Follow by Email

Friday, September 28, 2012


I will flying from the Longview, TX, airport in the morning and then catching a flight to LaGuardia airport in New York.  I will be preaching for my dear friend Pastor Frank Cuozzo.  He pastors the NEW BURHAM BAPTIST CHURCH of North Bergen, NJ.  I will be teaching Sunday school, preaching Sunday morning, and preaching Sunday evening.

I will then be driving to Bay Shore, NY, to preach in the Annual Bible Conference hosted by Pastor Sergio Ali.  He pastors the IGLESIA BAUTISTA FUNDAMENTAL CHURCH of Bay Shore, NY.  He is an unusual man of God who has built a great soul winning church.   This pastor attended our NATIONAL SOUL WINNING CLINIC in Longview for several years.  

I will be preaching Monday night at 7 and Tuesday night at 7.  If you are in the area please take time to visit one of the services. 

Our 21 year old grandson R. G. is still in Longview Regional Hospital waiting for the Specialists to decide how to go about the required surgeries.  He will have to have a halo  ,surgically put on his head, before transporting him to Dallas or to Houston for the surgeries.  It is very stressful for Bob and Kelly! Please continue to pray!

He was born with a malady that has created a bad skeletal structure requiring some 17 surgeries up until now.  He is very close to having a broken neck.  They will have to wait to the very last minute to put the halo on his head in order to transport him for surgery. He smiles when you walk into the room and has won the hearts of the hospital staff. PLEASE CONTINUE PRAYING!

Tuesday, September 25, 2012


Sunday morning at four a.m. our 21 year old grandson R. G. was taken to the emergency room.  He was born with what was called an "X-linked chromosome deficiency" at the time.  Since then they have found another name for his malady. The doctors told Bob and Kelly that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, he was at a 9.9.   He is extremely close to having his neck break, which would cause instant death.

R. G. was never supposed to live after birth, but God had other plans.  He is 21, sings in the teen choir, sits on the front row of church, works a 4 day work day, has graduated from high-school in a special ed program, goes soul winning, and is the delight of his family and friends.  He is always smiling.  Even now as he lays in the hospital in Longview he smiles from ear to ear when some one walks in the room.  I called him while I was in California several times and he kept telling me he was being good and then he would laugh.  AMAZING!

They overnighted the results of his tests to Dallas hoping to find a doctor who will do this delicate surgery.  He will have to have a halo put on his head in order to keep him from literally breaking his neck while being transported to Dallas.  Hopefully we will know more tomorrow.  PLEASE PRAY!  Kelly and Bob are holding up as well as possible, but this is hard!


Saturday, September 22, 2012


I will be driving to the Tyler, TX, airport to catch an American Eagle flight to DFW.  Then I will catch a flight to San Francisco, CA, to teach and preach for my good friend Dr. Mike Callaghan.  I have known Dr. Callaghan for three decades and he and his family are wonderful Christians and great servants of the Lord.

Evangelist Allen Domelle will be joining me for this Bible Conference.  Evangelism is tough especially in these days of Obama presidency.  However, Brother Domelle has a full schedule and is a faithful man of God.

Unfortunately the situation at Shenandoah Baptist Church with the resignation of Jeff Owens has brought some unfounded criticism his way.  I know Brother Domelle and Brother Owens.  I love both of them.  

Brother Domelle did nothing wrong, in fact he did the right thing by bringing to light the wrong first to Dr. Owens and then later to the deacon board.  Religious leaders are accused of "cover-up," which is not true for 90% of the churches, and then when a man of God brings to light to those in authority the truth he is maligned. Puzzling!

Dr. Jeff Owens did the right thing by resigning because of his marriage.  His first priority must be and should be his wife.  Her indiscretions have hurt and she needs help, but when those in authority go on and on for 8 to  9 weeks without being honest with the church then rumors run rampant and good people are hurt.  

Ecclesiastes 8:11, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."


Tuesday, September 18, 2012


It appears from the emails and texts Christians have awakened to the reality of this years' election.  Christians are beginning to ask me the question, "How can I vote for a Mormon?"  The Christian community has no hesitation in saying "NO" to a Muslim leaning person for President, but there is a quandary as to how to justify voting for a Mormon for President.  This has paralyzed many and the question will not go away.  Should I stay home and not vote?  Will my vote make any difference any way?  Should I just ignore this years' election?

This has begun to bubble to the surface since the conclusion of both political conventions. The Democrats and the Republicans presented their usual partisan planks in their usual partisan platforms.  Of the two the most conservative and most likely similarly close to most Christians' belief system appears to be the Republican Party.  When the Democrats booed placing God and Jerusalem back as a plank, previously removed, into their platform it was apparent their liberal bias and views have not changed.

This is NOT the Democratic Party of my parents from Arkansas!

How can a Christian with a clear conscience vote for a Mormon?   How can someone who has Scriptural insight and understanding of clear Bible doctrine vote for a Mormon?  How can someone who does not believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan vote for a Mormon?  How can a person who trusts Jesus Christ's shed and applied blood to cleanse their soul vote for a Mormon?  How can a person who rejects the Mormon religion and believes it to be a cult and not a codified religion vote for a Mormon?  Within the next 50 days we are being asked to choose between a Mormon and a Muslim!


In the late 60's and 70's a pro-family, pro-religion, and pro-life movement began to snowball and it took a nation by surprise although it was grass roots in popularity.  The sanctity of life, the worth of an individual, the traditional family life, and the embracing of church life became the cornerstone of American society.

First, state and federal bureaucracies became fearful of the growing power of the Christian  fundamentalist movement with a strong Christian school movement.  They saw it as a means whereby conservative evangelism was increasing its strength and reaching countless parents through their children.  Large local churches began to spring up around the nation and were being accepted as a good thing.  Children were being reached with Gospel through strong Bus Ministries.  With that came an unprecedented numerical growth and recognition.

Secondly, politicians suddenly became cognizant of the rapid growth of conservative and fundamental local churches and their potential political power.  Jimmy Carter, an obscure candidate gained national attention, the Democratic presidential nomination, and the election when he declared himself a "born-again Christian."

In 1980 Carter, Anderson, and Ronald Reagan all professed themselves to be "born-again Christians." I personally asked then Governor Reagan if he was born-again in a conference at the Sheridan Hotel in Chicago in 1978.  He gave a clear testimony of how he trusted Christ at age 12.  However, it is a reality to say the politicians had suddenly recognized the political potential of Biblical fundamentalism and were anxious to appease the fundamentalists with a superficial affirmation.

The sound fiscal responsibility and the economic boom of the 80's would not have happened had it not been for the influence of the fundamentalists.  It was a well blended choir of a united movement of a growing Christian community and politicians who responded in kind.

Thirdly, there were some great changes in process with fundamentalism.  The earlier reaction to fundamentalism was to call it the "fighting fundy" of negation, separation, and hostility.  "Fundy" was and is a derogatory shortening of "fundamentalism."  

At that time these were they who were reacting to the seeming overnight growth of this religious right.  To assail the movement by going after the messenger was the only way to fight back against this overwhelming snowball.

This still exists today in the internet forums and is fed by disgruntles who are few in number. They are similar to the "occupy movement" that is, they are small in number, hollow in spiritual content, and loud.

This growth in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's was not a result of an anti-modernist preaching as much as a sound program of Biblical teaching to establish believers in the faith.  The strong Sunday school systems, the active Bus Ministries, the schools, the growth of Bible colleges all played a vital part of this growth.  

The modernists and liberals began to wage a paper war of negation while the fundamentalism of that day gave a positive address of reaching the unsaved, baptizing the saved, placing them in a strong Sunday school class, and teaching them to win others to Christ. AND IT WORKED!

Fourthly, those who look to the troubled and unhappy past will, like Lot's wife, be forever condemned to it.  The failures of those days of growth can be teaching moments, but certainly the baby should not be thrown out with the wash.

The internet quagmire filled with anti "themes" relish every misstep and sin they can uncover of those fighting on the spiritual front lines in days gone by. Those who allow the evils to overwhelm them are in essence denying the power of God.   This new generation refuses to become paralyzed by fear.  The enemies of soul winning churches desire and agenda is designed to destroy while the soul winners' desire and agenda is win the unsaved to Christ and to restore the fallen.  The result is the gates of Hell will not prevail against such churches.


There have been two great missionary forces at work in this century.  The first was and still is world communism and socialism.  Its death toll over 100 million and is destructive forces have brought evil, famine, sickness, financial ruin, and fatal decay to nations who embrace it.  

Government is not the answer to man's ills.  God is the answer.  When we push and approve more and more dependence upon government we must understand we are weaving a fabric of communism and socialism.

The second great missionary force is that of local churches who win souls, baptize converts, and teach them to win others to Christ.  Independent Baptist churches with strong Sunday schools  whose doctrine is Biblical with their only headquarters being that of Heaven will make a difference in our nation.


We must vote for the better of the two presented to us.  On the other hand at the same time we must respond as Christians on a day by day basis.  We are commanded to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptize the converts, and teach them to do the same propagation of the Gospel.

Matthew 5:13, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

Yes you can vote for a Mormon over a Muslim  leaning president with ease.  America is 16 trillion dollars in debt, 23 million unemployed, 48 million not paying a dime of taxes, unemployment of 8 % plus, disrespected around the world, and Americans dying at the hands of so-called allies.  

We are not voting on a pastor, but we are voting on a president.

Which is the better of the two?  Your choice and your only choice!  It is either a Mormon or a Muslim?  Don't stay home! Go to the polls and vote! Again, we are not voting on a new pastor. We are voting on who will be our next president.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012


HIGHLAND PARK BAPTIST CHURCH of Chattanooga, TN, the bastion of fundamentalism led by Dr. Lee Roberson has completely abandoned its heritage.  They have left their independent and their Baptist roots with no thought to the price paid by Dr. Roberson to lead it to the positions it once possessed.  One generation separates the greatness of that church and the compromise they have chosen today.

They have voted to sell their property and move to a new location with a non-Baptist name vacating generations of being a strong Baptist church. They will be known as the CHURCH OF THE HIGHLANDS. 


As I wait and watch to see what will become of my Alma Mater, Hyles-Anderson College, I am overwhelmed with hope that fades a bit every day as to the direction they will take as they move forward.  My heart wants to believe that they will make the right decisions, but my head tells me the chances decrease more and more every day.

One staff member says the KING JAMES BIBLE is as inspired today as it was the day Dr. Hyles died.  Another says Jack Schaap was just misunderstood on the KJB issue.  I hear nothing coming from Hammond that causes me to believe that those in leadership get it at all. MIXED signals are discouraging signals.

They have accredited the Christian schools while accepting government money, playing public schools in sports, and bringing in those to preach whom Dr. Hyles did not use.  

Truth be known I doubt they know what to do, but I believe their future is a choice between two directions and both of those can be summed up with two names that reflect two choices.  One was blessed and the other was not blessed because one had foundational Biblical principles and the other did not.   This is not about a man for this is about GOD and His hand upon a man who is emersed in Bible principles.

Choice one - Jack Hyles
Choice two - Jack Schaap

That's it!  What I want to ask Eddie Lapina, along with the other three leaders, and others who served under both Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap is which man's philosophies and ideals are you going to choose?  

The question is will FBC be viable among independent Baptists again or not? Will FBC be the soul winning church as well as the great Sunday school icon for the nation again?

Jack Schaap destroyed the foundations of FBC while Jack Hyles was used of God to build FBC, HAC, HBS, and many other ministries to the acknowledgement of even their enemies.

HIGHLAND PARK BAPTIST of Chattanooga, TN, is not viable today.  TEMPLE BAPTIST CHURCH of Detroit, MI, is not viable today.  FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH of Fort Worth, TX, is not viable today.  Need I go on?

At FBC the changes, some of which seem subtle, have amassed into a seismic shift in less than a dozen years.  Given the disturbing changes we have already seen what can we expect, but more drifting if Hammond does not make a strong and definitive decision as to which direction they are going to go.


In speaking to men from Hammond I am absolutely amazed at the lack of knowledge they have on the issue of the King James Bible.  Some still keep ignorantly saying that Jack Schaap believed the same as we do, but he just stated it differently.  OH NO HE DID NOT! This is a lie!

Talk to Shelton Smith, R. B. Ouelette, Bill Wininger, Jim Vineyard, Jeff Fugate, David Baker, Bob Gray Jr., Mickey Carter, Dean Miller Sr, Dr. Gail Riplinger, and many others I could name. 

Were they all so dumb they did not know the difference between what he believed and what the rest of us still believe. It appears that Jack Schaap is still in charge of the non-inspiration intellect of Hammond.  

Here is my question which position on the King James Bible are you going to follow?  Take your time now! Think carefully!

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Eddie Lapina on Sunday morning, September 9, 2012, bragged on the way Jack Schaap built a bridge between FBC and the city of Hammond.  How did they accomplish this?  They did it by playing public schools in sports and by reaching out to politicians and cooperating with the city on public things.  Some of which was good, but Dr. Hyles was respected by leaders in Hammond while refusing to compromise.  

No doubt compromise will always make you more popular with politicians, but what we need are politicians who respect and fear the man of God as well.  

There was a reverential fear of Dr. Hyles. He believed in PR to a point, but never to the point of sacrificing the children to the sports god of the public schools.  Balaam did pretty much the same thing and look what happened to the next generation.

OK, here we go...whose philosophy of separation are you going to follow?  Take a deep breath and think hard!

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Jack Hyles said his schools would NEVER be accredited.  However, under the leadership the Hammond Baptist Schools have now received full accreditation and according to sources now receive as much as $ 4,000 for every student that transfers from the public school system.  Where is this money coming from?  THE GOVERNMENT!  Jack Hyles said NEVER!  Jack Schaap said COMPROMISE!  

Next question is whose philosophy on accreditation are you going to take?  Think hard and long on this one.

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap

How are you doing so far?  Be patient just a few more questions to go.


FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH you will be choosing a new pastor in the future.  What kind of a man will you be looking for?  Will it be a principled man who respects the great work of Dr. Jack Hyles or a slick man who remained loyal to Jack Schaap even though the rest of us split from him?  

Will it be an old fashioned soul winning Bible preacher or will you choose someone who is more appealing to your fancy new surroundings along with you new found respect in the community?  If you notice closely you can compare how Jack Hyles left you and how Jack Schaap left you?

OK, here is the question...what kind of pastor are you going to choose?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Dr. Hyles reached the Chicagoland area with great soul winning and a great bus ministry.  Under Jack Schaap you have a debt laden church and a bus ministry just a shell of what Dr. Hyles left you.  

Dr. Hyles had a simple office with a closet that was like Fibber Megee's closet, while Jack Schaap had four extravagant offices, but no money for buses.  Brother Hyles choose the bus kids over money and God gave him money.  Jack Schaap choose money over the bus kids and God took his money. 

Door to door soul winning worked for Brother Hyles and it'll work for you again.  Jack Schaap wanted "seeker friendly" chapels where the people lived, while Jack Hyles had  a "God friendly" church people sought and were brought too.

Whose idea of reaching the area for Christ do you choose?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Brother Hyles built up the men around him while Jack Schaap tore down the men around him.  Brother Hyles built up his predecessors while Jack Schaap tore down his predecessor. Brother Hyles brought families, staff, and churches  around the nation together while Jack Schaap caused splits in families, staffs, and in churches around the nation.  Brother Hyles was a servant while Jack Schaap was served.

Here we go...Which kind of an ego are you going to choose?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Brother Hyles directed a servant church caring for the bus children, the poor, the blind, the lame, etc.  Under Dr. Hyles we wanted to go soul winning for he inspired us to reach the unsaved.  Buildings were packed and the pulpit was aflame with old fashioned leather lunged Hell fire and damnation preaching from a KING JAMES BIBLE. The altars were jammed at the close of each preaching service.  

He never used Pastors' School to raise money for himself or any of his ministries.  He had no FBC Team Missions that was supported by other local churches.  Jack Schaap was just the opposite and the truth was we were basically commanded to fall in line or be berated for not doing so.

OK, what kind of a church direction are you choosing?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Hyles-Anderson College was founded by Dr. Russell Anderson and Dr. Jack Hyles for the training ground for preachers and Christian workers.  That was the vision of Dr. Hyles and Dr. Anderson.  Jack Schaap wanted a nursing school and other types of training.  Dr. Anderson withdrew his support and separated himself from the college and Jack Schaap along with many others.  

So, which college philosophy do you want in the future?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


Dr. Hyles had many loyal friends who fought beside him through the years.  Other men were not as loyal and separated themselves from Brother Hyles.  There were others from whom Dr. Hyles separated himself.  

As soon as Jack Schaap became pastor he began to distance himself from men like myself who were Jack Hyles' friends and refused to back off what Dr. Hyles taught us and then he began to bring back men who were not. Jack Schaap identified with men who were critical and disloyal to Jack Hyles and his Biblical principles.

You have done well so is the last question, which crowd are you going to embrace in the future?

A. Jack Hyles
B. Jack Schaap


As I watch what is happening in Hammond, I already am hearing them refer more to the days of Jack Schaap than I am to the days of Jack Hyles.  I sense they are still enamored even hypnotized by the tactics of Jack Schaap and they have become uncomfortable with the ways of the man, Dr. Hyles, whom God used to build FBC in the first place.  

This is not about Jack Hyles, rather this is about the God of Jack Hyles and the Biblical principles God gave to Jack Hyles, which caused him and FBC to be magnified by God.

I question why Raymond Hancock, a critic of Dr. Hyles' positions, preached in HAC Chapel the very first week of Hyles-Anderson.   Please do not misunderstand me Raymond Hancock is not a bad man, but he is not what Jack Hyles represented and presented to fundamentalism.  

There are plenty of men in the nation who are not critics who would serve the college better and reenforce the Bible principles Dr. Hyles possessed and practiced much more effectively.

That is just one example of many I could give.  IF actions speak louder than words then perhaps I already know the answers to my above questions, BUT at least I thought I would ask the questions anyway.


Monday, September 3, 2012


In the SWORD OF THE LORD issue dated August 17 a column "FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS," written by a friend Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh, was entitled "HOPE FOR HAMMOND."  I would urge everyone to read this article and allow the author to help us learn from the recent situation at the FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH of Hammond, IN. 

99.9% true, BUT not quite ALL true!

I had no problem with the article until I came to his point number three.  "Third, preachers must be careful to preach the entire counsel of God and do so in an exegetical fashion."

It is becoming tougher and tougher to be an independent Baptist preacher in this day and time.  At every level we are under attack, but when we are told that only ONE style of preaching is acceptable I MUST answer.

This seems to be a repeated theme lately and I am wondering why? I cannot sit idly by and allow this distortion about preaching be perpetuated without a reply. This is an incursion into the absurd.

Are you ready for this?  The assertion seemed to be that "topical" preaching is what leads to the climate that creates a fall like Jack Schaap's fall.  Now, there is a logic MSNBC would be proud of?  That inference and assertion is a nothing more than a man's conjecture and speculation.

"Topical" preaching has been around since Jesus walked this planet.  It has been a part of preaching in every generation and has been used by many of the great men of God throughout history.  

If we are to preach "every word of God" then pray tell whether it is "topical" or "expository" or "exegetical" the issue ought to be is it Biblical preaching?

I know that we were all taught there are three styles of preaching.  That fit so perfectly into a class taught by a man who had never built a work for God. 

Preaching is not that tidy.  It is a messy proposition.  There is not some little neat & cute way to compartmentalize real Bible preaching, the kind that built this country, and that most of us cut our teeth on.

The soft, young, and new fangled independent Baptists missed it.  They missed the old time preaching of Bob Jones, Sr., Sam Jones, Bill Rice, John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, Lee Roberson, R.G. Lee, Tom Malone, and Jack Hyles.

I am not sure I ever heard the words "expository preaching" or "textual preaching" or "exegetical preaching" used in a SWORD CONFERENCE in the old days.  You were either a Bible preacher or you were not!  

I have poured through sermons in the past few months and I am attempting to find where any of the greatly used independent Baptist men of God discussed preaching styles.

I will tell you what they did preach about...BIBLE PREACHING!  I think we ought to just go back to those words and stop scrutinizing the "stylistics."

Did the great men of old preach expository or textual or exegetical sermons?  Sure, they probably did, but I promise it was not a "style" they were thinking about, for it was a message from God they were concentrating on. 

They also never called out any man of God whose "style" was different.  They just let God speak to them through the preaching of the Word.

I will tell you something else about these great men, they did not sit around and critique each others preaching style.  They listened with the fullness of the Spirit looking for God to speak to their hearts.  They had one concern and that was whether or not a man was a Bible preacher, not whether he was "exegetical", "topical" "textual" or "expository."

Goodness gracious, no wonder we lack revival with some of the "stylish" minded preaching emphasis we have today.  Please explain why men of God are pushing the preaching 'style shows' of today any way?  

Preach the Word brethren!  Reprove, rebuke, exhort, and stop letting somebody tell you that the "style" of the real men of God of the past somehow creates an environment for "scandals."  

I can hear you now saying, "Brother Gray you sound like you are upset?"  YES!  YES!  A world dying and going to Hell and we want a certain type of preaching only! Hogwash!


If you take a city of 20,000 population you would find far more so-called immoral acts than FBC  of Hammond has had or will have when there were 20,000 in attendance at FBC.  No group of God's people have more sin in the camp than another group.  The problem is a individual flesh problem not an individual group problem. The reason Satan is after the independent Baptists is because they are   leading the way for soul winning.  

Any group of God's people that become aggressive soul winners will have their followers' sins shouted from the house tops through forums.  

The truth is we turn molesters into the police.  The first phone call that is made is to the police, so quit the distortion over the fact of one or two who do not do the right thing!


Since when did independent Baptists tell each other how to preach?   The giants didn't and the few left today don't.  They just loved Bible preaching.  

Camp meeting preaching may not be my cup of tea, but I love to hear it.  I love to hear the breathy and rhythmic preaching of our black brethren.  I wish I had some black blood in me myself! Ha!

I enjoy the monotone style of old Dr. Henderson.  I loved the "howdy neighbor" style of Bill Rice when he almost always built a truth (usually topical) around a story of hunting elephants in Africa or the antics of a Great Dane named Super. 

I loved the gravely voice preaching of Tom Malone.  I loved the off the wall, erratic preaching of Lester Roloff.  I never knew where he was going, but I knew the Holy Spirit of God was guiding him.  I loved hearing the steady and statesman like preaching of Lee Roberson.  AND, I LOVED hearing the folksy, relate to people style preaching of my friend and man of God, Jack Hyles.

What was their style?  Real men have their own style.  They are not so insecure as to follow trends.  Actually they did have a style.  It was a Spirit filled style.

Dr. John Rice in his sermon on preaching said, "I believe that some preaching ought to be topical preaching, that is, preaching on a subject.  But, in such a case, the subject ought to be found in the Scriptures, and then the points the preacher makes under that subject ought to be proved, everyone, from the Scripture itself."

I listen to preaching every week of my life and this is the kind of preaching I hear from most of our men.  This matter of labeling preaching has become a trend and the clueless young men are biting the bait. 

Some Bible colleges are misleading young men about preaching.  They mock "pentecost" campaigns in their leadership conferences and "topical" preaching in the same conferences. It appears to be a slap at aggressive soul winning for some reason.

Dr. Hyles may have been the most balanced preacher I have ever known. I dare you to go back and listen to his sermons from his last 30 years and tell me he was not a Bible preacher.  

His Bible studies on Prayer, the Holy Spirit, Psalms, Proverbs, Revelation, Justice, the Beatitudes, and I could go on and on were full of Bible truths.  He spent over a year going through the Bible chronologically with his people.  

  • The problem with our preaching is not the lack of "style," but the lack of power
  • Maybe our problem is more with the topics being preached rather than the style.  Maybe we want to skirt preaching on standards and with more "textual" or "exegetical" preaching we can avoid such issues. In my experience compromise and changing "styles" often go together!
  • Maybe we have conveniently forgotten how  Jesus taught.  Jesus used Scriptures to expound on a topic.  He told human stories and used parables to teach the truth.
  • Maybe we are embarrassed at being thought of as less "intellectual" than some.  Hummmm...could that really be it?  Maybe we don't like the idea of the "foolishness of preaching" so we want to dress it up in the tuxedo of "style."
  • Maybe we have forgotten the purpose of preaching
  • Maybe we just don't want to be a Hellfire and brimstone preacher any more.  Maybe you are not one of us any longer.  If you don't like it here...leave, but keep your nose out of our business and our preaching.  Leave our preacher boys alone!
  • We are listening to the patients instead of treating them.  Sure your wife likes Sister Joel Osteen's "style."  That in itself ought to tell you somethings wrong!  Sure your people would rather be taught than challenged unless they are spiritual.  If they are spiritual they want Bible preaching.  If they want to study the Bible more than I suggest they do so.  They have Bibles at home, don't they?  Stop coddling the flock!


  • The Home
  • Power of Pentecost
  • Religious, But Lost
  • Godly women of the Bible
  • Jesus May Come Today
  • Silent Night, Holy Night
  • How to Come to Jesus
  • Dear Catholic Friend
  • The Unvarying God
  • Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, & Women Preachers
  • All Satan's Apples Have Worms
  • What Must I Do To Be Saved?
  • The Fullness of the Holy Spirit
  • Ecumenical Excuses for Unequal Yokes
  • The Kind of Preaching We Need
  • Drinking Alcohol: God's Double Curse on Booze
  • Six Pressing Reasons Why You Should be Saved today
  • Convicted Sinners Can Reject Christ
  • The Holy Spirit, Our Loving Friend


  • Have Faith in God
  • Faith for a New Year
  • Tears Gone Forever
  • Stir Up the Gift of God
  • Keep on Rejoicing
  • Faith and Five Smooth Stones
  • Contending for the Faith
  • Adventuring Faith
  • A Mother's Faith
  • Little Faith and Hasty Answers
  • The Dynamite of Faith
  • The Shield of Faith
  • The Victory of Faith
  • Does Jesus Live At Your House?
  • One Way Home
  • The Detours of Life
  • The Need of This Hour
  • What Held Jesus to the Cross?


  • Can America Survive?
  • A Heavenly Vision
  • Let God Be Magnified
  • The Healing of the Waters
  • The Cleansing Blood
  • A Good Steward of God's Grace
  • Where There is No Vision the People Perish
  • The Weapons of Our Warfare are Not Carnal


  • Simple Salvation
  • Salvation Crystal Clear
  • The Greatest Christmas Gift of All
  • The Danger of Delay
  • Lifestyle Evangelism Refuted
  • 'As Many As Received Him'
  • The Tongues Confusion
  • The Healing of Two Blind Men
  • Soul Winning: Every Christian's Job
  • Grapes, Giants, Grasshoppers and God
  • The One Thing That Determines Salvation
  • How to Know You Are Going to Heaven
  • The Eternal Security of the Born-Again  Believer

I could go on and on to prove that most of these men regularly preached topical style sermons, but I promise you they were not fixated on "style" like we are becoming today.  

They WERE fixated on preaching the Bible to address the needs of the hour. They would  quickly rebuke anyone who did not preach the Bible.  They were concerned with whether it was  Bible preaching and not "style."

Where did this emphasis on "style" come from?  Did it come from Dr. Rice, Dr. Bill Rice, Dallas Billington, Lester Roloff, Lee Roberson, Carl Hatch, Curtis Hutson, Joe Henry Hankins, Billy Sunday, Spurgeon, Moody, Jack Hyles, etc.? Maybe we have been influenced by Evangelicals?

However, may I say there is something going on here, in my opinion, that is deeper than just the "style."  Obviously there is here an obsession with Dr. Jack Hyles and FBC.  If you delve a little deeper into these men who are pushing a certain "style" of preaching you find a simple dislike that has grown into a distain that has become a distraction from simple Bible preaching. 

Satan has played a bait and switch on independent Baptist preachers who WANT to find a scandal to back up what they have always believed and not what really exists.  If you are President Obama then you will say, "It all is George Bush's fault."  Of course it is all Jack Hyles fault because he preached "topical" messages.

Now, were there expositors in every generation?  Yes, there were and these men recognized and loved each other as long as it was Bible preaching. I could name you men of that era who were great expositors and they were great men, but again, these men did not sit around and critique the "style" of the others.  

I enjoy hearing a soul winning sermon, from someone who calls himself an expositor, bring out the truths of the Word of God, but I call it Bible preaching.  I refuse to join those influenced by Evangelicals who bring division to the brethren and really are in favor of watered down pulpiteering.  

I am not interested in hearing an expositor preach in a church where no one is getting saved. It appears the young ones are looking for an easy way to do the work of God.  They are looking for one solution. The premise appears to be if we preach exclusively "expository" or "exegetical" sermons God will meet with us in power once again.   Silly logic!

God raises up men for HIS purpose.  Please hear me brethren! God is not a cookie cutter God.  The same God that raised up a man like Lee Roberson raised up Lester Roloff.  Now there was not much similarity in their styles, but there was a whole lot of similarity in their power from on high.  They loved each other and gladly had each other preach for them, without any strings attached.

Quit attempting to be who you are not.  These great men did not try to be what someone else was.  Can you imagine Bill Rice attempting to preach like Lee Roberson or John Rice attempting to preach like Brother Roloff?  

These men were unique in their "style" of preaching and God used them all in unique ways.  These young men of our day if they are to be consistent would have to criticize a Bill Rice, a John Rice, a Brother Roloff, and do criticize a Jack Hyles whose shoes they are not worthy to shine!

Let me use my own preaching as an example.  I am known for preaching on soul winning and there are many who define my style that way.  Truth be known for many years I was invited to churches because they wanted me to preach on soul winning for it was a need in their church.  However, go back and listen to my sermons over the 33 years of pastoring and you will see I preached many types of sermons and in many different ways with a rare emphasis on soul winning.

I could call the name of a well known pastor and most of you would think of a specific thing about that man.  Why?  Typically we know more about a man for a national purpose for which God raised him than the man he is in his own realm.  I sat under Dr. Hyles preaching for 29 years.  God used him to not only teach me the Word of God, but how to live the Christian life.  He was a Bible preacher!

Another mistake we make is we know someone who came up under a man's ministry and who misrepresents the truth of that man.  I witnessed it with men who were Lee Roberson's "products."  These mimickers copy a certain aspect of the man and miss the rest.  

Again, this is the minority and it is unfair to blame the man for the few poor copies. Truth be known there are Bible preachers all across this world who came up under Dr. Hyles. Each one is unique, but they all have a little of Dr. Hyles in them.  

Please do not judge all of us who hate abortion by the quack who burns down a clinic and do not judge a man of God by a preacher or two who are extremes of him.

Many years ago there was a pastor in Southern California who entered into a fight in his church over the Masonic Lodge.  He became obsessed with it.  For years he could not preach a sermon without it coming back to that subject matter.  He was a good man, but he went off on a tangent.  All of us must be careful that we are not tangent preachers.

Dr. Hyles counseled more people than any pastor I have ever known.  Often he would see a trend in his counseling and would decide he needed to speak on that dangerous trend.  So, he had a topic without a passage.  He taught me to read my Bible and spend time in God's Word and the Holy Spirit would point out the answer to any particular need of the people.  All pastors have allowed God's Word to give us answers for our people.

If Dr. Hyles, or myself or you, attempted to see what the Bible said about an issue so he could address it Biblically, then that was NOT WRONG for him or for us.  The following is an excerpt from Dr. Hyles' book on preaching.

"A sermon is a tool.  It is not an end in itself. It is a tool with which to fix something.  For a number of years Evangelist Jim Lyons worked with me as an associate.  When he left me to enter the field of evangelism, people asked him to appraise my preaching.  He very kindly said that the key to Jack Hyles' preaching was that a sermon was not a sermon to Brother Hyles, but rather it was a greasy wrench with which to fix something.  

I have never heard a better explanation of what preaching ought to be.  A sermon is not a painting in an art gallery to be admired and complimented; nor is it a relic in a museum to be examined. It is, as Brother Lyons observed, like a greasy wrench! It is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. The end is to fix something. This means that a good sermon should never be the goal of preaching; it should simply be a 'greasy old wrench.'"

I realize that just because you use the Scripture does not mean it is Bible preaching.  Sincere men at times take a passage out of context to preach their own ideas.  I warn all of us to be cautious not to preach opinion over truth.  

However, I also fear when these "expositors" take the word of so-called theologian commentators and use their often misguided opinions and preach them as truth it is worse.

Hear me, there is far more error preached by deeper life Bible teachers than old fashioned Holy Ghost filled Bible preachers.  Give me the doctor with 10,000 patients and less degrees than the professor who can teach the medical textbooks, but who has never treated a single patient.  Dr. Hyles was more than a preacher for he was a practitioner.

To my dear brother who penned this article I strongly suggest you rethink your idea of "...preach the entire counsel of God and do so in an exegetical fashion."

A good sermon like Dr. Rice's on Bible preaching would serve far more as a good reminder of our responsibility as preachers than the jaded opinions of these young pups who appear to be disgruntled with time tested Bible preaching.  It would serve our LORD much better if we lost the fancy study of "styles" any way and just go back to being Bible preachers.

Allow God to "style" you and not a professor or a left leaning pastor who is seeking approval from Evangelical groups Brother Roloff and others would care less about what they thought!

II Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine."