Home > Jack Schaap, Mallinak > What You Find Beneath Peach Trees

What You Find Beneath Peach Trees

October 5, 2007

Recently, there has been a great hullabaloo about Jack Schaap, especially with the publishing of his book Marriage: Divine Intimacy. What has been most interesting to me is the vocal criticisms coming from those who are firmly rooted in the Hyles camp. Some of Schaap’s most vocal critics are men like Tom Neal of Baptist Contender fame, Greg Neal his son, and Stephen Anderson, creator and maintainer of “The Repentance Blacklist,” (Please! Please! Please! Put me on your list). We find this fascinating (and entertaining) for several reasons.

First, we wonder exactly what they were expecting? When you see apples rotting on the ground under a tree, you wouldn’t think it was a peach tree. When you see pigeon scat covering the ground, you don’t look up expecting to see an eagle’s nest. Jack Schaap is a Hyles-Anderson thoroughbred. He learned all he knows from his father-in-law. He is following in Jack Hyles footsteps.

And that brings us to the second thing: why don’t you like him? Why don’t the Hyles Homers like Schaap? They imitate Hyles. He imitates Hyles. They want to be Hyles. He wants to be Hyles. They have a Buddha. He has a Buddha. So, what’s the big deal?

Imitation takes on two different forms… the parrot and the copy-cat. The parrot simply repeats all it has been taught to say. The copy-cat imitates in a different way. The copy-cat mimics the way things were said. The difference between the Hylots crying out against Schaap and Schaap himself is the difference between a parrot and a copycat. In this case, the parrots charge that the copycat isn’t a true imitation.

The list of men on Neal’s side (Anderson, Holloway, McSpadden, Turner, etc.) parrot Jack Hyles with every opportunity. To them, that is the only “faithful” imitation. But Jack Schaap imitates Hyles in a different way. They repeat his words, but Schaap mimics his actions, his modus operandi. Because this is the way Jack Hyles operated.

A pastor friend of mine once told me of a time he attended a pastor’s fellowship at which Jack Hyles was a speaker. This pastor friend related that when it came time for lunch, a curious thing happened. The pastors all gathered around at one or two tables and started eating and enjoying fellowship. But not Hyles. Hyles got his lunch, and sat at a remote table by himself. Soon, one pastor noticed that Hyles was off alone, and this pastor moved over to be with Jack. Interestingly, before long, the majority of these men moved their collective selves over to Jack’s table. The meaning of this was not lost on my pastor friend.

Jack Hyles always was about getting his own following. Hyles preached many things that, shall we say, stretched the text. Whenever some poor preacher pointed that out, men like Neal, Anderson, et al would conduct a crucifixion. It was wrong to say anything about Jack Hyles. But now, they have no problem conducting a scorched earth policy against Jack Schaap. Their justification? He’s preaching heresy. Hmmmmmmm…

But Schaap, in my not so humble opinion, preaches heresy for the same reason Hyles did. Sure, he twists a different set of texts than Hyles did. But he does not bend texts for the sake of bending texts. Rather, he does this to force us to make a choice about him. Are we with him, or are we against him. Which one? Make your choice. Take your stand. Fall to the right of him, fall to the left of him, or stand with him. Those are your choices.

The problem with Hylesology is and always has been a problem of idolatry. And on that note, Hyles and Schaap are two peas in a pod. Pigeon and Scat. Apple trees and apples. Cat and copycat. Hyles wanted godlike status, and men like Neal gave it to him. Now, Schaap wants godlike status. In order to achieve this, he must come up with his own word, and that word must be unique, unlike any other. He must say things that nobody else says. So, he does.

Let’s face it… the Hylots have never been about integrity or faithfulness to the word of God. So, when men like Neal and others start charging Schaap with heresy, we should be suspicious that they have something else in mind.

Advertisements
Categories: Jack Schaap, Mallinak
  1. October 6, 2007 at 7:55 am

    This nailed the Schaap/Hyles/Hyles follower phenomenon. Nice expose.

  2. October 6, 2007 at 8:00 am

    I looked at that repentance blacklist for the first time. I see a bunch of Hyles guys on the list too and then Billy Graham. You know Billy Graham, the mighty teacher of repentance. That’s a strange eclectic list with my good friend Gary Webb and then those other guys.

  3. October 6, 2007 at 8:42 am

    I’ve added some links, for your amusement/entertainment/enlightenment. I only regret that I have yet to see my name on the black list. Maybe I should follow Bobby Mitchell’s lead and e-mail him a quote so I can get my name put up. Course, Bobby’s not up yet either.

    Man-o-man… what’s a fellow supposed to do when he wants on the blacklist?

  4. October 6, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Brother Dave,

    I really wish I had said what you said in this post. You are “right on”, particularly when it comes to idolatry and self-worship

  5. October 7, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Wow, I just clicked on the url for repentance blacklist. No wonder! The person who put the website together is a die-hard Hyles graduate – who thinks repentance is a work, who believes in 1-2-3 pray after me salvation, who will lead someone to the Lord who professes to not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection, including Jesus’ resurrection (Anderson witnessed to my sister’s neighbour, and she listened to their whole conversation, and this was what literally transpired – until the next door neighbour refused to get baptized in Anderson’s church when told what baptism pictured!! – he was her family’s pastor for a few months, until they realize what was wrong with his doctrine). He also states on his website and various discussion mailing lists that he believes his Bible is Jesus, that all the fundamentalists of the faith were out to lunch because they believed something different about repentance, that a homosexual can never be saved (sermon on his church site about this – contrary to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), plus various other quirky doctrines!

    Maybe I should say hi to him again and re-send him the link to my website, then maybe I would join his list of (mostly) sound defenders of the faith…

    Good thing this is a blog and not a message board, or Anderson would have spammed it to death, like the various message boards he has continually spammed until we banned him. (I am a Mod/Admin on various boards.) Not that I want to make you sick, but if you are really bored and want someone to be annoyed at, go check out the articles and sermons on his church site, and see how wacky they are. I am glad my sister and her family escaped his cultic influence!

  6. October 8, 2007 at 8:37 am

    Thanks, Jerry.

    By the way, it is interesting to note that Anderson rejects the “work” of repentance in favor of the “work” of belief.

    If you check, you will note that “belief” is a work in the same sense as “repentance.” Both are something that you do (which would make them a work), and both are distinct and necessary movements of the same “work.” In other words, one who believes repents, and one who repents believes. One who will not repent does not believe, and one who will not believe does not repent. The two are equivalent.

    And both are works of the Holy Spirit, merely responses of men.

    I still like the statement of the old catechisms… “Repentance will not save a man, nor will any man be saved who will not repent.”

    Of course, I’m anxious for Anderson to put me on his “blacklist.” But he probably won’t, since I asked…

  7. October 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    I really must say that I am becoming disappointed in this series on FBCH/Schaap/Hyles. Bear in mind that I am no supporter of them. However, your posts on this subject are naught more than empty rhetoric, logical fallacies, and personal(ad hominem) attacks. If you wish to actually make an appealing argument rather than one designed to inflame emotionally, you need to be logical, concise, and back up your statements with Scripture. Thus far I’ve not seen that. Hopefully we will get to this.

  8. Bobby Mitchell
    October 10, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    I have an email from Anderson in which he committed to adding me to the list. That was almost a week ago. He has not followed through yet. I hope that he is a man of his word.

  9. October 10, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    I know that I am on his list – at least in thought, if not in actuality. In my few phone conversations with him – and in my sister’s many conversations with him and his wife – he likened me to Cloud and Spurgeon (what a compliment – not that I preach like them, but that I believe the same thing about salvation – ie. how to be saved), and went on and on about how I taught a works-based salvation and was all messed up. Of course, he denied ever doing “1-2-3 pray after me” in his soul winning – but the proof is in the pudding.

  10. October 10, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Jerry,

    That’s funny because I only had one phone conversation with you, and it was all positive. Also, your sister went from my church to another church pastored by a Hyles-Anderson grad (which I am not, by the way) who also believes the same way I do, which is salvation by faith alone. Her current pastor doesn’t teach that repenting of your sins is necessary for salvation. Maybe you’d better rescue her from that one, too, and then you can make up lying stories about that pastor, too.

    Sincerely,

    Pastor Steven L Anderson
    Faithful Word Baptist Church

  11. October 11, 2007 at 5:44 am

    If we’re not supposed to repent from our sins, then why do we tell people that they are sinners in need of a Savior?

    Will Rogers

  12. October 11, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Will,

    I’m sorry that I’m disappointing you, and at the same time I’m a little confused about what you are wanting from us.

    When we started this series, we started under the assumption that most of our readers are already familiar with Jack Hyles and all of the issues surrounding his ministry. The internet is quite full of material on him. So, we determined to put links in place so that people could come up to speed if they were unaware, but we also decided not to attempt to deal with things that others have already addressed (and I would add, more than adequately dealt with).

    Our goal here is to try to make sense of the current controversies surrounding Hyles and Schaap, and to give, I guess, our own unique perspective on it.

    As far as logical fallacies, I would need you to give me some examples of what you are disappointed with. As far as ad hominem attacks, well…

    I’ll admit to using these. But I would also say that there is a time for such things. And in the case of Hyles and Schaap, now is as good a time as any.

    Unfortunately, we tend to treat ad hominem as transgression of God’s law. Certainly, there are times when ad hominem violates God’s law. And there are other times when such attacks are good and necessary (Matt 23, for one).

    Hey, I appreciate your coming over here, Will. I’ve read enough of your stuff to know that you care about this issue. I want to be clear what our goals are… and I also want people to know that we aren’t attempting to say what has already been said very effectively in other places.

    I hope that helps answer your concerns, Will.

  13. October 11, 2007 at 9:06 am

    Stephen,

    I just checked your list again, and I’m… well… I’m crushed. What must I do to get my name on your list?

    I think it is unfair that you haven’t put me up yet. But I’m not bitter. Yet.

  14. October 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Anderson, well, one phone call or several – add that to the various emails, plus discussions on various discussion boards and email lists, and I have lost count. It really doesn’t matter. I have had enough contact with you personally, through my sister, and through your website/sermons to know what you believe – and it is not Biblical. Nothing in my post about you is lies – anyone can go to your website and listen to your sermons and read your articles for themselves.

    From what I can tell through talking with my sister, her new pastor is nothing like you. But thanks for the heads up – I will be listening to anything she says a little more critically, just in case he takes after you.

  15. October 11, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    It seems that they (Hyles and/or Hutson) have redefined repentance to mean “penance.” Because we wouldn’t go for Salvation based on “penance” neither. Another thing is that it seems that they have also reduced repentance to deal exclusively about “belief.” Hence from unbelief to belief. Which is true. But none of these definitions fit a genuine Bible based definition of repentance. And that repentance blacklist should include a boat load of good men (and yes, even the honorable, squire of logic, Pastor Mallinak) including our Lord Jesus Christ for he certainly called sinners to repentance (e.g. Luke 5:32).

  16. October 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Jerry,

    This is the only email I have ever received from you so I’m not sure why you’re having trouble keeping track. 1 phone call and 1 email = 2.

    Here it is:

    Steven, I just finished listening to your message on Hebrews 10. Good stuff! It opened up that chapter to me a bit more than I understood before. Looking forward to hearing the rest of the book (12 and 13). Do you have notes typed up on chapter 11? I listened to those first nine minutes – would really have loved to hear the rest of it (but would settle for reading any notes you may have).

    I have to say that the more Hebrews opens up to me, the more it is becoming one of my favourite books! So rich for preaching Christ! I especially love that part of chapter 10 that quotes Psalm 40 – also studying out the bondservant and the piercing of his ear adds so much depth to that passage. In the volume of the book it is written of me (Christ) – that is why I love the Scriptures – they are all about Jesus!

    Did I ever email you the couple of devotions I had (from Mcgee and others) on the bondservant in Exodus 21? I could look for it if I didn’t send it to you yet.

    I also appreciated the explanation of the use of the word conscience in the start of chapter 10 – now that part makes sense (I knew what the root words meant, but had never thought it through in this context).

    I liked your preaching of the book of Hebrews (you made a few mistakes – but hey, that’s why we have our own Bibles – and also none of us have arrived yet, so I am sure I would make way more mistakes if I ever tackled that type of message). What I appreciated about it was the continuity – and the emphasis on certain parts as you were reading it – something you would not get from just listening to that chapter on tape, for example. Please don’t take this the wrong way – I am not used to your manner of preaching yet – you preach like they preach down South in the US! Of course that is where you are – so I am not used to that style of preaching yet. A little bit of culture shock, I guess. When we had some southern preachers in my church shortly after I started attending there, I was put off by their styles – and someone said to me that I was accountable to the message, not the style – so make sure I critique what is being said, not how it was said, not the person’s personality, but the Word of God. The Lord has made each of us unique, different from one another – but His Word is the same. He will use our different personalities and perspectives in our preaching, as long as we are true to His Word. That is what is important – and obviously if you are reaching Mr. McCoy, then praise the Lord for your style of preaching that made an impact in my sister’s home!!

    Looking forward to hearing more of your messages. Are you limited by the amount of space on your website? Seems to me that each sermon of 10 or more MBs would take up a lot of space and use it up quickly. Just wondering if you would eventually have to remove some of the older ones, or what you would do in that case? If you had to remove older ones, maybe you could consider putting some up on SermonAudio – though I am not sure if someone has to pay to have them on there – I know you can listen to them for free.

    Oh, it is getting late. Good night and God bless.
    In Jesus’ precious name, Jerry (Gerald) Bouey.
    http://www.earnestlycontending.com
    Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God. Isaiah 40:1.

  17. October 17, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Well, I am sure not everyone here is interested in your copy/pasting that email (one of my first contacts with you before I learned of your various doctrines). Who cares how many personal phone calls or personal emails I had with you? I stated in one of my earlier replies here that I had also had various interactions with you through several message boards and through email discussion groups – so if I lost track of how much of each specifically there was, I am sure others here would excuse me. This post on Jackhammer isn’t all about you – so let’s not make the replies all about you either. Thanks.

  18. Brett
    October 18, 2007 at 11:37 am

    I was just wondering why you don’t see the difference between Schaap and Dr. Hyles. I am not a Hyles-Anderson grad, but my preacher is (Pastor McSpadden). I’d like to know where you see all of this so-called heresy in Dr. Hyles. Anyways… It makes me want to vomit seeing that you can run two of my preacher’s (I attend the Dr. Tom Neal’s college) names through the dirt by comparing them to schaap. The last time i checked, neither had preached the kind of blatant perversion of the Lord’s Supper like he has…

  19. October 18, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Brett, why not just read what they wrote. We’re going to bow before God in the end, not any of these men. We are going to be judged by His Words, just like everyone else. Why not check it out based on Scripture. That’s what we did. It’s not like this is a group of guys that are unfamiliar. We have given them the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, they’ve been worse than what we have written. We haven’t even gotten into their own personal lives. I’ve kept it to the doctrine alone. You are vomiting at what? I spent two posts looking at false doctrine, proving it wrong. Rather than vomiting, which does nothing, why not go to the Bible to show that your guys are actually right? Come on Brett!!

  20. April 1, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    That Jerry Bouey is such a liar! If the rest of you want to know how Steve Anderson wins souls, then read the essay on his website or watch The Basic Soul Winning Demonstration on youtube.

  21. April 1, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Raani,

    I suppose anyone could come on here and say, “that Raani Starnes is such a liar!” Why should we believe you?

    I know enough of Jerry to know that your accusation is without merit.

    The video was very interesting (anyone who wants to see it can click on Raani’s name and scroll down until you find it posted). Here are some casual observations:

    1) The man who got “saved” ironically never happened to notice the camera that was in place to videotape the whole thing.

    2) The same man not only knew all the right answers and agreed with every jot and tittle of what Anderson said, but he also demonstrated that he already believed these things. Which causes one to pause and say, “was he already saved?”

    3) There was nothing spectacular in this presentation. I personally have seen this exact same presentation re-enacted many, many times almost word-for-word in Hyles-type soul winning courses. Even the illustrations were done verbatim.

    4) There was not one thing in this entire presentation that a Mormon would not whole-heartedly endorse and applaud. They would even gladly pray the prayer at the end. And when finished, they would add that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ. And since Mr. Anderson does not believe repentance to be necessary, he could still count them on his soul-winning report!

    5) If any condemned sinner went through that entire schpeel and prayed the “prayer” at the end, there is a high probably that they would remain dead in their trespasses and sins, clinging to a false hope.

  22. bobby
    April 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    So, if saying the magical words in the right order (the prayer) saves one, did Anderson get saved at this time since he said them too? This stuff is a curse on true evangelism. Folks are being made “two-fold more the child of hell” by people like Anderson

  23. April 3, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    1. It was a “demonstration”, so the actors in the video did not acknowledge the camera. Duh!

    2. The person who answered the door said at the beginning that he would go to Heaven because he was a pretty good person, therefore he did not know salvation was a free gift. Does that sound like a saved person to you? Also, there are many people out there who believe the Gospel when they hear it. I know this because I win souls door-to-door. I am Steve’s sister and have been out soul winning with him, so I can assure you that the scenario in the video was very realistic.

    3. Others use this same method because it works, and nobody said it was a new method–just a great method. My pastor is a Hyles grad and the people in my church win souls the same way. AMEN!

    4. No, a Mormon would not have agreed with everything. The person who answered the door was not a Mormon, but said he attended Grace Community Church, so he did not need to hear a sermon against Mormonism, anyway. Remember, it is called a BASIC soul winning demonstration. In some cases, more time is needed.

    5. The presentation was very clear, so the person would not have been given a “false hope”. That person would know in his own heart whether he believed the Gospel or not. Most people are going to hell anyway, so we are not hurting them by telling them how to get saved!

    I can’t believe any saved person would be opposed to the Gospel being preached from house to house!

  24. bobby
    April 4, 2008 at 7:23 am

    “I can’t believe any saved person would be opposed to the Gospel being preached from house to house!”

    How I wish that was what S. Anderson was doing! However, what he is preaching is what the Apostle Paul labeled “ANOTHER GOSPEL.”

    By the way, you should check out Paul’s soulwinning in the last chapter of Acts where he is seen dealing with the Jewish leaders in Rome. Big differences between his “technique” and Anderson’s.

  25. February 14, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Because of the new comment posted, I am visiting this thread again. It is interesting to see that Steve Anderson’s supposed “sister”, Raani, states he was a Hyles graduate, while he himself denies it in his comments earlier on this page. Typical of many in these endtimes – state something when it is convenient and gives support to your positions, deny it when others disagree – kind of like a chameleon…

  1. February 13, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: