Home > Jack Schaap, Mallinak > Slouching Towards Corinth (of Jacks, Hyles and Schaap)

Slouching Towards Corinth (of Jacks, Hyles and Schaap)

October 12, 2007

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.

The church at Corinth had a famous litany of failures. And those failures started with their fetish for great men. Twice in 1 Corinthians, Paul addressed this issue (in chapter 1 and again in chapter 3). In chapter 4 of 1 Corinthians, Paul summarizes the problem with a pointed instruction to the Corinthian people: that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 115:8; 135:18; Isaiah 44:9-11). When we worship men; when we worship the flesh: we become fleshly. Though they are not without rivals, the Hyles/Schaap world certainly has set the standard of promoting the wood, hay, and stubble of a flesh-centered ministry.

One could cite many examples of this flesh-oriented work, whether it be “Pentecost Sunday,” on which some 5,000 “converts” were baptized, or the daily routine of standing ovations given in chapel, or the fevered frenzy whenever Hyles (and now Schaap) entered (and enter) the chapel. One could point out the lusty way one went about finding a spouse, or the way the young ladies marketed themselves to the boys. One could mention the “Amen section,” which was always more about the one “Amening” than the Word being “Amened.” Or one could name the “ladies’ nights” with Jack. Hyles-Anderson was and is saturated with the flesh.

The Practical Theology of the ministry there comes from somewhere, and it should be obvious to us that Practical Theology grows out of the fruits of exegesis… Systematic Theology. Systematically, the teaching and preaching at Hyles-Anderson has always elevated the flesh, has always put undue faith and undue power in and on the flesh. Examples of this are many-fold. Hyles teaching on prayer emphasized man and man’s power to “motivate” God. Hyles preached that God needs our flesh. Hyles taught that to be human is to be perfect, that sinning is not human and doing wrong is not human, but that doing right is human because Jesus is the human of the Godhead. Hyles said,

But God is also helpless in doing his work without man. You cannot do God’s work without God and God cannot do his work without man. Either element left to itself will fail. Humanity is helpless without deity, and deity is helpless in the work of redemption without humanity. That is why in the Trinity there has always been a God-man. Jesus did not become the God-man when he came to earth, he has always been the God-man. There has always been a member of the deity that has been the God-man. Not sinful flesh, but God man. If I were God’s pastor, I would remind him of his need for man in doing God’s work. I am your pastor, I remind you of your need for God. But if I were God’s pastor, I would say… “Now God, remember you need man.”

From “The Helpless God,” a message preached by Dr. Jack Hyles

There we have it. Practical Theology plays out from Theology proper. A theology of the flesh resolves itself into a ministry of the flesh.

And thus, the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these…

Wherever one glories in his flesh, the works of the flesh will be manifest. The flesh is an evil beast, in desperate need of a crucifixion on a daily basis. Those that are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8). For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. The flesh lusts against the Spirit. The Spirit lusts against the flesh. And so, we are told, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. We could also imply the inverse of this… when we fulfill the lusts of the flesh, we are not walking in the Spirit.

It is no accident that the book of 1 Corinthians begins by addressing the man-centeredness of that church, and immediately follows that up by saying, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you… and ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned.”

Of course, the Hyles Apologists resort to arguments from ignorance. I would remind them of Paul’s testimony on this: “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed.”

But I digress.

Ironically, the final problem addressed by the Apostle Paul concerned the misuse (and misapplication) of the Lord’s Supper. Interesting. Incidental. Perhaps.

Do we see a pattern here? Paul begins the book of 1 Corinthians by reminding the Corinthians that the power of the Gospel, not the charisma of the preacher, was their salvation. Maybe their confusion started at that sticking point. And maybe that is why Paul said,

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

When it begins in the flesh, it advances in the flesh, and grows decadent in the flesh.

In his poem “The Second Coming,” written in 1919, William Butler Yeats wrote of a moral decadence that would afflict the twentieth century:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
(Emphasis mine)

Commenting on this poem in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert Bork said, “The rough beast of decadence, a long time in gestation, having reached its maturity in the last three decades, now sends us slouching towards our new home, not Bethlehem but Gomorrah.”

Perhaps. Or maybe somewhere in between. Like, say, Corinth.

Categories: Jack Schaap, Mallinak
  1. Level Headed
    October 12, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    I wonder how many of your people are addicted to pornography.

    • Leroy
      April 12, 2016 at 9:01 am

      So if many of his people are then what he said is not true? Is that your meaning? If it is then, many people do not believe the Bible, so I guess the Bible is not true?

  2. Cathy
    October 12, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Would you say that because JH theology is all wrong (repentence, man worship, fleshy influence), that could possibly have enabled him to be morally weakened to the point it impacted his life, testimony, reputation negatively?

  3. October 13, 2007 at 4:57 am

    Hey, I remember “Pentecost Sunday.” But if you think about it, not only did they “beat” Pentecost with two thousand more baptized, they also at the same day fed the five thousand (I had heard the treat on the buses were “hotdogs” – I asked someone who was an eye-witness to the event, so I think I know). But that did not get noticed. Maybe, the feeding isn’t as sensational as Pentecost, I don’t know.

  4. October 13, 2007 at 7:10 am

    Hmmm…interesting thoughts here.

  5. T. Ross
    October 13, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    The biggest problem, it seems to me, is stated in Galatians 1:8-9: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you that that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Very many of them are unconverted. If they deal with their own church children like they do with the bus kids, a very high percentage of the membership of their church are lost. So they commit immorality because they are still the children of hell.

  6. October 13, 2007 at 4:07 pm

    Wow—tell us how you really feel! 😉

    Actually, you are courageous to post something of this nature about that sect of hyper-fundamentalism. I would like to add that during my time as a HAC student majoring in Pastoral Studies I was never required to read ANY systematic theology references. This is a major part of the problem—they seem to eschew systematic and expository teaching/preaching and thus there is not a clear theological baseline from which to operate from.


  7. Dave Mallinak
    October 13, 2007 at 8:48 pm

    First, T. (I assume Thomas),

    While you are right that this church might have a high percentage of unconverted church members, I would like to hear from you how this leads to a large amount of perversion. On this, I should be clear that the kinds of immorality that I’m speaking of are of a more serious nature than mere fornication/adultery. I’m speaking of sexual sins that are not common amongst unsaved people. And I would like to hear more on why you think that a large number of unconverted church members would affect things in THAT way.

    And then, Josh…

    When I was a student at HAC, I once ventured to the “library.” At that time, students could not simply browse through the books. Rather, one needed to go through the card catalogue, hand a card to the lady sitting behind the door (which was one of those half-doors, open at the top), and she would get you the book.

    Since the shelves were inaccessible to me as a student, I can only go by what I found in the card catalogue… but my impression was that the only books to be found in the “library” were written by Jack Hyles, John Rice, or Bob Jones, Sr. I found very little of anything else.

    So, it wasn’t simply in class that theology was avoided.

    I will say that I had one Bible teacher who openly encouraged us to dig into our Bibles for answers… and that was Brad Strand. Not sure whatever happened to him.

    • Chris
      July 3, 2013 at 10:27 am

      Don’t toot Strand’s horn too fast. This guy tried to have an affair with a woman in his church down in Texas and when it came out, he denied everything. Swept under the rug nice & quiet, thanks to Jerry Scott, another HAC grad.

  8. October 14, 2007 at 8:03 am


    Indeed. Ironically, Strand is no longer at Hyles-Anderson! I believe that he pastors a church in TX now. I actually was in elementary school with his kids while at HB.

    And you are right that theology was not only avoided in class—there is an overall “dumbed-down” atmosphere which finds even historic fundamentalism to be “liberal” and thus not worth studying. The only fundamentalists in their eyes are Hyles, Schaap, and any of their associates.

    B.B. Warfield?—isn’t he some blues entertainer? 😉

  9. Jim Davis
    October 22, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    How many of the ladies nights did you attend? Were you lusting after the college women or just wishing you could be one.

  10. Jenny Davis
    October 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    First of all I would like to say that PASTORS need to stop criticizing other PASTORS. Doesn’t the Bible tell us that we are not to talk bad against the man of God? I was a graduate of Hyles Anderson after graduating from Hammond Baptist. I was a member of First Baptist for 32 years before moving. Dr. Hyles was not only a great man of God, but he was my preacher and my friend. I attended every girls night for the 4 years that I attended Hyles Anderson. They were fun! To most of us, Dr. Hyles was a father and even a grandfather image. He gave us encouragement, candy, food, and love. Most of the time his wife was with him. How dare you, that have never been to one of his girls meetings, make it sound like it was nothing more than a sexual party. Just keep criticizing him. As I recall, one of the last people to criticize Dr. Hyles became blind….What’s in store for you? I would also like to make a comment to the “Lady” that slapped the table when Dr. Hyles died and said.”Now he knows who God really is”..he knew his God long before he left this earth, it’s you who should be checking YOUR salvation. I can’t wait to hear God say to Dr. Hyles “Well done thou good and faithful servant”…What’s he going to say to you?

  11. October 25, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Doesn’t the Bible tell us that we are not to talk bad against the man of God?

    Sorry Jenny, Galatians tells us that when Peter did wrong, Paul went to him and told him he was wrong. Now before you start asking whether we’ve gone to Jacks ourselves about this, make sure you realize that Paul was speaking to a lot of people in the Galatian churches, not Peter. He was “talking bad” about Peter. The good thing is that Peter accepted the rebuke and changed his ways.

  12. Defender of the Faith
    October 25, 2007 at 4:09 pm


    I presume you are speaking of Galatians chapter one. How does that reference prove that Dr. Hyles perverted the Gospel?

  13. October 25, 2007 at 8:01 pm


    No, I was not speaking of Galatians one. I was referring to Galatians two, where Paul tells the Galatian churches about Peter’s wrong behavior.

    Paul, in that instance, “talked bad” about the man of God.

  14. October 26, 2007 at 7:09 am

    From a complete outsider’s viewpoint……. I just can’t believe that any sane adult could think the whole idea of ‘girl’s night’ with the pastor is even remotely a good idea. Why not girls’ night with the pastor’s wife, or with a female staff person? C’mon….a bunch of college-aged girls hanging out with the middle-aged pastor for candy & love. Hello!!!!! This is common sense calling!

    Jenny, I don’t know what your situation is but are you married? Would you think it was a good idea for your husband to go hang out with a bunch of college girls en masse–especially without you there? I just can’t fathom anyone not raising an eyebrow at this.

    Also, what is this ‘man of God’ stuff? Any man who is following the Lord is a ‘man of God’. This pastor as supreme, untouchable, head of the church stuff is getting pretty wacky. I started looking at this honestly about a year ago and I think we have started to treat the pastor like the catholics treat their priests……minus the funky wardrobe and headdress, of course.

    The head of the body, the church, is Jesus. None other. The pastor is part of the body. He is gifted as a pastor (in theory-although I’ve seen many who hold the position who aren’t, unfortunately), just as another man of God in the church might be gifted as one who shows mercy, a giver, or an encourager. I believe there are generally many within the local body who are gifted as pastor/teachers. Oh, oh. I’m on my soapbox again…Sorry….I sometimes just can’t help wandering down that road….

  15. October 26, 2007 at 7:35 am


    At the risk of sounding “chauvinistic” and “woman-hating”, where does the Bible give women the right to publicly call down pastors in a forum like this?

    Since we’re being Biblical and all…

  16. October 26, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Three things I agree with you on, and some points I think I disagree with you on.
    1. You are right about the “girl’s night out” thing, I think that to be strange, but then again, I was’nt there, I did not enroll in that school, and so, I really don’t know what goes on and the reasoning for such an event. It doesn’t sound like a good idea.
    2. You are right, a pastor should not be treated the way Roman Catholic’s treat their priests. (Assuming you were refering to the RCC).
    3. You are right about a pastor as being part of the body, just as much as any other member is a part.

    Where I think I disagree with you on is that a pastor is to be treated like any regular church member. I think, and you tell me if I am wrong, that a pastor occupies a particular office in the church. In order to occupy that office, he must meet certain qualifications, be ordained, and rule well, among many other things. He is a “ruler.” He is to be obeyed and honored. He is not to lord over the flock, but he is the only man who will give account to the Lord concerning His church.

    Maybe I am not understanding your point of view. I trust you know that the Bible restricts the pastoral office to only qualified men.

  17. Jim
    October 26, 2007 at 10:50 am

    Artie, at the risk of sounding like a chauvinist…give me a break! The last time I checked this is a public forum, not a church. I do agree in a church, the men are to be in leadership and the pastor is to be the leader. In a public forum women have the right to voice their opinion, especially when they believe someone that they love is being wrongfully accused of something they know did not happen. My wife grew up in First Baptist Church her entire life. You have a right to your opinion like everyone else on this site does…but so does she!!! To think otherwise is chauvinistic.

  18. Defender of the Faith
    October 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm


    Paul corrected Peter because he could be corrected. In this instance, slandering him and his ministry in public, wouldn’t help much seeing how IF he was doing wrong in the first place, he could not change because he is dead. Peter wasn’t dead.

  19. October 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    I think the only thing we really disagree on when it comes right down to it is that I think those qualifications are for overseers(elders, bishops–whatever you choose to call them) not one guy in a church. I still don’t get why we pull that ONE gifting out and make it the ‘head guy’. I just don’t see any scriptural backing for that. I think the clergy/laity distinction that we make, even though we don’t call it that, is a very dangerous thing for pastors and ‘their’ flocks. Again, you will find much of my feelings on this in any of my posts on the church on my blog. Mind you, I have nothing against pastors at all. My dad is a retired baptist pastor.

    If you’ve read my other posts on this blog, I believe that being a pastor is a gifting, not an office. Maybe a subtle difference, maybe not. I wish my husband was in on this conversation. He’s a little more succint when it comes to these topics. Unfortunately, he spends 50+ hours a week managing in a tech environment and has no desire to look at the screen of a laptop when he gets home.

    By the way, thank you for being so decent about disagreeing rather than condescending as some are apt to be( and I’m NOT referring to anyone on this site at all—no inferences there). Much appreciated!

    Sorry if I’ve taken this thread off-topic.

  20. October 26, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    Maybe Jackhammer will discuss “The Pastor.” Would’nt that be an interesting topic?

  21. Josh Richards
    October 27, 2007 at 7:00 am

    Jim and all,

    I grew up at FBC as well but have since abandoned the concept that goes like this: since Pastor Hyles did some good things he simply couldn’t be guilty as charged and shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean to insinuate that he was guilty of ALL that he has been charged with over the past twenty-five years.

    Unfortunately, what we are reading now at JackHammer is the legacy of Jack Hyles and his ministry.

  22. October 27, 2007 at 6:12 pm


    I will give you a break. No one said your wife did not have a right to her opinion. I said “calling down”, and that’s what I meant. I’m sorry if that offended you or your wife.

    By the way, the amount of respect that Hyles advocates want for all things Hyles is hardly ever reciprocated.

  23. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 28, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    The accusations on this sight are 95% false!I see no evidence of their claims towards Hyles.I spoke to Dave on the phone and he pretty much agreed with me and my stance on reoentance and the doctrine of salvation.( of course this was after he played antics and semantis)These folks have made a doctrine out of repentance!
    He accused Hyles of teaching repent to mean “turn from unbelief”! I disagreed this claim but agreed to give him the benefit of the doubt and read Hyle’s ” enemies to soul wininning” in case there was an oversightr on my behalf.Then he claimed that Hyles had a woman as a main speaker,……I read that book on the Hyles sight and that is not at all what Hyles was talking about,in fact the only thing he might be quilty of is defining repent too simple(which by the way these folks say your not soppose to define a word with the word,ratherdefine a word with another word,….and theyt accuse me of circlar reasoning.)As far as the other claims.Dave was soppose to send me proof of this,yet I sit here twitling my thombs!….I’m doing the same in regards to that verse….,you know,”JUST ONE VERSE!!!!!!!!!

    What really got me was when they said we were yella ( notice I debated the “except ye repent” and thier false doctrine of repentance! But more importantly NOTICE I said they would RUN,……they found the exit door and for security”HIT THE EJECT BUTTON!”


    I told you I smelt something funny.!

  24. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 28, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    whats this?Hyles playing outside his marriage!?
    Show me proof!!!!But be FAIR,show all the evidence.
    If I’m wrong I’ll gladly confess.

    For all veiwers,this is mainly about the false teaching (dotrine of repentance)
    They claim 30+ verses proves their definition of repent,….which according to them is defined,not by the word itself but by another word. Then they throw in “Roof Salvation”Proving only how fast these guys can make up false doctrine…………..( which by the way,..the verse says “they had faith” Not only does that NOT exclude the guy on the bed but what is FAITH!!!!!!????? Ouh ohhh,BELIEF!!!!

    Guess you better hit the eject button again!!!!!!!!

    Be careful folks,Jesus warned about,Hogs,Dumb Dogs,every unclean bird,wolves in sheeps clothing and all the “HammerJacks”.

    Post this topic,…” How Long Does It Take “HammerJack” to eject God’s Donkey?”??????

  25. November 29, 2007 at 6:00 am

    Wow, Stephen, for a man who maintains several websites, you sure don’t put too much effort into your spelling. Makes your replies a little hard to read…

  26. HammerJacks WhiteListed Donkey
    November 29, 2007 at 7:25 am

    Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

  27. November 29, 2007 at 7:28 am


    I don’t think Christopher Nelson (a.k.a. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey) is Stephen. I may be mistaken, but I think they are two different people. As far as I know, Stephen hasn’t commented here in a while.

  28. November 29, 2007 at 3:10 pm


    I sent you an e-mail about a week ago… to the e-mail address you gave me over the phone. Maybe you didn’t get it.

    What we have said is that you can’t represent the Hyles position in a debate because you don’t know the Hyles position. Before I talked to you, you had never even read it. The fact that you have now read it once does not now make you an expert on it. You are misunderstanding it in your comments on it… that is clear to anyone who is familiar with Hyles.

    If you want to debate me on this, you will need to limit the debate to what YOU believe about repentance, and leave out Hyles. You don’t know Hyles (though that still qualifies you to be a Hylot).

  29. Michael Marshall
    November 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Christopher (AKA Donkey), I am going to break down my position for you in a format I think you can understand.

    Jesus said in John 14:6 “I am the way”. He is the only way, the only RIGHT WAY. In Romans 3:12 Jesus said “they are all gone out of the way”. If we are out of the way, we are all going the WRONG WAY. These verses only have one syllable words, so I think you can follow along. Besides, I wrote them real slow for you. Now this will get really complicated, so I want to use a visual so you can follow along. Ready? You are somewhere in Mexico, on a mountain trail, loaded down with whatever burden you are carrying. Suddenly, you realize you are going the WRONG WAY! Oh my, what is a Donkey to do?!? You decide, because you are such a smart little donkey, that you want to go the RIGHT WAY! Brilliant choice. So Donkey, perk those floppy ears up and listen now, what do you have to DO to start going the RIGHT WAY?

    (long pause while donkey think about it)

    You come to the conclusion that you must TURN from the WRONG WAY to go the RIGHT WAY!!!!!!!!! You are such a smart donkey! Now we are getting really close to an epiphany moment here: The ACT of TURNING is REPENTANCE!

    All of the “things” that people do that are sin, are the physical evidence of their rejection of the law of God and the Spirit of God. They may not be conscious of the fact that they are breaking the Law of God, but they are still doing it. Even in your abuse of John 3:16, when the Lord said “whosoever believeth in him”, the verse and the following ones imply that people do not believe, that means they are going their own WAY, which is the WRONG WAY. Unbelief is a fancy way to say rejection, they have rejected the way of salvation. Their rejection of the RIGHT WAY is manifested in their lives in the form of sin.

    Your challenge is sophistry at it’s finest. I know sophistry is not in the donkey lexicon, but just chew on it for a while. John the Baptist said to the Pharisees and the Sadducees who came to be baptized “bring forth fruits meat for repentance”. This is a verse in the bible Chris and it has that big word repentance in it so let me help you with it. John knew that the best evidence of a true conversion is a changed life, and that is what he was looking for in these men. This is going to get really tricky Chris, so stay focused. Romans 10:9 starts out saying “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus”, and ends with “and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead”. So here you are Chris, faced with the scripture you have been denying your whole life, that something must occur besides belief. Well God said if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. So what is it that we confess? Hmm… Lets try something, lets actually compare scripture with scripture, instead of smack with smack. Luke 18:13 records a man saying “God be merciful to me a sinner”. It is clear from the context of the scripture that he had a repentant attitude toward his sinful life. “He would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven”. Jesus said that this man went down to his house justified Chris. So it becomes clear from these two verses of scripture that what we must confess is that we are a sinner, acknowledging the condemnation that comes with that statement, abandoning every other hope of salvation, and turning from those things to Christ. Now based on your statements about repentance, you are calling the one you claim is your Savior a liar. Actually I should not say that, because I have not yet seen you call him your Lord.

    I know this is boring to you, but its called exegesis. I read it in a book called Exegesis for Donkeys. It’s the biblical way of determining the meaning of scripture. That part in Isaiah about line upon line, precept upon precept, and that verse in Peter about private interpretation, that goes along with line upon line, precept upon precept. And the one in 1 Corinthians 2:13 about comparing spiritual things with spiritual. This is a concept that the moderators of this site get, but you do not. Matter of fact, all you have done since you have been on this site is hurl railing accusations at people, call them liars, dumb dogs, and so on. Speaking lies in hypocrisy against them, all the while offering no substance of your own. All blow and no show, to put it into bit sized syllables you can digest, being a donkey and all.

    When confronted on the phone you feign a mia culpa and then when you can hide behind a keyboard you become a giant in your own mind. You are far more the Philistine of Gath than Baalam’s Ass, spewing out railing accusations, eyes puffed out with fatness, and challenging the servants of God to the battle. Read the rest of the story Goliath, you are on the wrong side of the fight. There is one thing that is clear from all of your folly Chris, repentance is something you are certainly not familiar with.

    MATTHEW 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

  30. November 29, 2007 at 7:00 pm


  31. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    December 1, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Pay attention meat head,your saying the same stuff they said.
    Yes they have rejected God’s salvation…..that don’t prove your definition of repent…..line opon line,…..that also means to define the word your using!….I provided the Greek and Hebrew definition and it isn’t defined as “sin’ or “unbelief”
    You must have missed that along with my acknowledgement of Christ being Lord.And since I’m the only one who has provided the Biblical deffinition for repent that shows I am familar with the word,….I’m not the one who is tring to define it with another word……that called circelar reasoning….no wonder your soo dizzy!
    As for John,the Pharisees and the Saducees…..their lifestyle was in line with the Law…as far as men are concerned.Their rejection wasn’t toward a lifestyle but rather they rejected Christ!
    Romans 10:9 confess then believe……WRONG!You can’t confess unless you believe FIRST!!!!!!They confess with their mouths but their hearts are far from Him.(this is why I agree with the 1-2-3 prayerism concept)
    Luke 18:13 here we have two men who think they have a relationship with God.(they were both on their knees)But it is evident the one who had what appeared a good lifestyle didn’t have a relationship.
    “went down to his house justified”illustrating that it isn’t a lifestyle that saves but a true belief in Christ,his willingness to admitt his sin is evidence of his belief not a condition to his salvation!

    As far as hiding behind a keyboard,we can take this OPEN any time you want

    Kent,”how fast was that calf going”

    Dave,I’ll check my e-mails again.
    Again,the evidence you provided on Hyles don’t match up to your claims likrwise your stance on repent……………NO MISUNDERSTANDING!!!!!!Just cause you say a dogs tail is a leg doesn’t change the fact that a dog only has four legs!

  32. December 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm


    Did you see that I opened up a place for you and I to debate repentance one-on-one? I’ll wait for you there.

  33. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    December 3, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Dave, I’m leaving all other topics to join you in the discussion room.

    I don’t want you to get lonely,and I didn’t know you have been waiting 3 days……I have responded,so no need to wait any longer.

    I promice to refrain and simply reason it out as long as you do the same.

    Fair enough?

  34. January 12, 2008 at 11:35 am

    It also bothers the hammerjacks to see Isaiah the worshipjack spouting silliness and not Bible. Isaiah, I pray that you will one day see the Truth.

  35. January 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    What is your address Isaiah? I would like to meet you personally some day to see if I could help you.

  36. Benjamin Johnson
    January 19, 2008 at 11:30 am

    I was a student at HAC for 3 years from 1974-1977. I found the theology there sound with a strong emphasis on learning and applying the Word of God practically in preaching, teaching Sunday School, and Soul Winning. We were taught Systematic Theology with textbooks (I think Ryrie). Old Testament Survey and New Testament Survey were required for Pastoral Theology majors. We went through the Bible twice in a year. Pastoral Counseling classes were taught from the book of proverbs with textbooks. Church Education classes were taught with textbooks (written by Jack Hyles, evidently if you go to Hyles Anderson then you learn the Hyles way for running a church) The reason I went there was that I had a feeling that God wanted me there. When I first got to the college they put me in a small dorm with nine other students. When I said rather flippently “Who’s the character that put me into a room with nine others?” I was quickly put in my place. “There are no characters here at Hyles-Anderson”. Over the next couple weeks it balanced out with about 6 in a room and then 4. I sat under Mr. George Godfrey who was a great Soul Winner who tried his best to save the ministry. At first, there was an open policy on versions of the Bible. The KJV was preferred (especially the old scofield ref. Bible) but I remember Mr. Jorgenson teaching out of the New American Standard. There were a few hiccoughs though. They celebrated Halloween with costume parties. I was called out in class (Mr. Combs, I was shocked to hear what happened to him, well maybe not too surprised) for trying to compare his teaching with C.I. Scofield. I was told basically that I was to not bring up another fundamental preacher in class or I would have to leave. We had problems with the food and a very limited budget. If we complained about the food we were lectured. During one of the “ladies meetings” Dr. Hyles asked them, “do you like the fresh salads?” We were given Kool-Aid to drink for breakfast lunch and dinner and no fresh vegetables. That was changed pretty fast and they hired a new chef. I met with Jack Hyles a couple of times. I came to him with money problems that I would have to leave the school. He basically told me that I was taller than him and young and I should just try harder and work to get a better job and stay there. He prayed with me. At that point I decided to leave seeing no alternative. Maybe I was looking for a handout. I joined the Air Force. In hind sight, I should not have entered the school because I was not financially ready to. A fellow student had a paid for automobile and sold it and basically paid her whole education with the money (Paula Chism, she ran off with a Navy man, not sure if she graduated). I wish I had that kind of wisdom back then. I had a blind faith that God would take care of the bills. Maybe in this case Dr. Hyles was right. I found certain people like Dr. Helton, Dr. Jorgenson, Mr. Laurent, Mr. Bruce Johnson honorable and godly men. Dr. Evans one time allowed me to stay in the dorms late one night when the guards were going to kick me out for being late on a school payment. I knocked on his door at 11:00 pm and he wrote a note for me. The guards chewed me out for bothering Dr. Evans but had no choice but to allow me to stay. Yes, there was a certain amount of hero worship which goes on today. I met Jack Schaap when he was a student, him and Hyles’s daughter were just starting to date, imagine the pressure!. When the college dorms were overcrouded and we were put up at the Balmoral Inn, I met him and he seemed at the time a level headed and driven young man. I’ve heard his preaching. He seems very firm on issues but I think he majors on minors too much (for some reason a lot of the preachers from there think they have to scream during preaching to get their point across). I also met John R. Rice. His preaching I found refreshing and wise. I see no problem with having his books in the library. When I was there the library was open, maybe they had a problem with books not being returned. They had many works from many different preachers, Ironside, Pulpit commentary, Finney, Pentecost, Moody, Spurgeon. The rules were tight, somewhat excessive. I think that if a boy and a girl wanted to get alone they could and if caught would have to leave. This was a winnowing process to keep the best there. One time we were evacuated because of a tanker leak in the area and I got demerits for having a dirty sink that next morning. Are the sexual problems of graduates caused by the rules that say you can’t even touch a girl or hold hands? Or that they can’t be seen in a car alone with a member of the opposite sex and “date night” is Friday night, they go on a bus somewhere? The rumors were that they put saltpeter in the mashed potatoes to keep the men’s libido down. And then when they graduate the rules are suddenly gone and they go crazy? Don’t know. I know that some rules are strange like a man can’t grow face hair (it was kind of funny seing the portraits of great men on the hallway to the chapel with long hair and beards). Of course I never went to a girls meeting so I don’t know what went on there. I went to men’s meetings and although the hero worship was evident we had fun. The emhasis on the men was to stay pure and close to God and His word, to keep a heart for souls and witness every week. We had to mark a card that said how many people we witnessed to each week and how many we won to Christ. I didn’t do too well in that department. The only reason I witnessed was to avoid demerits. I guess I was a little shy. I knew a music major man who wore high heels. Fashion at the time. He was kind of rebellious. He was really good though and played the violin. They reached some kind of compromise with him because he became a staff member. I remember one time when Bro. Hyles came up to the Balmoral Inn with an old fashioned ice cream cart. He was dressed in candy stripes and passed out ice cream to the students. That was fun. That was before the rumors or if they were flying at that time we didn’t hear about them. I think if the rumors were false, in hind sight, he should have sealed up the door between his office and the other and should have followed the advice of those who were trying to look after him and his ministry rather than just say “my people need to trust me” (like George Godfrey) . Avoiding the appearance of evil and all that. Some of his followers were too intense (burning “100% Hyles” on his lawn. He was just trying to clear up the rumors). Well, enough venting. I’ve heard enough, the man is dead. Let’s concentrate on keeping close to the Lord, staying in His word, witnessing for Jesus and keeping our lives clean so that our witness won’t be diminished. If there are any old Hackers that remember me, please email me.

  37. Carlos
    March 25, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    To all you people criticizing someone who gave his entire life to serve God. How many people are going to heaven because you witnessed to them? Maybe you are too busy looking for faults in other people. This is the problem with christians, we spend too much time tearing people up instead of building people up. The christian army is the only army where when someone is down we just want to make sure they stay down.

  38. Mike
    April 5, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    From what I’ve read so far (as well as the piece in the Biblical Evangelist), no matter *godly* a man is, he still has no right or authority to build up or destroy anyone’s life. I attended Baptist Bible College East (now Boston Baptist College) from 1984-87. Although our student body wasn’t the size of HA, we had similar problems only the object of some preacher boys worship were the supporting Pastors. The goal, it seemed, was to rub shoulders with the Pastor of choice in order to secure a “job” after graduation—if not that, it would be to become a big fish in the little bowl. I don’t know anything about Jack Hyles personally but only what I’ve read. My assessment is simply this: Jack Hyles was a *very* insecure man who needed validation constantly in order to function normally. Eventually, this insecurity morphed into hubris and he became the “800 lb Gorilla” in the small cage— “stroke me, love me or prepare to be marginalized beyond your wildest dreams”. Was he a redeemed man? Who knows. I will say that people pursue what they love the most—if you love money, you will naturally pursue money; if you love sex, you will pursue encounters; if you love power and attention…..and you are in the position to enforce upon young people who hang on your every word and men who “need” you to be a success, you will take advantage of that opportunity and leverage it for all its worth because its your nature to do so. If what was written about the man is true, then he IS guilty of breaking up a family, desroying a man and promoting self worship—–Sorry, God doesn’t have scales to weigh the good against the bad—if that were the case, I would have stayed Lutheran and taken my chances. Paul didn’t go to Corinth to baptize but to preach Christ Jesus…….to contemporize it a little: Paul didn’t come to Hammond to build the “Largest Sunday School”; “baptize more converts than on Pentecost”—by extension, he did better than the Holy Spirit…impressive. “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another” Isa 48.11. For the Hyles guys and gals: I uderstand how you must have respected and cared for the man. However, he is still a man and by the word of several people, Mr. Hyles was an evil man. Hoop, “holler”, crow to your hearts content but you can’t deny the facts (this, by the way, was established by more than “two or three witnesses”). And in closing, if my words upset you in a big way, you need to examine yourself and not think more of men than you ought to think.


  1. October 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: