130 thoughts on “FWOTW: gilbertindependentbaptist.org”

  4. All Scripture quotations on this site are from the King James Bible. Used by permission of the Author.

    Wow. Such wit and wisdom. Along with the amazing insight that fills his writing, I don’t know how he could have any critics to answer.

    1. You beat me to it. I was going to post that and wonder if he has actual written permission from the “Author”.

      1. I *still* am not sure if by author he means God or King James, I’m 100% sure he doesn’t mean St Paul, or St Matthew, or St Luke, etc..

    2. I didn’t know that Heaven had a “copyright department”. Can someone forward me the extension of the agent who handles these matters.

      1. The King James Version was not copyrighted because Great Britain did not have a copyright law until the 1700s.
        In any case, any copyright would have expired by now.

        1. It’s under Crown copyright in the UK. Only a small number of publishers in the UK are authorised by the Queen’s Printer (Cambridge University Press) to reproduce the King James Bible. As in many Bible copyrights you can reproduce up to 500 verses without permission, after that you need written permission in the UK.

  5. This church doesn’t exist. It is just another caricature that Darrell concocted in his free time while waiting for his Bible to cook him breakfast. :mrgreen:

  6. He lists the Baptist distinctives. Here is number one:
    WE ACCEPT ONLY THE BIBLE AS OUR AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND WE HAVE IT PERFECTLY PRESERVED BY GOD IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

    My time at Fundy U taught me to end that statement at the word practice. Possibly because King James Onlyism is not taught in the Bible anywhere. If you state that the Bible is your sole authority for faith and practice you really shouldn’t finish that sentence with something extra-Biblical.

    2. Makes sense to me:
      “The Bible is our only and final authority in all matters and faith. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, here’s a whole bunch of other [extrabiblical] stuff I thought of that you have to believe in order to be saved.”
      What part of that don’t you understand? 😐

  7. Misplaced modifier alert!

    “Baptists reject the baptism of infants flatly!”

      1. ‘Cause flat on their backs would be considered an “enhanced interrogative technique.”

        1. The government wasn’t really torturing those detainees; it was just baptizing them repeatedly …

  8. You don’t see Justified Text aligned columns on the internets that much, and you have to do a lot of editing phrasing to keep it from looking like a bizarre experiment/art project in white space manipulation. They didn’t get the memo. I doubt they were using it as a commentary on declaring themselves justified.

    1. The narrower the column, the worse it looks as justified text. Also, you generally have to do some hyphenating at the ends of lines to get it to look good.

    2. Some of his sidebars have the text centered instead of justified, which is also distracting, especially for prose.

  9. I just read his history of the origins of the Catholic Church and I presume he must have gotten all of his information from Jack Chick.

    1. Never let history or facts get in the way of a good story. I can’t even tell you how many times I heard blatant lies and made up history because it fit their narrative. Church history, the Civil War, the founding fathers, the history of Scriptural texts – they just made stuff up to fit their fake world. That’s one reason I don’t get mad when I hear fundies say things like “the KJV is the best translation” etc. I myself was inundated with supposed facts. It wasn’t until I studied the issue for myself that I realized it was all make believe.

      1. True. I guess they must assume that no one will know enough to call them out on it. Most people have not studied the things that they believe.
        I waded into studying about the different Bible versions with the goal of strengthening my KJVO position. Unfortunately for my position, the facts didn’t back me up.

    1. I tried to read the divorce rant, but never got past the rant part before I gave up and scrolled to see how long the darn thing was. It was not worth continuing.

      1. I tried to read the divorce rant, also. I honestly like to hear differing points of view on things that affect the Church, but sadly, his response was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    2. He doesn’t even get around to divorce for the first several thousand words. That’s where I gave up.

    3. Medical Definition of LOGORRHEA

      : pathologically excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness that is characteristic especially of the manic phase of bipolar disorder

      —log·or·rhe·icor chiefly British log·or·rhoe·ic adjective

      (Quoted from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

    4. I started going through it, but it’s full of that “circle the wagons” mentality that so many of these people have–and it makes me sick. God knows His people are not perfect. That’s why in Scripture, we are instructed to help one another and we’re told how to confront people who have wronged us or are sinning. To deny this, to act like he can do no wrong, to act like no “outsider” can possibly criticize him… it’s so unscriptural. It’s a sin, is what it is. And it’s all the worse because he’s twisting God’s Word to support himself.

      I’ve got time to kill tonight, maybe I can work my way through the rest… one or two sentences at a time is about all I can stomach, though.

  11. “My thanks to Alexander Hislop for his book, “The Two Babylons” from which part of the information for this article is derived. Also, Dr. Sam Gipp, and others for their research and input into this article.”

    Gipp was involved. That explains a lot. 🙄

  12. In the column “Easter in the Bible”, he definitely refers to the KJV as “God’s Authorized Bible”. I’m not sure you can do much with/for someone that doesn’t know “authorized” refers to King James authorizing the King James version, and not God authorizing.

    1. Also I’m pretty confident from his used of Authorized that I don’t think he knows the difference between the verbs to author and to authorize.

  13. The content and writing style point to a person with some serious problems, and who should never have any kind of serious leadership position in any kind of organization (secular or religious).

  14. According to the map, the hotel they use for services is just off Superstition Freeway, not far from the Unconditional Friendship Organization.

    Something tells me the Freeway is closer to the real truth. And we all know, THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

      1. Actually, the Superstition freeway is named so because it goes to the Superstition Mountains. Google how the mountains got that name; rather interesting story, but I can’t remember enough to tell it correctly. 😀

        1. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I knew of the Superstition Mountains’ existence. I just think it’s rather hilarious for a Fundy church to be located on Superstion Freeway (is that the Misinformation Superhighway?).

  15. Relatively new follower of SFL and this is (sadly) hilarious. Wow. You can tell the Pastor has a guilty conscience over the divorce. No one is that vitriolic unless they are compensating for something deep-down.

    It’s hard to believe that this kind of thinking still exists in the church — blind anger and vitriol justified by words from the Bible, as though the pastor were God and had authority to stand as the accuser of others. Such irony.

    2. I gather that the pastor thinks he’s Christ. The “About Us” page says, “His life verse is Isaiah 61:1 – The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”
      This passage is normally taken to be a description of Jesus Christ, not of any individual pastor or preacher.

      1. LOL, I had exactly the same reaction. “Um, doesn’t Christ apply that passage to HIMSELF?”

  16. A “true Baptist church” (later described as the NT church) only accepts the KJV as Scripture? Were there no NT churches prior to 1611? Does that mean Jesus didn’t bother saving anyone until then?

  17. All I can say is, if anyone reads this (so called) “church” website and attends there anyway… well, they deserve what they get. 😥

    It makes me sad that crap like this is able to pass for church these days. I just skimmed through and it was all about the pastor and him “proving” his intellectual prowess, the obligatory King James idolatry, and a spirit of “if you’re against us then you’re against god” that oozes from his site.

    1. Yes, the attempts at sounding intelligent and learned were gag-inducing. I especially enjoyed him calling seminaries “cemeteries”…he’s so witty. 🙄

      2. Fundies will defend anything they are known to be openly guilty of. Divorce? Well, after all, GOD did it first! Child molestation? Child brides are in the Bible, haymen? Child abuse? If you punish him with the rod, he shall not die!!! Break that bastard’s arm!

        Yeah … their fruits of the spirit have the rotting stench of death more often than not. Not all of them, mind you, but many …

        1. Just to clarify, I don’t at all put divorce in the same category as my latter two examples. Just popped into my head as more examples of fundy hypocrisy — they’ll scream like banshees if anyone else does it, but by golly, they can do it becuz it’s Bahbul.

  20. I read through much of this website. And there was one statement that stood out to me, which I wholeheartedly agree with: “Do I have a corner on that truth that no one else has? Absolutely not!”
    All the rest was kind of scary. cultist.

    1. I noticed that line, too. But every other word he wrote contradicted it. Clearly he does think he has a corner on correct interpretation of the Bible…he says so over and over again. In various places (OK, I’m too lazy to look them up), he states that he has studied the Bible so much more / so much better than anyone else; therefore he understands it better. He claims he has asked the Holy Spirit to guide and enlighten him in interpreting particular passages properly — apparently it has never occurred to anyone else EVER to ask this of the Holy Spirit, right? 🙄 So that means he gets the true meaning of these passages, whereas others don’t. He alone has the key to proper and correct interpretation of the Word!

      He is a super-pope and a magisterium of one.

  22. This is one angry, self-justifying dude, with no humility whatsoever (despite his protestations to the contrary). The scariest part of it all is that there are other people out there who thought him fit to be ordained. What does that say about THEM? ❓ ❓

    1. Yikes, that site hurts my eyes!! Endless white type on a black background: Didn’t that go out in 1997? Somebody needs to hire a usability expert.

      The content is ggreat…thank you! Just a little hard to read. 🙂

      1. Yeah, I started to put a warning about the old school (mid to late 90’s) look of the site but I reconsidered. It is best if you copy the text and paste it into MS Word or something similar.

        1. Yes, my first reaction was that whoever runs that site might want to reconsider the “Goth” design theme.

    2. Thx Karen D….that was well worth the time it took to read, but more time maybe needed to process and digest! It is Proverb’s Fools exposed and explained!

    3. I’m really glad all of you found it helpful. I fear for these men because their hearts are so hard and their minds so deluded that I wonder if they can repent.

  24. This church is only about 100 miles from me. Scary. Of course, Gilbert is really close to Tempe; both on the SE side of the Phoenix metro area. Wonder if he’s friends with “Pastor” Steven Anderson? Now there’s a scary thought! 😯

      1. I’ve actually walked by Stephen Anderson’s church and tried to peek in through the glass (it’s tinted and covered so I couldn’t really see) The church is right behind a pawn shop. It’s surprising at how out of the way it looks. You can see it from the street but the outside has a strip mall front look to it.

  25. What is with all these fundamentalist preachers just using their first two initials instead of their name? It’s like they’re trying to sound professional and wise, but when they open their mouths, they just can’t quite pull it off…

  26. What caught my eye was “A Word From Our Pastor” and it has something signed “Jack Hyles” — my first thought was: They have a dead man for a pastor?!?!?”

    1. Yeah, the quote by Dr. Jack was the first red flag for me, as anything connected to that man and his ministry always is!….This is a prime example of what Darrell has stated about IFBdom being left with increasingly “radical and isolationist leaders.” People wake up!!!!

  27. This pastor is a totally irrational person that you cannot have a conversation with. He is a Gnostic when he says:

    “When preachers say that, it is because they have lost their way and the Holy Spirit is no longer their guide into the truth. Shame on you!”

    His “spirit” is an esoteric, mystic guide that guides him with the KJV as his Ouija board. So, if you don’t use his Ouija board, you can’t know what the “spirit” is saying and not matter what facts or arguments you make to this loony toon, he will not listen.

    1. A Proverbs Fool, indeed!

      Prv.23:9 KJV “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of they words.”

      He will not listen, it is a waste of energy to try, for a fool is “right in his own eyes” Prv.12:15.

      The biblical warning to those under such leadership is Prv.9:6 KJV “Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.”

    2. What a very insightful comment. I think you’ve nailed it.

      His KJV Ouija board! 😆

  28. I totally thought he was going to be about 80 years old from all his ranting and incessant raving, then I got to his About Us page and was shocked to see how young-ish he is.
    It just seemed like the ravings of an old crotchety man.

  29. Anyone else find it a bit humorous that his “life verse” is otherwise considered messianic? Delusion of grandeur, maybe?

  30. “All Scripture quotations on this site are from the King James Bible. Used by permission of the Author”
    🙄

  31. From the “sermons/articles” page:
    “The truth of God’s Word still brings life, light and hope” *sigh* if only he had stopped there…

    “The truth of God’s Word still brings life, light and hope when God’s man stands and procaims it without fear or favor.”

    1. I didn’t realize God’s Word was completely dependent upon people.
    2. So, only a “God’s Man” can proclaim truth and God will work? Funny, I kinda remember God using all sorts of people to accomplish His work in the Bible….

    1. You’re right, lukewarm. He does not see the Word in itself as sufficient to bring light and hope. Where would God be without the Pastor?

  32. From the article “what a Baptist is not”
    http://gilbertindependentbaptist.org/Articles/Independent_Fundamental_Baptist.html#Not

    There were always groups and sects that held to the truth. However, as earlier stated, these groups were rarely in the spotlight of history. For example, there is Patrick of Ireland. Patrick was born in Scotland in 360 AD and sold into slavery at age sixteen and carried to Ireland. Later, he escaped and became a Christian missionary. Although the Roman Catholic Church claims him as one of their “saints,” there is no evidence he even knew the Catholic Church existed.

    …riiiiight…that’s why he was ordained as a catholic priest. He apparently had a few dreams and visions giving him guidance. That’s a little um. Non-independent fundamental baptist…. (www.history.com/topics/who-was-saint-patrick)

    1. Saint Patrick was a Baptist who didn’t know the Catholic Church existed?

      I’ve heard some tall tales, but this is about the tallest yet.

      1. Yeah. And typically fundies accuse the secular world of revisionist history…”pot this is kettle…”
        I’m curous to see what other history gets mangled in order to fithis warped reality but I’ve got to go read things that will be at least somewhat beneficial.

  33. Dear SFL Reader:

    Terrible [ab]use of Scripture and logic!

    When some Pharisees tempted Jesus on the question of divorce, our Lord replied by asking what Moses said. Like our friend, they cite Dt 24:1ff which they [and he] use as a step-by-step ‘how to’ guide to divorce. But the bill of divorce was never intended as a license for men; it was to protect women from capricious acts by hard-hearted men.

    Once sent away, a wife was pretty much condemned to a life of destitution – beggary or prostitution. She had no protection or rights. She had little means of support and would be shunned wherever she went. Dt 24 meant that a husband could no longer turn out a wife from his home. He had to give her a bill of divorce. This allowed her to explain how she came to be where she was in the societal structure, under the protection of neither a father nor a husband. That she is alone no longer means that she is to be shunned as an evil woman. Giving women something approaching ‘equal standing/rights’ before the law, a bill of divorce was an astonishingly progressive turn the likes of which was unknown in antiquity.

    By Jesus’ day, ‘uncleanness’ was interpreted very loosely. The use of Dt 24 so devolved that wives could be sent away for the flimsiest of reasons – barrenness, not the best cook, he found someone younger and prettier, etc. It is in that context that these Pharisees come to test Jesus. They wanted to hold Jesus answerable to THEIR use of Dt 24. Mr. Brewer does exactly the same thing.

    Jesus says that the Dt 24 provision was a concession required by the hardness of their hearts. That is to say, The Dt 24 provision served to protect women from the cruelty of men as I have described. But Jesus goes on to say that ‘from the beginning’ it was no so. Why? ‘God made them male and female and the two become one’ and ‘what God has joined together, let no man separate’ [corizo, imperative].

    Moses made this concession to protect women; but Moses [the new Moses called Jesus] anchors his reply NOT in Moses’ concession, but in the creational order that was ‘from the beginning of creation.’

    So far from conceding anything, Jesus returns to God’s original intention for marriage as established in creation. He affirms the abiding validity of the creational design in the redemption that is in him. That is, Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. But this new Moses [Jesus] is God’s answer to the hardness of your hearts.

    I invite SFL readers to compare this treatment of Mk 10 to that in the document by Mr. Brewer.

    Christian Socialist

    1. I actually think divorce is a very good thing in many cases; I just don’t think a rambling, incoherent, angry, nearly endless rant sheds any light on the issue.

      1. Dear Big Gary:

        I find divorce a difficult, difficult matter. The irony is that those who reference his screed will discover that Mr. Brewer avoids Mk 10 studiously. Given that Mark’s gospel is the oldest and that Jesus speaks directly to the matter, it seems curious indeed for him to overlook the text.

        Blessings!

        Christian Socialist

  34. HOWDY. Does that greeting on a church website and the graphic in the “O” seem….strange? 🙄

    Or, does it just fit the weirdness?

    1. I think they’re trying to indicate the Southwestern location of the church, since it’s in Arizona and all.

      1. I think the thing in the “O” is meant to be a sheriff’s badge, but maybe it’s some kind of allusion to Christian Zionism.

  35. In his “To the Critic” trash, he starts by talking about being godly and righteous, then immediately launches into a childish temper tantrum full of name calling and personal attacks. It’s clear he got his cage rattled by whoever wrote to him (the person’s actual words are conveniently not posted). Then he makes the entire thing worst by tossing around God’s name and God’s Word in the process, as though that sanctifies it.

    Forget the divorce, this guy should be disqualified from being a pastor on his attitude alone.

    Also ridiculous was his rant against those who “approach the Word of God with preconceived ideas” and rely on the “traditions of men.” Yet he has plenty of preconceived ideas and man-made traditions that he pushes as “Biblical”: KJV onlyish, “Trail of Blood” theory, etc.

    The most ridiculous part of the whole thing: “And you owe me and mine a written apology which must predicate any forgiveness God gives you concerning these matters, according to His Word…His forgiveness is conditional on you getting right, by us first, then Him.” This egomaniac actually thinks that he can hold back God’s favor from someone, just because that person ticked him off 😆 😆 😆

    1. He makes a number of truly extraordinary claims, the assertion that he can decide whether or not for God to forgive another person not least among them.

  36. “It is tragic for our God, Who gave us His Son to die on the cross, to beg us to love Him.” – Jack Hyles

    And there is a huge disagreement I have with this kind of fundamentalism: they take the beautiful story of redemption and read it as a TRAGEDY!!!

    “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10) God’s grace and the amazing condescension He shows us is not pathetic but glorious and amazing and humbling.

    2. The greatest issue that I have with Jack’s statement is “It is tragic for our God…to beg us to love Him.”
      What a pitiful view of Almighty GOD! God never “begged” anyone to follow him. Nowhere in scripture do we see God begging anyone to follow him. He said “Follow” and people obeyed.

      This view of God begging folks to follow him or love him, is blasphemy of the first order!! Such a god is not worthy of worship, or worthy to be followed. Oh, how I wish I had the words to say what is in my heart right now. I wish I could convey my thoughts of how arrogant, how prideful, how this thinking elevates man above the god of his imagination. How this thinking creates a weak, frail, impotent god who sits in his heaven wringing his hands praying that one of his “soulwinners” will come up with a gimmick that will harvest souls for him.

      No, it’s not God who is begging folks to follow him, and love him, it’s hucksters like Hyles and his ilk who are begging folks to follow the god they are selling!

    3. Here’s the favorite hymn of one of my mentors:

      My God, I love Thee–not because
      I hope for heaven thereby;
      Nor yet because,if I love not
      I must for ever die.

      Thou, O my Jesus, Thou didst me
      Upon the Cross embrace;
      For me didst bear the nails and spear,
      And manifold disgrace,

      And griefs and torments numberless,
      And sweat of agony,
      Yea, death itself; and all for me
      Who was Thine enemy.

      Then why, O blessèd Jesu Christ,
      Should I not love Thee well?
      Not for the hope of winning heaven,
      Of of escaping hell;

      Not with the hope of gaining aught,
      Not seeking a reward;
      But as Thyself hast lovèd me,
      O ever-loving Lord!

      So would I love Thee, dearest Lord,
      And in Thy praise will sing;
      Solely because Thou art my God,
      And my eternal King.

      Attributed to St. Francis Xavier (16th century), translation by Edward Caswall (1849)
      (By the way, this one realy IS in the public domain.)

      There’s no begging by either party going on here; just unconditional love.

  37. Using Google maps I found 9 other Baptist churches in Gilbert, AZ. What the justification for having another Baptist in town?

    1. Oh, they probably wear their hair three-quarters of an inch too long or don’t worship Jack Hyles enough. You know, the regular sort of blasphemy that totally makes it necessary to “separate” from evil.

    2. And Tri-City Baptist, which is a large IFB church and is where International Baptist College is located, is only a few miles away in Tempe.

  38. Re. His comments in the sidebar

    I think I’ve posted this here before, but I’ve been told that the original King James edition was originally designated as copyrighted by the Crown Printer of England for its first 100 year, making it the most notorious copyright of a Bible in the history of publishing.

    1. The KJV is still under Royal Prerogative (a form a copyright) in the UK. That essentially means that good ole Queen Elizabeth II (and/or an agent acting on her behalf) grants permissions to print or publish the KJV in the UK. So in the country that the KJ was published, it is still copyrighted. China and Russia produce and distribute American copyrighted music and movies w/o permissions all the time because copyright law is not international. Looks like we do the same. Just because it’s pirated doesn’t mean it’s not copyrighted.

  39. Fishy that there is no email listed. He doesn’t give his name, just Pastor RS Brewer. He mentions going to IFB and SBC schools, but lists no names. This guy must have some scary skeletons in his closet.

Comments are closed.