Marks Of The False Teachers Among Independent Baptists--Part 3 Noting The Examples Of Hyles, Schaap, and Sexton

conflation of one sector (now hopefully shrinking) sector with the others.

I am not comfortable calling Sexton a false teacher. He wasn’t on my list that I put up last week that had “the two Jacks” plus Bill Gothard plus Riplinger + Ruckman

I have heard Sexton preach on several occasions. His messages have been biblical and Christ honoring. Seems like the article’s author does not like how Sexton practices separation. Right now, I am with you, Jim. Sexton does not fit in the room with the 2 Jacks.

Jim,

I agree that Sexton is not in the same position as Hyles and Schaap. However, the author also concedes this. I think he does raise a legitimate issue about Sexton and frequently about other IFB leaders who refuse to police their own group. Cultural conformity is frequently more important than doctrinal purity. Personally, I would also hold Sexton’s feet to the fire over the KJV issue. He seems to dance really hard around KJVO without openly condemning it, and he refuses to call out those within his orb who openly move beyond the fuzzy line he tries to hold.

False teachers, false teaching, and erroneous teaching:

• I mentioned Frank Garlock in another thread and called him a false teacher. I retract that statement. There was no nuance in that comment. Frank Garlock is a true believer who in my view has an unbalanced, erroneous teaching on music
• Sexton: I frankly have not followed this guy close enough to comment with much specificity
• Gothard: I count him as a brother who has a very poor hermeneutic. A portion of his teaching is erroneous
• Schaap: “by their fruits you will know them”. His current appeal where he blames the aggressive teen demonstrates a man who has failed to repent. I consider him and his F-I-L false teachers. I hold out hope for the church in Hammond under its new leadership.

On Sexton and KJVO. It strikes me that there are various flavors of KJVO:

• ​Ruckman and Riplinger: Double inspiration
• The majority text / best text / best translation view
• Those to whom the KJV is a very strong preference but they tolerate others
• Then those for whom the KJV is the only valid English language translation and any who use another translation are compromisers (DA Waite would probably be here (he’s a very nice guy, by the way, and I like him and his wife))

Sexton is not a Ruckmanite that I can tell.

Jim,

Somewhere around your second bullet is the issue of rejecting all existing translations as the Word of God other than the KJ. This is frequently nuanced behind a smokescreen of willingness to accept a hypothetical modern version while rejecting all existing modern versions as inadequate. Many in the IFB claim to reject double inspiration, but likewise reject any other translation as being equally the word of God. This is false doctrine.

https://thecrowncollege.com/whatwebelieve/

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God…” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed.

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we use; the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the English version we use in the English-speaking world. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

Is this KJVOism? I don’t think so! But if I’m wrong help me out to understand it. Thanks

Suppose I said: “The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Novum Testamentum Graece of the New Testament (Nestle-Aland) are those texts of the original languages I use; the English Standard Version of the Bible is the English version we use in the English-speaking world.” Would that make me ESVOnly?

Sexton does not fit in the room with the 2 Jacks.

But Sexton was in the room with one of the Jacks, well after Jack’s theological problems were well known. And they were in the room together because he (Sexton) invited him (Jack II). They were not in the same room by virtue of some third party invitation. Clarence Sexton thought Jack Schaap, with all of his doctrinal heterodoxy, was someone his church, school, and Baptist friends should hear from. This seems no small matter.

Jim,

Remember how I described Sexton as fuzzy on the issue. You quoted from the school doctrinal statement, but here is the church doctrinal statement. Notice the subtle difference in bold.

The Scriptures

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God…” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed.
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

That is definitely crossing the line into kjvo-ism.

Thanks

Sexton is speaking at the 2014 FBFI annual meeting along with Minnick, Van Gelderen and Vaughn. Interesting.

Sexton is not the enemy. While I may not be a fan, I know who my enemies are, and he ain’t it.

Your prerogative Lee. I lump Van Gelderen into the same category as Sexton.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Your prerogative Lee. I lump Van Gelderen into the same category as Sexton.

A dangerous game.