"Aramaic (Classical Syriac: ..... Aramaya) is a family of languages or dialects, belonging to the Semitic family. More specifically, it is a part of the Northwest Semitic subfamily, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. The Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and modern Hebrew alphabets.
During its over 3,000 years of written history, Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the lingua franca of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire and Achaemenid Empire, the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BC â€“ 70 AD), the language that Jesus probably used the most" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
Stever, I think Unprofitable Servant, has given you the answer that you need. The important thing is not if people had gone there --But -- have they come out of there
Tony Cisneros did have a clique there. Ah, Penny, the man of a thousand names has no --good-- reasons to have that many.
Ah, UPS, you're right Tony might as well some good purpose, even when he doesn't wish to, so that's why I mention Christian Fellowship Church (The pastor there is well-known at IHCC) and also because Red Hot Preaching is unknown at both churches So, Chicagoans have at least one alternative to go to.
Stevenr, FBC Hammond is indeed a sad story, and there may be many individuals who have come out of there that are godly. Find David Cloud's site and read the testimony of many who went there it will break your heart. Dr. Hyles, his son, and his son-in-law all had issues with marital fidelity. Thing is many of its graduates have similar issues with marital infidelity also.
I attended the school there for one semester, their method of evangelism boils down to ask the person if they want to go to hell (while shaking your head no), when they say no, ask if they want to go to heaven (while shaking your head yes), pray a prayer with or for them and count them as saved. They even counted people saved simply because they were on one of their church buses in one instance. Look up Kent Brandenburg's testimony (from his blog) about FBC, he was in the middle of it all (not a Hyles-Anderson graduate though).
Tony is the reason you see Jim posting about FBC. Tony (the you know who poster) was (maybe still is) a member there and still denies the previous pastor's sin even though he was convicted in a court of law.
I have to say but for the grace of God there go I. I wouldn't even bring all this up, but wanted to respond to your question as one who had been there.
A few points, 1) fundamentalism has it's problems to be sure: the ditch that runs on the left of the road certainly has a counterpart on the right... And they are both a problem. 2) EVERY group has people who come out disgruntled and upset; there are often many causes... One if the hallmarks I have witnessed is that they always malign, and to do so, always exaggerate. Are fundamentalists over zealous? Sure. Like every thing else their goal is to be a tad different than the others. Can they get fanatical? Sure. Cult status, possible. However, as I said, I have known many fine, normal, Godly individuals that have come out of there. I'm not going to let the rantings of a dissatisfied man on the internet cause me to label them all bad.
Now all of the above deals with the story at hand, but stever, what is it you dislike about Red Hot Preaching, exactly? excerpt from it,
Josh wrote: During my tenure at Hyles-Anderson College, I heard very few if any sermons that were Biblically systematic. I have stated this before but what characterizes the typical HAC chapel time they would like to describe as zeal, but can be identified as nothing short of unbridled, manic frenzy. Any kind of schismatic remark from the chapel speaker can elicit a chorus of hearty "AMEN"s regardless of how unscriptural it may be.
. The important thing is people come--from--such p
Schaap is a child molester. Period; a wolf in sheeps clothing. That doesn't mean the people there are horrible. As for prosperity doctrine... None of those that I know ever alluded to that... I know several pastors who went to HAC over the years, not sure where THAT came from, but rumors are like that.
You just got a sample of Google speech recognition, those people who are interested in Christianity in Hyles former church have decided to go elsewhere. Or, one would hope that they have decided to do that.
Anyway, it will be interesting if Hyles does any witnessing while in prison.
stever the writer of the article red hot preaching, was an associate of Hyles, who is a convicted child molester. Much of what that Church taught what is charismatic.so, whoever took over that church I would think would have been impossible job considering that the members of that church really are you interested an actual Christianity. The ones at all
Jim: I use the iPhone app... I don't get links and all the fancy stuff. However, I looked up via computer the thread and the link. While leadership has (obviously) been an issue at FBC of Hammond, I have met some fine people from there... I know the current pastor is struggling to remove the horrible blight that the former... Whatever you want to call him, has left in the Church and on Christ. Personally, I'm praying for them... Not looking for ways to bash. It takes a lot to stand in a place that has been slammed like that.
Jim Lincoln wrote: stever, usually the site for Red Hot Preaching is up, was it for you? I think the short commentary is quite accurate. Tony seems to be a student of it, especially since it was/is practiced at his church, but from one of the comments. The article and the comments aren't all that long. If you're in the Chicago area you can avoid that nonsense by going to such churches as, Christian Fellowship Church in Hammond, Indiana. By the way, Pope Set to Ignore Bethlehem's Christian Tragedy?
You must still be on tilt after the antichrist exposed the wickedness of your favored politicians. Too bad
btw: Rome, through the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, has been one of the main voices concerning the dispossession of Christians from the Holy Land. The Patriarch has also exposed your wicked heresy of dispensationalism as contributing to this Christian dispossession throughout the Holy Land.
stever, usually the site for Red Hot Preaching is up, was it for you? I think the short commentary is quite accurate. Tony seems to be a student of it, especially since it was/is practiced at his church, but from one of the comments.
maranatha man wrote: Red-Hot preaching is a religious performance by ego-manics on who can tell the best story about momma. All you have to do is find single Bible verse (or a phrase). Take it out of context, scream loud and tell about five stories. Skyscraper sermons are built on illustrations and stories. "I'll take the Bus Kids!" Remember that one? How about when Hyles met his drunken daddy across the street from Dallas Seminary? Who needs the Bible when you can tell tear jerking stories?
The article and the comments aren't all that long.
If you're in the Chicago area you can avoid that nonsense by going to such churches as, Christian Fellowship Church in Hammond, Indiana.
John, I'd like to remind you of the peanut butter analogy where I insist that I hate it as you are sitting across a table from me, watching me eat it . I can say I hate it all day long, but my actions try and convict me as a liar and deceiver. I like analogys and use then all the time when trying to get certain things through to my wife. They have the ability, when used creatively, to make very simple sense out of complicated situations, scenarios, etc. There could be 100 things that make me a great husband and person, but all my wife ever sees is the one thing that I haven't conformed to. She tunnel visions in on the 1% that she doesn't get and it pollutes and blinds her to all the good things. You have done just the opposite with the Roman church. You have rationalized a scriptural part here and there which has blinded you to the overall scenario that you hold on so dearly to. You justify all that is wrong by finding a few good crumbs that fell off an otherwise moldy loaf of bread.
Well John, I have to disagree. If there is wrongness in Catholisism, the "scriptural" aspects are irrelevant. Satan quoted the Bible; God's Word is pure, hence (by your argument) Scriptural, so Satan would be an "alright dude" from that line of argument.
Christine wrote: Use caution when quoting scripture and interjecting your own opinions... I agree that Catholicism is satanic, but Christ never said â€ť satanic Vaticanâ€ť... such comments destroy your credibility, and mislead others leaning on scripture for the truth
And Christ never said "satanic Catholicism" either. If there are scriptural aspects to Catholicism then it is false to state that Catholicism is satanic.
Use caution when quoting scripture and interjecting your own opinions... I agree that Catholicism is satanic, but Christ never said â€ť satanic Vaticanâ€ť... such comments destroy your credibility, and mislead others leaning on scripture for the truth