JackHammer

The issue of repentance in salvation is important to you.  It is important to me as well.  You deny that repentance must accompany faith in salvation.  I affirm it.  You consider my position to be heresy.  I consider yours to be heresy.  You blacklist those who teach repentance and faith.  We speak against those who deny it. 

Seems to me that we have sufficient grounds here for a debate.  We have a fundamental disagreement, that disagreement is over an issue that we both think is important, and we both have arguments that we think will ultimately win the day. 

So, here is a proposal.  I will offer to let you debate the issue on this blog.  Rather than relegating you to the comments section, we will give you space on the front page.  I will write and you will respond, or you will write and I will respond.  Either way.  Others will be permitted to respond in the comments section.  But the affirmative and negative cases will get front page exposure.

Think of the wonderful opportunity this will afford you.  You will stand for truth and against error.  You will have the opportunity to expose the doctrine of repentance as a true enemy of soul winning.  And while you do, you can consider your work as part of your soul winning requirement.  After all, you might win someone to Christ right here on this blog, and besides, hundreds and hundreds of people read our blog every day.  You might be famous… the next big name in Fundamentalism. 

We will negotiate what the resolution will be.  Here are some possibilities —

Resolved: Repentance must accompany faith in salvation.

or

Resolved: The teaching that repentance must accompany faith in salvation is adding works to salvation.

or

Resolved: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

(oops! didn’t mean to put that one in there.  Guess you probably wouldn’t want to debate THAT!)

or

Resolved: In order to be saved, one must repent of his sin.

or

Resolved: In order to be saved, one must simply believe.

We can negotiate affirmative and negative, the stated resolution to be debated, and so forth.  The format will be quite simple.  The affirmative will state his case in three typed pages or less, and the negative will have a day or two to respond.  Both will be posted at the same time, so that the posting will be simultaneous.  We will limit the debate to between four and six exchanges, although that also can be negotiated.  The negative will get the last word.

I think that about covers it.  Of course, any Hyles Follower is welcome to answer the challenge, although I do have my wish list… including (but not limited to) Stephen L. Anderson, Tom Neal, Greg Neal, Brent Neal, Jack Schaap, Ray Young, Bob Hooker, any Hyles staff member, any staff member from Tom Neal’s school, or Bubba Jones.

Of course, if you’re really chicken, you could always use a fake name.

Interested parties will please contact me via e-mail at pmallinak@berean-baptist-utah.com

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.

i foggot to put in my list of reasons why not to talk about Jack Skaapp the one you now about learnnin.i can’t do all thet memerizing and stufff.but I guess I should have said,”NUMBER ELEVEN:I DONT FELL LIKE LERNNIN ANY KNEW WORDZ”so,hear we our after a munth of boggling and I lernned so many new words.i figure i can recapp them and try and make sure I got the right meenin with the right wordZ. 

CRAP — n. ConsistentlyRegularAbnormalPoppycock

scouffer — n. [1] the new name of your favorite frozen dish; Stouffer’s latest competition found in the freezer section of your local supermarket. If not, ask the manager when it will be available. [2] a scooper that has a hard time pronouncing explicatives; thus the ‘p’ is softened to sound like ‘f’ and rather than double the ‘o’ the ‘f’ gets repeated and the second ‘o’ gets changed to ‘u’ to avoid the use of double doubles in the same word. [3] you supply the definition.

rath — n. a feeling of wrath so intense that you don’t have time to double the U.  Also known as ‘wrath.’ Etymologists have theorized for years that more primitive societies left off the ‘W’ simply because it’s simpler with fewer letters.

moron — adj. describes a large religious organization that follows the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. Some of their members perform in the Moron TAB and Apple Choir.

And then there are those comments that you can’t comment about.  They just speak for themselves:

that statement is typical of people you go to FBC.Lady i don;t know were you go,i’m jens Aunt i’ve been going to FBC since 1976 and never heard such criticism about are church if you don’t like whats going on their thats for choice leave everyone else alone!!!!!!!!!!

Whew,i’m tired;giv me a break;while i go GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God’s holiness separates Him from all that is common and profane (Isaiah 6).  He remains alone non-contingent (Ex 3:14), without variableness nor shadow of turning (James 1:17). God by nature works outside natural bounds, so He also saves beyond the natural.    Jesus made this point in John 3:3 when He told Nicodemus:

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

“Born again” translates two Greek words—gennao anothen—literally “born from above.”   Jesus also describes this as being “born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:6).  God performs man’s conversion alone.  The Gospel isn’t a technique, but ”the power of God unto salvation” (Rom 1:16).  Church growth isn’t a strategy, but God giving the increase (1 Cor. 3:6).  Christ builds the church (Matt. 16:18) and we shouldn’t want to get in the way of that.  The best we can produce are human, temporal results.

The Power of God

During Hyles’ lifetime, he often spoke of the power of God.  One of his more famous speeches he titled Fresh Oil, taken from the last part of Psalm 92:10,  “I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”  He said that after experiencing no numerical results for one year at a little church he was pastoring, he began praying intensely for the power of God and told God that he would sacrifice anything for it.  At that time, his dad dropped over dead and after the burial, Hyles claimed to have laid on his dad’s grave for hours, maybe weeks, having lost all track of time.  Having gotten up from there, he reported that he never saw a week go by that he didn’t see a person converted.  In many messages, he said the same kind of thing, that despite his not being sinlessly perfect, his great results came from the power of God.  Others all over the country hungered for the same power as Hyles had so that they too could have the same consequences in their ministries.  In most cases, after Hyles spoke, the front and aisles of any building would be filled with almost everyone in the auditorium, who wanted the same thing in their lives that he had.

Whether you believe in the Hyles’ view of the fulness of the Spirit or of the outpouring of the Spirit or not (which I don’t), was the work in Hammond supernatural and did it come from the power of God?

Hyles talked about the power of God in his life and on his ministry.  He said that his work became a success after he had this supernatural experience and received the power of God.   The story he told makes him look as though he paid an incredible price to get it.

Night after night I would walk through the pine thickets of east Texas, up and down the sand hills, begging God for His power. If you had driven down Highway 43 outside Marshall, Texas, on the way to Henderson, Texas, in the wee hours of the morning, you could have heard me praying, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” and begging God to give me power.  I was losing weight. I couldn’t eat. What I did eat came back up! My family was worried about me.  My deacons got together and said to me, “Pastor, you’ve got to take care of yourself. You are going to get bad sick.” . . . .  We prayed from 1:00 until 2:00; from 2:00 until 3:00; from 3:00 until 4:00; from 4:00 until 5:00 and sometime between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning the sweet power of God settled upon us, and I knew that God had given me some fresh power, some fresh oil.

The message to you and me is that we too could have what he had only if we were willing to sacrifice like he did.  The key here is:  like he did.  Jack Hyles wanted it more than anyone.  He sacrificed till he was sick.  Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, but the story is about him.  We don’t have what he had because we didn’t have the desire that he had for the power of God.  If we did, we could have it too, and we would have the results too.

The Programs of Hyles

We don’t see this hoop-jumping to get God’s power in Scripture anywhere, except possibly the priests of Baal, but they weren’t worshiping God when they cut themselves, danced, and screamed.  Not-in-Scripture is enough to reject it.  What is ironic, however, and tell-tale is that the very Hyles that says it is the “power of God” that caused what happened was also the one that produced the huge manual of success methodology called The Hyles Church Manual.  What we came to find with Hyles was that the power of God was not what brought the people into First Baptist in Hammond.  Between his Let’s Go Soulwinning tapes and booklet and his Church Manual and then reinforced annually at his pastor’s school, we found that his own methods (Hylesology), ones not found anywhere in Scripture, were what brought the numeric success and the “professions of faith” at Hammond.  These are what people mimicked everywhere to produce the phenomena of the “Hyles’ Church.”

Hyles laid out in incredible detail the way the church grows.  It grows by means of the little talk someone does in persuading someone to pray the “sinner’s prayer.”  It grows by means of the method of getting those people who prayed the prayer into the baptistry.  It grows by means of the programs, promotions, and rewards.  In his church manual, written in 1968, he showed how he kept the people coming.   Here’s my synopsis that really is just a sampling of what Hyles did:

We don’t do anything on the natural high days like Easter and Christmas.  We must plan something special on the natural low days like Memorial Day weekend.   For the summer, a natural low period, we must keep them coming through numerous special Sundays, like Carry-the-Load Sunday.   We plan for a special holiday and give some material thing that day to get them to come.   We plan special seasonal days through the year, like Back-to-School Sunday, and give something out on those days.  We plan days for special activities.  We have a ten week fall push and a ten week spring push.  We have departmental and class contests.  We give away big prizes and many prizes to the workers who are winners.   We have four special colossal days a year that are even the biggest pushes of the year.  We have teacher’s meetings to scold and reward them for the numbers of people who come.  We have bus contests, giving prizes to those who have the best bus attendance.  We give gifts to bus riders.

Hyles also told how to advertise in the papers, on television, and over the radio, what kind of flyers to make and use, as well as everything from how to paint the busses to how to design and decorate the auditorium.  Everything was engineered to facilitate a kind of psychological and emotional impact on a person, and as it is described, not a spiritual one.  Hyles’ entertaining brand of speaking, the kind of Sunday School presentation, the upbeat congregational and special music; everything was created to keep someone coming back for the very reasons why those techniques were used.

The Contradiction

Does this sound like someone who trusted in the power of God?  If someone was trusting in the power of God, why would he think that he needed any of these strategies and conditions to produce results?  Isn’t the power of God greater than any of these?  If God were to get the glory from something produced by His power, in contrast what would happen from all these things that were caused by Hyles?  If Jesus through the Holy Spirit was the big draw of First Baptist of Hammond, why would any of these gimmicks and techniques be necessary?

Of course, the power of God was not the basis of the Hyles’ numbers and success.  The power of God also produces purity.   The proliferation of personal and family corruption and the power of God couldn’t be operating simultaneously.  The power of God doesn’t cause something centered on man but on God.  The power of God doesn’t give explanations of Scripture that defy the plain, grammatical-historical, and historic meaning.  The power of God doesn’t depend on all these strategies and techniques.

Hyles related the power of God to his successes, providing a cover for man-made maneuvering and blaming God for his gimmicks.  By doing so, he led many into a false view of spirituality.  The numbers became the best test for spirituality, therefore, authenticating all of the Hyles’ methods.  God was responsible—responsible for shallow, psychological preaching, worldly promotions, fleshly manipulation, and twisting of Scripture.   All of this caused a massive lack of discernment.   The Hyles followers were led to believe that they had no ability or right to judge someone so “used of God” as he was.  If you questioned, you must be wrong, because God’s power was more evident with Hyles than it was with you.

Hyles hype went from one high to the next, consummating with the once-a-year pastor’s school, in which Hyles showed-off everything that he did.  In the end, it wasn’t the power of God that caused the growth there at Hammond, but how hard Hyles and his followers worked their programs, how well they performed them, and how slick they promoted them.   Hyles was very proficient at what he did, better than any others whose conscience would allow them to operate like him.  Their successes perpetuated themselves by means of the self-promoting marketing done through their spectacular multimedia.

Jack Hyles mastered and then reproduced a means in which he could tap into a few natural motivators to get men to work for him:  fear, pride, and greed.  Men naturally fear being a failure and they know that success is judged by numbers.  When men followed Hyles or used his patterns to operate, Hyles rewarded them with recognition of all different types.  Often his pastor’s school was a vehicle to get it done, but some of it came because Hyles sheer notoriety.  If he said you were an up-and-comer, you now were one.  Hyles brought with him a kind of power, but it wasn’t God’s.  It was political power in his own growing circle.  He could make you or break you.   In a large way, you could make the line-up for a conference and the potential remuneration.  On a lesser level, you could get a new suit, your name on a plaque, or an honorary doctorate.  Or you could lose all that, and go to the dark side of the moon in the Hyles orbit.

None of this was about the power of God, but about Jack Hyles.  None of it was about the glory of God, but about Jack Hyles.  Even if Jack Hyles said it was about God, God knew that it wasn’t.

I originally posted this on my own blog on July, 28, 2005. I have edited it slightly for presentation here:

I was at the First Baptist Church of Hammond last night and, WOW, I have never heard such horrible preaching.  Maybe I shouldn’t say never, but if I have, it’s been a long time.  The message was supposed to be about the will of God and the lust of the flesh.  Most of it was about the will of God and most of that came from nowhere in the Bible. It was hardly even a motivational speech.  What made it worse, was the terrible twisting of Scriptures.  Dr. Schaap did yell a lot and threaten that if you didn’t follow him, you would be in big trouble (because you’re not in the will of God).  He also said the way to follow the Spirit of God is to follow someone who is following the Spirit of God.  I wondered, “Where does that end?”  (How does the one that’s following the Spirit of God follow the Spirit of God?) I’m not against pastoral authority or example, but when does someone begin to follow the Spirit of God for himself?  He also said (and this is a classic) that he had more mercy than God did!  I don’t know if the over 2,000 present there caught that, but it was a shocker to me.  I didn’t think anyone could come close to the amount of mercy God has shown.  Well, the preaching was very shallow — no teaching, except falsehoods, and lots of yelling, threatening, and persuasion.

Real preaching must have teaching in it to be preaching.  Just repeating ourselves loudly won’t “cut it.”  As a preacher, I can only stand on the authority of the Word of God.  Just because I’m in the pulpit doesn’t give me more or any autonomous authority.  My authority comes from the Word of God, therefore, I must speak/preach from it.  If there is no teaching of the facts of the Word, I cannot make claims and application?

I decided that I must return sometime in the future for the entertainment factor if for nothing else. I haven’t been back yet, but it’s still on the long list of things to do.  I would add, going there challenged me to always Preach the WORD, not just always to PREACH.

I was at lunch with my Pastor (Mark Short), a guest, and Pastor Short’s parents when the news came that Jack Hyles was dead. Pastor Short announced it at the table. I can still picture the table. And I remember vividly the response from Pastor Short’s mother. You would have to know her to appreciate this. When Pastor Short announced the passing of Hyles, she slapped the table and said, “Well, he knows who God is now!”

Sadly, we find ourselves wondering whether Tom Neal knows yet. One prominent feature of the political posturing between Hammond and Orange Park has been the embarrassing display of worshipful adoration directed towards All Things Jack. Tom Neal makes an art form out of genuflecting any time the name of Hyles is dropped. And recently, in a brilliant exchange, Neal has taken up genuflecting with clenched fist, shaking it in the air at All Things Schaap. Truly he fights as one that beateth the air.

For many years now, Tom Neal has been setting the table, positioning himself for this time in Hammond’s history. Before Hyles’ death, Neal’s Baptist Contender was consumed with Hyles. Consider the issue of the Contender dated April and May, 1998. This particular issue is dedicated to one of those famous “Pentecost Sundays,” and emblazoned across the front is this statement: Dr. Jack Hyles and the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana Baptizes 5,112!

Following that, we have a short explanatory paragraph that includes this statement: Dr. Jack Hyles has accomplished a task that has not been duplicated since Peter, and the rest of the apostles saw three thousand baptized at the day of Pentacost (sic).

That issue of the Contender features comments from both Editor and Son on the great success of Hyles, laced of course with unhealthy doses of nose-thumbings, nah-nah-na-nah-nah’s and IN YOUR FACE’s. It includes prominent comics of Shelton Smith (and others) distancing themselves from Hammond, a sermon by Hyles, an ad for Youth Conference at Hammond, another for Berean Baptist College (home of the Jack Hyles School of the Bible), a book section from a Jack Hyles book, and another book section from a different Jack Hyles book. Only two items, a sermon by Neal and an interview with Dr. J. Don Chitty, are not directly of Hyles.

That was B.D. (Before Death). A.D. (After Death), the IBC changed its emphasis. The February/March 2003 issue proclaimed in the masthead, “Perpetuating and Protecting the Principles and Philosophies of Dr. Jack Hyles.” And of course that issue, almost in tabloid fashion, was filled with “All Things Bad about Jack Schaap.”

We saw it coming. I am in possession of a letter from Tom Neal, dated March 29, 2001, explaining his absence from that year’s Pastor’s School. On a sticky note attached to my copy of the letter, in the handwriting of Pastor Mark Short (my pastor at the time) is this observation:

Only one time does he mention a name of God anywhere, in the very last sentence. This letter seems to indicate Jack Hyles was his “god.”

I have reproduced the letter in its entirety below. I’ve added emphasis where appropriate. Read the rest of this entry →

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 →

Rampant immorality is not the main problem with Jack Hyles and those bent on perpetuating His Legacy.

Surprised? Shouldn’t we erase that little word “not?” Isn’t their well-documented immorality a problem?

Yes. But not THE problem.

THE problem is one of doctrine, what one might call their “Practical Theology.” The immorality is merely a symptom of the problem.

For many years, I wondered at the immorality problem. Why do so many from that place struggle with moral issues? How can graduates be so cavalier about issues such as honesty, integrity, and fidelity?

I should give a little background. No doubt there are many Hyles graduates who have overcome these pitfalls. This blog (and this blogger) has been blessed to make the acquaintance via the internet of many a reformed Hylot. By no means do I say that all graduates of Hyles-Anderson struggle with morality.

But some do. “Some” might be an understatement. My experience in this, having grown up under a Hyles pastor, in a Hyles-type church, with a Hyles-type philosophy, would certainly lead me to believe that we are not dealing with isolated incidents of individual indecencies. We have an epidemic, a shameful epidemic. And this pandemic has, at times, caused me to wonder if the atmosphere of Hyles-Anderson isn’t a breeding ground for this sort of thing.

And how? How do the environs of Hyles-Anderson College produce such a plethora of moral basket cases? In dealing with the pain and heartache of this issue, I have attempted to come to an understanding, to give an answer. I’m not sure that I have the right answer, but in this post, I hope to start the conversation towards one.

But before I start, I should point out that the moral scandals that still swirl around the name of Hyles is not simply a matter of “normal human weakness.” The stories that have come out of that place would be shameful in most quarters. Some of these stories would be enough to make a Corinthian blush. We are not here discussing “lapses in judgement.” We are addressing a particularly gruesome set of perversions. Why does it seem that the behavior of some Hylots goes beyond anything even snickered about in the dorm down at Aphrodite U?

Moral slackness does not come out of the void. Moral laxness is more than a mere “character flaw,” especially where “Preachers of the Gospel” are concerned. Contrary to what Hyles taught, men do not fall hard because they were running hard. Rather, as the Bible says, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Moral problems stem from theological problems. Read the rest of this entry →

For a case-study on Jack Hyles, someone who reasonably cares about Scripture can open just about any of his books to find numerous theological errors. In 1993 he published Enemies of Soulwinning (Read it here; can’t buy it here). This book alone is worth my three remaining posts for the month (but I’ll only do two).   It is a cesspool of false teaching.  Like anything else of Hyles and as is the nature of a counterfeit, you’ll find some truth in what he writes.  However, I’m going to point out some of the error in this book to reveal to you the problems with Jack Hyles. He deviates from God’s Word to the extent that this book itself is ironically an enemy of Scriptural evangelism.   Since Schaap doesn’t separate himself from or retract any of the Hyles teaching, he and Hyles both are enemies of actual soulwinning.

Statistics

As is often the case, a book by Hyles starts with some startling statistics.

This church has a membership of over 100,000 and has averaged over 23,000 conversions and 8,000 baptisms per year for the past 6 years.

They have a membership of 100,000. How many attended weekly in 1993? In our church, we discipline out members who do not attend. 23,000 conversions over six years equals 138,000 “conversions.” These weren’t professions, according to Hyles. These were conversions, that is, they had a life-changing, genuine salvation experience. And yet only 8,000 were baptized a year out of those “conversions.” 138,000 “converted.” 48,000 “baptized.” They weren’t counted in Acts 2 until they were baptized. 90,000 “converts” weren’t baptized at First Baptist Church of Hammond.

Some might say, “At least they got saved.” First, we don’t have a category of saved people in the New Testament who didn’t follow the Lord in believer’s baptism. Second, Scripture indicates that people who discontinue fellowship with a true New Testament church do so because they were never saved in the first place. 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Not getting baptized and not continuing a part of the church both are manifestations of a lack of conversion. These statistics tell the tale of Hylesology. He was proud of them when he should have been ashamed.

Lordship Salvation

Hyles writes:

Exactly what do we mean when we say, “Lordship Salvation”? We are talking about the false doctrine that says that in order for a person to be saved, he must make Jesus the Lord of his life.

I’ve read no one who claims to believe Lordship Salvation who says that this means a person “must make Jesus the Lord of his life.” He is Lord. No one “makes Him Lord,” even if he believes that He is Lord. Receiving Jesus Christ as Lord is not “making Him Lord.” At least two aspects of our salvation relate to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. First, the Jesus Christ of the Bible is Lord. To receive the Jesus of the Bible, we must recognize Who He is (a knowledge of Jesus Christ, 2 Peter 2:20, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”). Second, when we receive Jesus Christ, we turn from our way to His way (John 14:6) to follow Him (John 10:27). Allegiance to Jesus Christ requires the relinquishing of our will to Him. This is not a work, even as 1 Corinthians 12:3 says,

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Hyles must separate salvation from Lordship because it would not fit with his easy-prayer methodology that produced the above fraudulent statistics.

Jack Hyles is an enemy of soulwinning by separating Lordship from salvation. 110 times in Acts Jesus is called Lord and twice He is called Savior. In Romans forty-four times He is called Lord and zero times Savior. Lordship was the emphasis of soulwinning for the apostles. Later in Hyles’ presentation he exclaims:

On that special Sunday, 5195 people walked the aisles of the First Baptist Church of Hammond receiving Christ as Saviour!

If you attempt to find one place where the Bible says, “receive Christ as Saviour,” you won’t find it. So many want a Jesus Who is their Saviour, but not their Lord. Lordship should be included in every gospel presentation. A major reason for Hyles’ outlandish and deceptive statistics is his purposeful exclusion of Christ’s Lordship.

Worship

Hyles makes this statement about worship in a chapter he entitles “Formal Worship is the Enemy of Soulwinning:”

Worship in the Bible Was an Individual Act. There is not one single mention of a worship service in the New Testament. There is not one single command or even an implication to the church to have a public worship service. Worship was a private matter.

Hyles says “formal worship,” then he proceeds to deal with worship period. His premise here clashes with what Jesus says about His soulwinning in John 4:23, 24:

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

He places worship right at the center of a soul won. Hyles wouldn’t approve of this. In so doing, he makes Jesus an enemy of what he calls soulwinning.

Another point Hyles is defending is that the assemblies of the church aren’t for worship. However, worship isn’t only “private.” Hyles lists a number of passages from the Old Testament where individuals worship, but he leaves out 2 Chronicles 29:28,

And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.

Neither does He include Revelation 7:11,

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God.

Nor Revelation 11:16,

And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God.

Public singing is worship. Psalm 66:4,

All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name.

We see congregational singing as worship in Hebrews 2:12,

I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

This fits well with Hebrews 13:15,

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Worship is corporate as well as individual. Most of the psalms were written for congregational worship. The purpose of conversion itself, according to John 4:23, 24 is worship.

Why does Hyles say that worship is an enemy of soulwinning? He answers that when he wraps up this chapter:

When formal worship is substituted for the real purpose of the assembly, Christians do not get strengthened, encouraged, exhorted or motivated to do the main task of the church, and that is to carry out the Great Commission, which is soul winning. To that end, formal worship becomes an enemy of soul winning!

He doesn’t see worship as providing motivation for soulwinning. The Great Commission is found in the only imperative in Matthew 28:19, 20—”teach (matheteuo—”make disciples”) all nations.” The Great Commission is Make Disciples, that is, in essence, Make True Worshipers of God. The worship of God throughout the world is the primary reason for evangelism.

At the root of Hyles’ problems in doctrine are his dependence on pragmatism.  He perverts Scripture to reach his desired end, a personal opinion of success.  He influences others who are lured into the same syndrome, seeking the applause of men, even if it is in the small pond in which they swim.  Pragmatism rates as a philosophy about which Paul warns in Colossians 2:8:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

His pragmatic methodology reaches to pragmatic ends, resulting in corrupt doctrine which spoils men—in Hyles’ case, many, many men.

Baptist City – here’s a friendly site named for the complex of buildings where Hammond Baptist Schools was located along with other housing.

First Baptist Church Hammond – the official website of the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana

Hyles-Anderson College – the official website of Hyles-Anderson College

Jack Hyles website — a friendly website with booklists and some of Jack Hyles’ sermons available

Way of Life Articles:

• Beware of Hyles Worship
• I Am of Jack
• Hyles Supporters are Blind Followers

Hard Preaching’s Hall of Shame

The Baptist Contender

Steven L. Anderson’s expose of The Divine Intimacy