Seth Doty

Christianity always has been "divisive" and there has always been disagreements and problems. Even within the lifetime of the apostles there were many criticizing them. Paul at least didn't have very many people he could trust either near the end of his ministry so no doubt that mistrust was mutual. I don't see the modern times as being more divisive than is normal.



If you think you have, feel free.



Unless I am mistaken you have to sign up to get his letters, and in that case I fail to see much difference between that and putting something on his website. I guess I do not see the benefit of "shutting up" for the sake of "getting along" until things get "really bad". I still think the earlier you address a problem the better the chances of fixing it. If you let things slide and let things slide for the sake of peace and unity pretty soon it ends up a mess and you never really get unity anyway. You see the results of letting to many things slide everywhere from churches to baptist internet forums and it almost never works out well. I fail to see what sort of real problem a letter expressing disapproval of their music causes. If you don't consider the type of music they are using to be an issue then you have no problem, you simply ignore it, but if you don't like it then you at least know what they are using. The only possible issues I can see is a college possibly loosing "recruits" that don't care for the music they are using and the potential for a few slightly bruised feelings. After all it isn't exactly as if he called for baptists to sever all ties with them, called them heretics, children of the devil, or what not. It merely seems as if he was expressing his opinion that their music was not as good as it could be and that it was heading in the wrong direction currently.

There is a lot compromising going on in Baptist circles. When they are approached about it they resort to all sorts of attacks and never address the issue at hand. It is really a shame that it is nearly impossible to find a church that still practices solid separation and has not given in to the world's music. We need more people like David Cloud to stand up and point out these issues to the public.

The problem is that you assume God's principles are being violated. You need to establish that as fact before you assume it.

Education is where you can find it, it should not just come from the pastor, I am very glad that there are many sources of information out there for people to accept or reject as they choose. If the pastor is the only one "educating" his people and they never look at anything else that is a situation just waiting for abuse. I like and trust my pastor, but I never had a pastor that I would trust anywhere near as completely as your post implies and I am glad of it.

I'm neither pro Cloud or against him as I don't know enough about him.
However, my question is in reference to "West Coast does a great job preparing men for the ministry " and "if you don't like their music don't go..."

I've only been IFB for about 4 years. I used to listen and watch CCM/Darlene Z (and others), until I learned that CCM, etc. is inappropriate as it is, as mentioned in a related thread, charismatic, rockish, etc. I remember the videos which resemble rock concerts.

So my question, with all due respect-if West Coast is doing such a good job at preparing men for the ministry, aren't they doing their preacher boys to be a great disservice by utilizing CCM? By allowing this type of music are they not compromising with the world and telling the preacher boys to be that compromise with the world in music is OK? Aren't went be separated from the world and not give any appearance of being worldly? A little leaven will ruin the whole loaf. Isn't acceptance of CCM in the church (much less in a preacher school) leaving the door cracked open for Satan?
Where does the compromise stop? If CCM is ok for a church or preacher school, then whats wrong with having Rick Warren or Joel Osteen teach courses on church growth or salvation?
To me, allowing things such as CCM just continues to blur the lines between the saved and unsaved, which is just what the devil wants.

I like David Cloud. His job is to keep people informed. I assume he is close enough to God that God is leading him in what he is doing. I'd say if you don't agree with him, then that's fine...but I would not say that just because a person disagrees with him makes him actually wrong.

It is true that the Holy Spirit must be working on the person's heart in order for the person to have a change of heart. However, I have seen far too many preachers use this as a cop out for not dealing with sin in the church. I personally know a pastor in my area who refuses to deal with sin in his church because he has the attitude "let the Holy Spirit do the work." As far as I am concerned, he is a coward.

John 10:13 - "The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep."

I agree that this is generally true and nothing catholic or pagan is really meant by it. It has come far enough from the original source that it has become more cultural than anything and basically amounts to a "lady appreciation day" revolving mostly around chocolate and flowers as has been said. Rather like christmas trees, christmas lights, and so forth are practically speaking more cultural today than pagan as they were in their origin. That said I certainly have no bone to pick with those who wish to avoid such ties with a cultural practice originating in paganism and have some sympathies that way myself. Sometimes as Americans it is easy to recognize dubious cultural practices in other nations while missing or dismissing a few in our own nation. There are doubtless many far bigger fish to fry than diluted cultural holidays that no longer really mean what they once did but nothing says you can't work on frying a big batch of fish of all sizes at the same time. :wink

Might be worth repeating here your words about lent, John:

"Lent is a man-made tradition, not something biblical. If an individual feels led of the Lord to set something aside as ina fast and devote special time to pursuing personal holiness then that's wonderful, but in keeping with Scripture, this should be a private matter. Keeping a yearly ritual is not what the Lord desires. The Lord desires our obedience on a daily basis throughout the year. "

Ditto for doing 'special' acts of love/affection on St Valentine's day?

If the culture dresses modestly, then one perhaps doesn't need to be set apart by dress. But if the culture is immodest, how can we help but be set apart by dress?




You're right! It always amazes me how people can not see how much nicer they would look in a nice, loose, forgiving dress. :rolleyes:

Those people need to be oppressed. The best thing is for a dictator to rule them with an iron fist. Why? Because what the "people" want in Egypt is another radical Islamic theocracy. Even Israel is concerned that Mubarak will be toppled because he is their only friend in theregion. Americans need to quit this thinking that these people over there want a democratic government that resembles ours. They don't. Watch Iran annex a willing Iraq as soon as we pull out.

You're acting for a good cause brother, but going about it the wrong way. Rebellion will only get you into trouble, and what's the benefit of putting it on You Tube, to entertain people??

By all means stand up for what you think is wrong, but do it lawfully and please God while you're at it.

:singing: Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday dear Suzi.
Happy birthday to you. :singing:

I tried to do a birthday emotion for each year I thought she was, but the board gave me this message:
"You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message"

I guess that makes her old.



Edited: This is Bromatt. I did not realize that Trish was logged in to my computer. :tapping:

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.

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."

I fail to see why the underlined portion is a problem. You tell me how someone could possibly be saved if their heart was still so wrong that they had no desire to change from their own ways to Gods ways. As long as he is not teaching that someone must FIRST change in ORDER to be saved(and I have never seen evidence that he has done so) then it sounds perfectly biblical to me.




As far as I have been able to tell the reason these different "groups" exist is primarily due to differences in doctrinal views. Therefore while "putting the word of the Lord above them" might sound good and all of the groups you mention would doubtless agree on that in principle in practice it means nothing since all the disagreements between those groups are based on what exactly the word and will of the Lord is on a given topic anyway.

Perhaps the brush was a bit broad but even so it is not uncommon and I know what he meant by it.




I never knew or meet Hyles, all I have to judge him by is the pastors and teachers I have known that trained under him. A few were excellent men, but an unfortunately high percentage seemed to be extremely pompous and pushy. To me that sort of fruit doesn't speak particularly well of his training at least even if you should tell me that he personally was very humble. I also know of several "Hyles" school preachers that frequently quote Hyles as if that is somehow a definitive proof of their point. Declaring someone to be "king of the hill" in "fundamentalism" and speaking of those that disagree on doctrinal issues as "lesser men" does not strike me as the biblical model. Truth is, many that are first shall be last; and some of last shall be first. As far as who is who it is wise to stay humble both personally and be modest about lifting other men up even if you personally think they are spot on most all the time. If the apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost went to pains to not be personally lifted up and warned about it then I dare say we do well to keep that in mind. As far as the whole not speaking against "Gods man" which hyles graduates often seem so big on, I agree with it to a point, however it looses something when the preacher himself is constantly hitting on that point. It is one of those things that is true if the preacher is following God, but yet it is also one of those things the preacher is unlikely to hit on very much if he is a humble man and truly following God. It sort of reminds me of Numbers 12. If someone truly is Gods man the point need not be constantly reinforced by the man himself. God is entirely capable of defending his own men in his own way.

Perhaps the brush was a bit broad but even so it is not uncommon and I know what he meant by it.




I never knew or meet Hyles, all I have to judge him by is the pastors and teachers I have known that trained under him. A few were excellent men, but an unfortunately high percentage seemed to be extremely pompous and pushy. To me that sort of fruit doesn't speak particularly well of his training at least even if you should tell me that he personally was very humble. I also know of several "Hyles" school preachers that frequently quote Hyles as if that is somehow a definitive proof of their point. Declaring someone to be "king of the hill" in "fundamentalism" and speaking of those that disagree on doctrinal issues as "lesser men" does not strike me as the biblical model. Truth is, many that are first shall be last; and some of last shall be first. As far as who is who it is wise to stay humble both personally and be modest about lifting other men up even if you personally think they are spot on most all the time. If the apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost went to pains to not be personally lifted up and warned about it then I dare say we do well to keep that in mind. As far as the whole not speaking against "Gods man" which hyles graduates often seem so big on, I agree with it to a point, however it looses something when the preacher himself is constantly hitting on that point. It is one of those things that is true if the preacher is following God, but yet it is also one of those things the preacher is unlikely to hit on very much if he is a humble man and truly following God. It sort of reminds me of Numbers 12. If someone truly is Gods man the point need not be constantly reinforced by the man himself. God is entirely capable of defending his own men in his own way.

I fail to see why the underlined portion is a problem. You tell me how someone could possibly be saved if their heart was still so wrong that they had no desire to change from their own ways to Gods ways. As long as he is not teaching that someone must FIRST change in ORDER to be saved(and I have never seen evidence that he has done so) then it sounds perfectly biblical to me.




As far as I have been able to tell the reason these different "groups" exist is primarily due to differences in doctrinal views. Therefore while "putting the word of the Lord above them" might sound good and all of the groups you mention would doubtless agree on that in principle in practice it means nothing since all the disagreements between those groups are based on what exactly the word and will of the Lord is on a given topic anyway.