fighting, and just win souls." Winning souls to Christ is very important, but it is not the only command in the Word of God. Please read the quote from Pastor R. A. Smith (graduate of HAC) of Fort Worth Baptist Temple...

It has been said that silence isn’t golden, it’s just plain yellow! Silence is now being interpreted as approval of Hammond’s position, which I cannot allow. It is time to take a public stand.

There are far too many points of contention to list them all, but suffice it to say this. You can mark me down as one who vehemently disagrees with ANYONE who says the King James Bible is not inspired, who gives the least amount of sympathy or respect towards Rick Warren and the dirty liberal philosophy, and pragmatic approach to church-building which he advocates, who believes that the Holy Spirit can become "confused" or "depressed", who considers taking the Lord’s Supper as being similar to spiritual sex, who believes we should share platforms with non-Baptists and people who preach with Charismatics, etc...

Let it not be misunderstood. I’m an old-fashioned, unaffiliated, Bible-believing, Baptist who does not want to be confused with those who once claimed to be the same, but have since shown otherwise by their actions and associations. I’m not bitter toward anyone, anywhere, but neither am I intimidated by what others believe or do.

~Pastor R. A. Smith
My link

The list that Smith gave is not limited to, but is a list of some of Jack Schaap's actual teachings. Jack Schaap is the pastor of America's largest Independent Fundamental Baptist church and while it is one thing to look for trouble, it is another to put 'trouble-maker' on your forehead. Cloud could have and should have rephrased his wording but he got the plain point across that the preaching Jack Schaap ought not be ignored.

[irishman]

Cloud does slam a lot of people with his ministry and like all big-time people in fundamental circles, he can be prideful. On the other hand, Cloud is right on spot here. Jack Schaap is the jock strap of Independent Baptists. The good that Hyles did do in his life is now being crumbled away little by little. What is sad is that older preachers who should be the example are not separating from him. Jeff Fugate did right to separate from Schaap and the affiliates there. The Bible says that to whom much is given, much shall be required. I've known some Schaap-followers who have said, "We should stop fighting, and just win souls." Winning souls to Christ is very important, but it is not the only command in the Word of God. Please read the quote from Pastor R. A. Smith (graduate of HAC) of Fort Worth Baptist Temple...


It has been said that silence isn’t golden, it’s just plain yellow! Silence is now being interpreted as approval of Hammond’s position, which I cannot allow. It is time to take a public stand.

There are far too many points of contention to list them all, but suffice it to say this. You can mark me down as one who vehemently disagrees with ANYONE who says the King James Bible is not inspired, who gives the least amount of sympathy or respect towards Rick Warren and the dirty liberal philosophy, and pragmatic approach to church-building which he advocates, who believes that the Holy Spirit can become "confused" or "depressed", who considers taking the Lord’s Supper as being similar to spiritual sex, who believes we should share platforms with non-Baptists and people who preach with Charismatics, etc...

Let it not be misunderstood. I’m an old-fashioned, unaffiliated, Bible-believing, Baptist who does not want to be confused with those who once claimed to be the same, but have since shown otherwise by their actions and associations. I’m not bitter toward anyone, anywhere, but neither am I intimidated by what others believe or do.

~Pastor R. A. Smith
My link


The list that Smith gave is not limited to, but is a list of some of Jack Schaap's actual teachings. Jack Schaap is the pastor of America's largest Independent Fundamental Baptist church and while it is one thing to look for trouble, it is another to put 'trouble-maker' on your forehead. Cloud could have and should have rephrased his wording but he got the plain point across that the preaching Jack Schaap ought not be ignored.

Kudos to bro Smith, he is the only one that gave valid reason for his critique of Bro. Schaap.

[HappyChristian]

"He can be prideful..." So, you know Bro. Cloud personally, Daniel? Anyone of us has the potential of being prideful, but to make a statement like that about someone with whom you've not had dealings is fraught with being the pot calling the kettle black...

[Brother Rick]

Personally, I really like Bro. Cloud's articles. The ones I've read I've found to be really good and very Scriptural. I wouldn't presume to call him prideful; I think he does a good job. I think he's a little trigger happy on "warning" us about other guys though. It’s no big deal; we all have our things, don't we?

I guess I'm a little reactionary to the "heresy" and "heretic" label. I've seen so many people slapped with it, when all they did was think outside the box.

Here's how I look at doctrinal differences, I see three levels of error:

1) Doctrinal Error.

This is a situation in which someone is wrong on something that is, for the most part, isolated to itself. An example of this would be believing in a mid or post Trib rapture of the church. Or perhaps thinking that the Bride of Christ consists of only Baptists. Or the false thinking that life doesn't begin at conception, it begins with the first breath. These are all doctrinal errors, and some may have bigger implications than others, but for the most part they don't affect other doctrines and (unless carried to an extreme) they don't affect many things on a practical level.

2) False Doctrine.

This is a little more serious, but it's still not heresy. To me, examples would be Calvinism, Amillennialism, and tongues. They're all wrong, and they both affect other doctrines, but (like doctrinal error) as long as they're not taken to an extreme not a lot of harm can be done on a practical level. I can still fellowship with a Calvinist and stand shoulder to shoulder with him and lead someone to the Lord. I've seen some very separated and sold out Charasmatics raise good families and win souls. I can have fellowship with that person and family, even if they believe in false doctrine. A lot of this has to do with how far they take it.

3) Heresy.

This is where things get bad. A heretic pushes things that directly affect the doctrine of Salvation and who God is. Church of Christ, Mormonism, RCC, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Hyper-Calvinists I would define as heretics because they are taking false doctrine and pushing it to the point that it takes over a whole church and changes everything on a practical level. Some Charismatics push their doctrine so much that I would label them as heretics. To me, heresy is when a particular false doctrine takes such a huge precedence that it affects all other things on a doctrinal and practical level, or when that false doctrine by itself directly affects the doctrine of salvation today or the doctrine of God.