About six years ago, and as a new pastor, I sat down and thought through what a Biblical philosophy of missions should look like.  To be honest, within the first few weeks as pastor our phone rang off its hook with future missionaries seeking support.  I knew that we could not possibly support them all, even at one dollar per month.  So, I set out to establish what our philosophy of missions would be.  Above all else, we wanted our philosophy to reflect the New Testament approach to Christian Missions. 

Since writing this philosophy, we have sent it to each missionary we currently support, and we send it to every missionary who approaches us for support.  Our desire in this is to communicate our goals and standards, and to give a Scriptural basis for taking on new missionaries for support.  I share it with you now in order to lay some ground work for what we feel is a Biblical starting point for missions.  I have not added to or taken away from anything in this published philosophy over the past few years, nor did I change anything for this post.  Perhaps it is time it were edited.  Perhaps not.  Feel free to make any comments as you wish.

as established by Pastor Dave Mallinak.

Christian historians have noticed that in the beginning days of our country, Christian ministries grew very gradually, and the quality of society and its civil government mirrored that growth. Since those early years in our nation’s history, however, this pattern has changed. We are now experiencing a literal explosion in “Christian ministry,” yet the quality of our society and civil government not only does not reflect this growth, but has actually moved in the opposite direction. What has happened?

Even to the casual observer, the Christian ministries of today are woefully inadequate at addressing even the simplest problems of our society. Why? Is sin so much greater than God? Is God unable to empower His people for His work any more? Or has the salt lost its savor? Are we really forced to follow along behind the world, kicking, screaming, condemning, and then imitating all their methods? The reason so many ministries are powerless against the world is because they are not truly against the world. “He that is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30), and no ministry is with Christ if their methods contradict God’s Word. For too long, Christians have made decisions based on tradition and convenience rather than a thorough examination of the Word of God. Unfortunately, missions, and mission boards in particular, have been guilty. Many a good missionary has yoked himself to a para-church mission board, only to find that oxen do not plough very well with a donkey strapped to their side. They may get the job done, but the team is sure hard to handle.

Read the rest of this entry →

Is there anything for Christmas that you can think of, which you would want, for which you would give up everything that you possess?  Clear the bottom of the Christmas tree, because underneath is just this one present.  And not just the tree, get rid of the house, the garage, and everything in it; clean out the bank accounts of all savings, leaving this one thing.  This scenario is essentially what Jesus described in His kingdom parable in Matthew 13:44, 45:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Most good investors, if not all, say the proverbial, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”  But that’s what this merchant man did—shucked the whole basket for the one egg.  He sold all his goods for one pearl.  He ridded himself of his entire inventory for a miniature treasure.

Pearls in Jesus’ day were the most valuable of commodities, more expensive than diamonds.  Then, pearls were a girl’s best friend.  Nobody owned scuba equipment, so the only way to get the pearl was for a man to tie rocks to himself, throw himself overboard, and sink down to the bottom of deep water without the aid of a breathing apparatus.  After digging out the shell, he exploded to the surface of the water if his lungs didn’t explode first.  Lots of pearl divers died in the process.  The sheer difficulty of obtaining a pearl made them in short supply but in great demand. Read the rest of this entry →

The idea that God is helpless without man did not originate with Jack Hyles. For many centuries, men have taught the theory that God needed to create, that God somehow lacked something that could only be resolved by creating a universe. And essentially, that is what Hyles taught when he made statements about God’s need for man.

While it is certain that Hyles took these ideas of some sort of “synergy” between God and man to unique and shocking levels, it is also true that this is not a new thing, or a new doctrine. Hyles applied it to some areas that most have left alone, but this isn’t a case of Hyles making up his own theology. It is a case of Hyles applying it, sometimes more consistently than others have.

I have sometimes made the statement that “God will not overrule our free will.” To be honest, I have heard it said more often than I have said it myself, and it has been some time since I myself have made the statement. One reason I stopped making that statement is that I could find no basis for it in Scripture. Perhaps an astute reader of JackHammer could point me in the right direction. But I hope you won’t mind if I make some observations about this statement and its effect on theology.

If God will not overrule our free will, then God cannot save a man unless that man allows God to save him. If God cannot save a man unless that man allows God to save him, then in the work of salvation, God is dependent on man to make the right decision. If God depends on man to make the right decision, then God is helpless without man. The two must work together, or neither can work at all.

True, Hyles took this further than most are willing to take it. In other words, Hyles was willing to clearly state the conclusion, where others are not. And, it is equally true that the majority of those who affirm that God will not overrule our free will would vehemently deny that God is helpless without man. And rightfully so. Any statement that identifies God as helpless is a blasphemous statement, and should be repudiated in the strongest terms.

But Hyles’ doctrine did not come out of thin air. Which reminds us that while we often reject one theological tradition because it is “based in logic,” we find ourselves holding to another opposing theological tradition that is equally “based in logic.” Logic is inescapable. Deductions are made, and will be made. If I ask for a Biblical warrant for the statement that “God will not overrule our free will,” some will no doubt argue that “it only makes sense.” In other words, we reject one set of deductions in favor of another.

But if God will not overrule our free will, then I am saved because I chose to be (in a manner of speaking). Not that my choice saved me. Jesus still saved me, but he saved me because I chose to believe in Him. He would not have saved me if I hadn’t made that choice.

And thus, we see where the whole “easy-believism” of Hyles comes from. Since Jesus won’t save me unless I choose to believe in Him, it is important that I make the right choice. And since making the right choice is important, the soul winner must persuade the sinner to make the right choice. Once the soul winner does this, everything else is automatic. After all, only the hyperest of the Calvinists (and their Armenian counterparts) insist that a perfect knowledge of Christ and salvation is necessary for salvation. The rest of theology teaches that knowledge comes through Christian growth. We have but to call on the name of the Lord, and we will be saved. The sinner’s prayer unleashes the saving power of Christ on us. And since those are the ones who God saves, we have but to convince the sinner to pray the prayer.

In other words, since salvation comes originally by the will of God (but only in that he sent his Son to die – as in John 3:16), and comes presently and particularly by the will of man (man choosing to ask), the soul winner’s task is to convince the will of the man to turn to the Lord. Whatever method the soul winner uses to persuade is acceptable, so long as he persuades, even for a moment. After all, man’s free will is the one thing that holds God back from saving a man. And so, if the door of the will would but open for a moment, Christ’s saving power would be unleashed.

Again, I realize that the majority of those who would agree with the statement that “God will not overrule a man’s free will” would deny much of what Hyles taught about evangelism. And rightfully so. Hyles’ conclusions have led many astray, and caused many to remain in an unregenerate state. There is a common starting point, but the trails part from there.

God is not helpless. In the beginning, when God created the universe, He lacked nothing, He had no need or deficiency that could only be met by creating a universe (Acts 17:25). Nor does God lack anything today. In absolutely no way can we consider God to be helpless. God does not depend on man for anything, least of all for salvation.

Spurgeon once pointed out that nobody prays like an Arminian. How would one do that? “Lord, I thank thee that I have chosen thee to be my Savior, unlike those other idiots out there who chose another god. I thank thee that I made the right choice, that I believed on you and called on you so that you could save me.” Rather, in our prayers of thanksgiving, we tend to acknowledge the Sovereignty of God in our salvation. “Lord, I thank you for working in my heart, for showing me the way of salvation.”

I find that a similar statement could be made about the way we pray for the lost. “Lord, open their eyes so that they can see and believe. Lord, please prepare their hearts so that your Word can do its work in them.” In other words, we pray as if we are helpless, as if the sinner is helpless, as if only God can do this work.

And rightfully so. God can make believers out of rocks. God doesn’t need man to do anything. All that is to be done has already been done. But no man will believe unless God prepares his heart to believe (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7).

It is man who is helpless. This helplessness pervades every part of our nature. And never is this helplessness more evident than when a man proclaims God to be helplessly dependent on man. For when man proclaims God’s dependence on man, then man becomes lifted up in pride. He develops for himself complex systems of merits and demerits. He invents Creative Score-Keeping Methods.  He believes that he is helping God to forgive his sins. He believes that he reaches sanctification through his own works. God needs him. God is in trouble without him.

Meanwhile, in the blindness of his own heart and the vanity of his own mind, he finds himself more and more incapable of resisting temptation and living any kind of victorious Christian life. The greater his conceit, the greater his fall (1 Corinthians 10:12; Proverbs 16:18; 18:12; 29:23).

To say that Hyles is helpless, or anyone else for that matter, is no insult. It is not blasphemy. It is not heresy. But to say, or infer, or imply that God is in any way helpless, is in any way dependent on man is all of those.

In his book, No Little People, Francis Schaeffer quotes Ephesians 6:10-18, and then makes these comments (p. 72):

There is nothing in this list that the world accepts as a way of working, but there are no other ways to fight the spiritual battle. . . . [I]f we fight the world with copies of its own weapons, we will fail, because the Devil will honor these with his own, but our Lord will not honor these with us, for that does not give Him the glory.  They may bring some results—activism does have its results—but they will not be the ones the Lord wants.  Our hands will be empty of honor from God because He will not be getting the glory.  We must not try to serve the Lord with our own kind of humanism and egoism. . . . In this war if Christians win a battle by using worldly means, they have really lost.  On the other hand, when we seem to lose a battle while waiting on God, in reality we have won.  The world may mistakenly say, “They have lost.”

Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap will say that they have won, and if you have limited yourself to Biblical teaching and methods, but are smaller than them, you have lost.  Don’t believe it.  The enemies of soulwinning are the enemies of Scriptural doctrine, a true gospel, and how God told us to do it in His Word.  We will continue seeing how that Hyles and Schaap are the enemies of genuine evangelism based on the book Hyles wrote in 1993 entitled, Enemies of Soulwinning.

The Doctrine of Repentance

Hyles argues repentance out of the gospel by means of circular reasoning.  This chapter does not read like Hyles wants to find out what Scripture says about salvation.  He doesn’t go into texts about repentance and exegete them.   Something that may seem insignificant, but it isn’t, is what Hyles stresses as important in salvation.  His salvation doesn’t center on the glory of God.  God’s offense with sin doesn’t seem to be a big issue to him.  He writes: Read the rest of this entry →