Home > Jack Schaap, Mallinak, The Gospel > An Open Challenge to Followers of Jack Hyles

An Open Challenge to Followers of Jack Hyles

November 9, 2007

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.Â

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.Â

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.Â

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

Resolved: Repentance must accompany faith in salvation.


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


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!)


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


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

  1. November 9, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Brother Dave,

    What a great idea!

  2. Michael Marshall
    November 9, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    AMEN! Bring it!

  3. Joshua Richards
    November 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Question: regarding the Hyles crowd (of which I once was), is the issue that they deny the necessity of repentance in salvation or that they define it differently but indeed water it down? From what I recall Jack Hyles defined repentance as simply a change of mind…? A change of mind about what? I’m not sure that they even know.

    What I am trying to state is that they (Hyles crowd) would probably deny the charge that they don’t believe repentance is necessary for salvation.

    What think ye?

  4. November 9, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    It probably depends on who you talk to. I think the Repentance blacklist site would say that they take issue with the statement that in order to be saved, one must repent of his sins. Jack Hyles, in his “Enemies of Soul Winning” book calls “misunderstood” repentance the enemy of soul winning. So he is not calling “repentance” of every form the enemy of soul winning. He defines repentance as a change of mind from unbelief to belief. Which means that he defines repentance too narrowly.

    The bottom line, and what I consider to be the issue worthy of our attention, is that they actively promote the idea that one can be saved and then go out and do whatever they want… in other words, a change of life does not need to accompany their salvation, and they will still be saved. And that is the point at which I would like to debate them.

    I’m hanging by my thumbs until I hear back.

  5. Joshua Richards
    November 10, 2007 at 5:22 am

    Gotcha. They indeed define it narrowly. It is interesting that Hyles’ own friend John Rice defined it accurately I believe in the tract “What Must I Do To Be Saved?”

    Don’t expect to have any takers—if you do they may give you the classic “thief on the cross argument”, i.e. he did not produce any fruit after conversion! {{{sigh}}} They also are typically stymied if you mention the story of the rich young ruler whom the LORD Jesus allowed to go away sorrowful.

  6. November 10, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Still pining away at my desktop…

  7. Michael Marshall
    November 10, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Well, I have an Idea. Lets use some Hyles tactics on themselves. Take out an ad in THIER local paper challenging them to a debate. Send them a certified letter, put an ad on their billboard. Shame them into it……..

  8. Sam Hanna
    November 12, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    What about a debate on BJU being a Fundamentalist College and a safe environment to send your children to? I have overwhelming evidence now that it is not such as:

    On March 2007 in preparation for a visit to the BJU campus by a radical homosexual group called Soulforce, President Stephen Jones made this startling admission about his “friends” at the Campus Chapel,

    “The homosexuals I know are extremely nice……..I have friends who are struggling with homosexuality, I have friends who are not struggling but have given themselves over to this lifestyle…. the issue is not how nice these people are and they are….the issue is not how wrong Christians may have been in the past and how we have spoken about this in the past and we have been wrong in the past.”

    However, the move that has proven to be the most polemical and alarmed fundamentalists around the world was the recent endorsement by the current Chancellor, Bob Jones III and Dr. Robert Taylor, current Dean of the BJU College of Arts and Sciences for the Mormon Bishop, Mitt Romney as Presidential candidate for the Republican party. Speaking of Romney in October 16, 2007, Dr. Jones said to the Greenville News,

    “And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans… He’s a very presidential guy. He has a loving family. He has, as far as I can tell, no scandal connected with his life. I can’t say that about all of the candidates unfortunately.”

    CNN reported on Friday November 9, 2007,

    “Perhaps more illuminating than Romney’s on-message speech to the crowd was his introduction by Taylor, the college dean and a top official at Bob Jones. Taylor tried to convince the audience that they should support Romney despite his religion. He suggested Romney’s faith is preventing many fellow evangelicals from supporting the former Massachusetts governor. “I think there’s a lot of us evangelicals that have kind of held back a little,” Taylor said. “They realize he’s the guy they would like to support, but they’re kind of looking left and right and seeing, ‘OK who has the courage to step out and support him and if somebody else does maybe I will, too. ’”

  9. Sam Hanna
    November 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm
  10. November 14, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    Thanks, Sam… that was helpful.

    I have a few thoughts about Bob Jones’ endorsement of Romney, and I’ll stick my neck out and say them.

    First, I live in Utah. If I can’t vote for Mormons, well then, I guess I can’t vote. In fact, the non-Mormons who run tend to be radical democrats (though not universally). In our Mayoral race (and city council races), the choice was very clear-cut, and I actively supported our Mayor (who is a Mormon, and a friend of mine). He has done a great job, and on key issues (politically only) we are on the same page. So, I probably see the Mormon issue differently than you do, since ALL my neighbors are Mormons.

    I could not endorse Romney, but it has little to do with his religion. It has more to do with the reasons he was able to win the Governorship of Massachusetts. He is not Conservative. He changed his position on abortion… Mormons are not consistently anti-abortion either, because of their view of life and spirit-children. Those issues weigh much more heavily on me, and those are the reasons I was disappointed in BJ’s choice. Especially when there are some outstandingly conservative candidates on the docket.

    The Romney thing, along with the other issues outlined in the article you linked, bring up some grave concerns about the future of BJU. But not really. After all, have they really changed that much, or are they just being more vocal about what they really are?

  11. Sam Hanna
    November 14, 2007 at 7:37 pm


    I agree BJU has been on the wane for the last 20 years. I visited there in 1999 for the World Congress of Fundamentalists along with “gullible” who thought after reading Bob Jones Sr’s books that it was a sound place. I witnessed Dr Bob III rip apart the KJV which resulted in destroying the Congress and it has never been held since.

    Of course we only have to visit “Duller Iron” to see the Neo-Evangelical students that are pouring out of BJU now. I am glad you see through their carefully crafted image as a bastion of Fundamentalism when the reality is very different. However, I am guessing that many of the readers of these blogs have no idea of just how far BJU has fallen.

    I am not attacking those who privately vote for a Mormon in Utah who have no choice, but the fact that a supposed Fundamentalist Leader is using his position to endorse publicly a man to hold the highest office in the land. Bearing in mind the propaganda value to Mormonism from such an endorsement and from the election of a LDS President, you would have though that common sense would have told BJ III to keep his ego at home and shut up.

    Personally, I do what CH Spurgeon advocated when facing the choice of the lesser of two evils – choose neither!

  12. Christopher Nelsen
    November 14, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    I Christopher Nelsen except the challange of debate to defend and contend for the faith.I have seen your compromicing,apostate,private interpatations and can see that this Jackhammer is like a cage of every unclean bird!!!,and clipping your feathers will be joyful for me…….Also,we don’t have to limit the subject to just Repentance. We can talk about women preachers,tongue babble,or any other satanic doctrine(notice I did not spell your gods name with capital letters)As far as Jack Hyles goes I do not agree with everything he said but the things I did not agree with was based on his opinions,… however,he has always been right on doctrine.(As far as I have heard and seen…but it don’t suprise me that fools are scoffers(and I’m not talking about dinner trays)when it comes to God’s men……So, bring it!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Christopher Nelsen
    November 14, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    As I view some of the statements posted the more I smell the stank of whoredom.Women preachers in bed with qeers in bed with Mormons….like I said,’a cage of every unclean bird’ I also notice a whole lot of opinions and not alot of Bible to back up whats being said.Your like scratch-n-sniff christians….you know like those perfume ads……I scratch on this Jackhammer sight and smell a bunch of heathens.Yes I hoop and yell to,and I am not always nice…thats because hell is’nt nice!..Hell is’nt nice,..and I hope all you creampuff,pussyfooting,lace on your underwear preachers can hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. November 15, 2007 at 5:28 am

    Dear Christopher Nelson,

    Women preachers? I know that reading is not a prerequisite to have your position, but you could try. By the way, you have ably contended already for your “faith.” You are the perfect example of the “faith” you espouse.

  15. Christopher Nelsen
    November 15, 2007 at 6:19 am

    Dear Art Stop talking around things , you must be one of those women preachers or you just got lace in your underpants.

  16. November 15, 2007 at 9:00 am

    I think the removal of the necessity of repentance from the presentation of the gospel is part of the reductionist philosophy that came out of Dallas Theological Seminary in the late 70’s. It was a reaction to Lordship Salvation being promoted by MacAuthur. This led to the Easy Believism, Only Believism and Positivism (the Four Spiritual Laws track of Graham) and, the “one, Two, Three, say it after me” perversion we find in much of (wrongly called) Fundamentalism of today.

    Here is an audio presentation of the gospel (including the necessity of repentance) from the book of Romans.

    The Gospel of Jesus Christ from the Epistle of Romans

  17. Sam Hanna
    November 15, 2007 at 2:45 pm


    WIth the greatest of respect, MacArthur has a big problem understanding true Lordship salvation as it involves accepting separation from the world and unto God as a “saint” as a part of repenting from sins. You cannot repent of all sins and then in the next breath embrace them as a “choice” for a believer. MacArthur believes that you can embrace CCM, watch movies, hang out with apostates and still be a “saved guy!” For instance John Piper, MacArthur’s pal believes Mother Theresa is a type of sanctification. That is why I have no hesitation in believing Piper is not saved.

    I accept not everyone thinks through all of what I am saying in becoming a Christian but many do after seeing the lifestyle presented to them by Neo-Evangelicals. Listen to what Christ says,

    Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

    If you listen to MacArthur’s interview on 9Marks he admits that more than 70% of his morning congregation does not return for his Sunday night service. I believe that is good evidence for the shallow easy-believism of Neo-Evangelicals. For if MacArthur points to the inflated statistics of FBCH the same standard must judge him.

  18. November 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Sam, cogent points about MacArthur’s disconnect between Lordship and the Lord Himself. I couldn’t disagree with anything that you said. Some would say that you are mean-spirited to do so, but why don’t they just step up and give you proof that it isn’t true. If it is true, he should be ashamed of himself. It seems as though you may have had to take off your lace-undergarments to say these strong things, however. 🙂 Maybe that’s where Hyles got the title for Blue Denim and Lace—he had a strong familiarity with lace himself. 🙂

  19. November 16, 2007 at 7:05 am


    What was I talking around? Nowhere in this site are women preachers tolerated. In fact, to many of the “faithful” out there, the stand of the men on this site would seem extreme.


  20. November 16, 2007 at 8:22 am


    Feal frea two drope mi an e-male.

    Know Dowt it wil bee an enteresting dibaet.

    Weel bee gladly two arrang et.

  21. November 16, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Brother Sam,

    I was wondering if you are equating the VOCATIONAL qualifications for discipleship (Luke 14:25-35) with the SALVATIONAL qualifications of faith to “obey the gospel” (Romans 10:1-6) by believing in/trusting in/resting in the objective facts of the gospel and calling on the Name of the LORD Jesus.

    Granted, I agree with you that for a person living in sin, the toleration of sin and cooperation with apostates, we must seriously question the reality of that person’s new birth. However, isn’t this about the perversion of the gospel with Positivism and theological Inclusivism that causes misplaced faith or results in misplaced faith?

    MacArthur’s distortion of the gospel and Lordship salvation has more to do with his extreme Calvinism and Monergism than anything else. He interprets Scripture according to those presuppositions. Therefore, those who God has regenerated (and given the gift of faith and repentance prior to salvation) MUST ultimately believe and (mostly) live for Christ (persevere). If one does not persevere, that person was never regenerated (prior to believing) and, so, never really believed in the first place. That is essentially the soteriological position of extreme Calvinists like MacArthur and Piper.

  22. Bobby
    November 16, 2007 at 9:31 am


    I hope you really get studied up for this. This guy sounds lethal. Better put a lot of effort into this one. Bring it! Leave it all on the field! All or nuthin’ baby! You better go for broke! Give him the whole nine yards! Throw the book at him! I mean, you better man up for this one, Dave. I’m seeing a bloodbath if you aren’t armed to the teeth! You’d better strike first and strike hard!

    OK. Nuff said.

    Hey, is “tired old cliche” one?

    This is too much fun. Tell me this guy is just making fun.

  23. Christopher Nelsen
    November 16, 2007 at 10:33 am

    Art,your right and I am wrong I don’t see any thing on this site indicating that women preachers is o.k. with you folks….that is good! But I do see alot of doctrinal issues,most of that comes from your acceptance of the perversion bibles.But what can you expect…imitation bibles produce imitation christians….scratch-n-sniff! Amos 8:11 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” Then you got folks on your site who will poke fun at Jack Hyles but hang around with satanic cults like the Mormons.2Corin.6:14 “Be not unequally yoked”…For the record,I have a few role models but only one hero…Jesus!Also, I love you to (in the lord) and thats why I won’t leave you the way you are.Now for Dave,I won’t e-mail you….an open debate is just that…open for all to see!…So take the lace out your underwear and start your debate!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. November 16, 2007 at 10:44 am


    Guess what? You’re wrong again! This site is unashamedly pro-KJV, but (and this may be different for you) the argument is made Scripturally and intelligently.

    Do you only vote for born-again, IFB, KJV waving Baptists or do you compromise by being unequally yoked with Conservative candidates who are not truly saved?

    What is your fetish with perfume ads anyway?

  25. November 16, 2007 at 11:18 am


    If you took the time to read what we have said (and I’m sorta guessin that ya haven’t), you would have noticed that this debate is not going to be held in the comments section. The debate will be on the main page, and you, my friend, can’t get anything on the front page unless I put it there. And I can’t put it there unless you send it to me via e-mail. And we can’t decide who takes the affirmative or the negative. And we can’t determine what it is we are debating (exactly, as in “resolution” to use the “technical” term). And we can’t decide the other details of the debate. And I’m wondering what this debate will be like, if you aren’t going to take the couple of minutes necessary to read what we have actually written. Maybe, perhaps, it would be good if you stopped obsessing about my undies, and paid some attention to what we are saying on this blog.

    By the way, Bobby, thanks for the, ummm, shot in the arm… I’m sure I’ll, uhhhh, need it, and stuff.

  26. Sam Hanna
    November 16, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Bro Lance,

    I respectively disagree that you can divorce the act of faith from the character of the One you are believing on and His demands. What you are asking us to accept is that justification is simply an act of intellectual assent to the sacrificial work of Christ. It is interesting that salvation is presented in John 3:18 and Acts 14:23 as believing on or into Christ with the Greek preposition eis, which indicates that we are taking on or entering into Him and His Character.

    But even if I take you at face value with your doctrine of the perseverance of the true saints – surely the obedience to separate from all sin willingly is indicative that you have actually accepted the Lordship of Christ. The vocational qualifications can only flow out of identical true salvation qualifications. That is why I doubt Piper’s salvation as he is vocational qualifications do not match up to the salvation ones. If I may illustrate from his words,

    “There are living images of sanctification in our world today which are more real, more authentic than all the people put together who think sanctification is passé. Malcolm Muggeridge takes Mother Teresa as an example…..When a young woman living in the security and comfort of middle class Western society moves to Calcutta in obedience to Jesus, that is sanctification, and it is not irrelevant. Don’t let the irrelevance of the word mislead you. The reality is immensely important.”


    I have heard MacArthur state that he witnessed to Mother Theresa and she rejected his tract by writing on it she was trusting in Mary. Despite this heresy, MacArthur has no problem fellowshipping with a man like Piper who is so synergistic in his gospel that he believes ardent Maryolaters are saved according to his definition. As you can see, Piper has not retracted his remarks, as they are still on his own website and he boasts about being a “theologian.”

  27. November 16, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Brother Sam,

    It is not MY “doctrine of the perseverance of the true saints.” I totally disagree with it. It is the position of extreme Calvinism. Nor do I in any way believe “you can divorce the act of faith from the character of the One you are believing on and His demands.” Obviously, you have not read my book entitled FAITH if you think that is what I believe. I do not believe that there is even a hint in my post to anything near what you say I said.

    The inclusivism of men like Piper is evident in the quote you give from his web site. I have addressed this inclusivism in an article posted on my web site.



    I do not think MacArthur would be as inclusive as Piper. However, MacArthur has never been a strict or strong separatist either.

  28. Gerald Kelly
    November 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm


    I do not know how a person can get to the point in their life where they look at sin the way God looks at sin, recognize their need of a savior, and call on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sin, without a change in mind which leads to a change in heart which leads to a change in direction, which is what I believe repentance is.

  29. Sam Hanna
    November 16, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Br Lance

    I am extremely thankful that you have distinguished yourself from such a group. I have read through your articles and agree with the substance of them, although I think you are being a tad unfair to the Reformers and too kind to the Anabaptists. I never understand why American Baptists are desperate to distinguish themselves from the Puritan Protestant tradition that they realistically came from. That argument can be fought another day. Indeed, it is an interesting fact that only the UK has a Protestant Christian Constitution and Act of Supremacy, whereas the USA has a Deistic one. Again, another day….

    I agree that MacArthur is not as bad as Piper, but he is not without his weaknesses. MacArthur was a student at BJU, which just about says it all after reading the above evidence about them and Mormons.

    Anyhow, welcome on board the real fundamentalist ship known as Jackhammer.

  30. Christopher Nelsen
    November 16, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    First, the bible says confess your faults and in good character I must admitt I stand corrected.After spending about two hours reading everything thats on this site,I found that I agree with 95% of what you believe.I thought I was dealing with a bunch of Neo-Liberal pussyfooters.Therefore,I withdraw all the lace and scratch-n-sniff statements.I humbly ask you to accept my apology. However,I do disagree with your stance on repentance and will still debate the topic. You can expect my e-mail in the next couple of days.Also,I realize some make Jack Hyles out to be co-equal with God,I will agree with you on the concept that he isn’t always right but not that he is an enemy of the faith or of soul-winning nor that hes a spiritual fraud.

  31. Christopher Nelsen
    November 17, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Any body know who Melissa Scott is? I have a relative who is all up on this false preacher(or should I say satanic preacher) I was given a number,and I called and challenged her to an open debate on why women are not called to preach…I was laughed at and hung up on………….I’d love to find away to publically challange her to a debate and even let her own congragation judge who the winner is! Any who any thing you could tell about her would helpful for me to talk to my relative……..Thanks

  32. November 17, 2007 at 11:24 am


    Thanks for the correction, and I have to admire you for owning up to it. I’ll look forward to your e-mail. And no, I don’t know who Melissa Scott is. But most people will not be willing to debate anything they believe, so good luck.

    I won’t be able to check my e-mail until Monday at the earliest.

  33. Christopher Nelsen
    November 17, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    The problem with folks that believe in the false doctrine of repentance of sins as a condition to salvation is that almost all if not all who believe this also believe that one can lose,or forfeit or give back their salvation.This is why brother Jack Hylles fought against those who proclaimed this as being a doctrine…he knew that these type of folks wind up putting faith in themselves instead of the Christ who truely saves one from sins.Why ,because when one trusts in himself instead of Christ this truely becomes an enemy to souls being won.Brother Hyles never said that repentance of sins was not biblical but rather that it was not a condition to salvation.The repentance of sins is a gift that pertains to the works of rightousness Paul confessed this in Romans.Must we we be baptized to be saved?No! But it is something that should accompany salvation the same is true with the repentance of sins.(Just like the teaching of brother Hyles )Another thing,whats wrong with praying down the power of God?…I see many examples of this in the bible….like Elijah…or his methods which you claim is a gimic and man made…but this worldly gimic as you call it is found in Acts chapter 2 and chapter4 and at the end of all the Gospels.Or how about preachers repeating things in a sermon,The Holy Spirit does that throughout the bible…as a father of three boys I know this works!Why don’t you expose the real false teachers?….Like Charles Stanely,Benny Hinn,Joyse Myers,Melissa Scott,Billy Gramm,the Pope,or are you the ones who are yella? Or how about your statement that no one would be willing to debate “less ye all repent ye shall all likewise perish”I will! First repent of unbelief so you can get saved and then repent of sins to begin working out your own salvation,less yougo to hell,or if your saved, be removed,or suffer loss which are all definitions to perish…..or maybe your the ones who have fallen to the teachings of men and vain philosophies….like the philosophy of Dave Mallinik!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  34. Christopher Nelsen
    November 17, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    These truths elude the JackHammer Corinth style church….”open challenge to followers of Jack Hyles”…how can you debate?,…your still in diapers!…sucking the bottle.”Ma Ma”

  35. November 19, 2007 at 11:06 am


    I didn’t get your e-mail. If you sent it already, please resend it to me at pmallinak@berean-baptist-utah.com

    I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

  36. R.D. Warren
    November 19, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    This is the first time I have actually taken out the time to give a response to some of the comments I have read on this website. I commend all of you for your diligence to the Lord in taking it upon yourself to defend the faith.
    I think it is critical in the era in which we live to have someone who is willing to stand up for the truth. We have too many “pastors/ shepherds” diluting the Word of God by forth preaching heresy. It is a major cause to the downfall of our churches as a whole. I believe to often there are many great Colleges which spend much time teaching young preacher boys how to “preach” rather than how to be “biblical”. There are many “Fundamental” preachers that are wasting their time coming up with a Sermon Title, and then trying to find scripture to back their title, rather than deriving their title from the scripture, and thereby preaching the Word of God.
    I have never been one for spending much time on the Internet or in front of a computer, but there are many debates worth reading on this website. I would have to say I agree too many of the viewpoints which are given, yet I disagree with the terminology that is implemented. I feel as if some of our “Fundamental” friends (Christopher) could spend a little more time cleaning up their thought life before they decide to destroy their own testimonies for others to see. I think everyone who reads these comments would get much more out of them if they weren’t shunned away by the poor English and distasteful comments given by some very “hot-headed, non-justifiable, remarks”!!!

  37. Christopher Nelsen
    November 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Warren,in the words of David…Is there not a cause?

  38. Christopher Nelsen
    November 19, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    To those who are of Dave Mallinek heres an open challange to you!Show one single verse that repenting of sins is directly stated as a condition to salvation….since all the verses in regards to repenting of sins is for the people of God I know you can’t!…..But search the scriptures daily……still I know there will be no responce and if there is it will be according to the Gospel of Dave

  39. Gerald Kelly
    November 19, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Given that biblical repentance refers to a change of mind which results in a change in action; if one were to say that repentance was not necessary for salvation, then just what happens in one’s mind that causes him to turn to Jesus then for salvation?

    It might be that he recognizes that Jesus is the Savior, just not his own.

    Concerning the thief on the cross: I’m no theologian, nor can I compete with you all with rhetoric. But who is to say that the thief on the cross didn’t repent? God looks on the heart right? Could Jesus not have looked upon his heart and recognized all the ingredients for a changed life. Who are we to say he didn’t repent? I don’t see the Thief as being a special case of salvation, just another example of an awesome Savior.

    Be Wise as Serpents – Harmless as Doves


  40. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 8:16 am

    My arguement isn’t that repentance isn’t necessary but rather that repentance of all sins isn’t the condtion to one getting saved!Nor do I disagree that repentance of sins will accompany salvation(work out your own salvation with fear and trembling)As far as the theif on the cross,we won’t know until we get to heaven weather he repented of all his sins.What we do know is his heart was both sincere in his belief in Christ and that he repented of any unbelief…also his heart was sincere in that he was a sinner and he was willing to do the work of changing by exercising the gift that accompanies salvation…that is called by some the doctrine of repenting of sins.The theif on the cross is a better arguement to prove that baptism(water)isn’t a condition to getting saved.I know my savior is awsome,after all He saved a wretch like me!….one would have to assume the theif repented of all his sins,it doesn’t directly state that and that was my challenge.The same is true of false teaching of Lordship savation,Christ is always Lord no one give that postion to Him it is His,but can only allow Him to be Lord were he knows how…the church that lead me to Christ as a young man never followed up or tried to disiple me I spent many days and hours studing Gods Word before I knew what all God considered sins and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and His power(not my own)have repented of sins…..many examples of this concept,..Paul in Romans or the Corinth church who had been saved for a long period of time but remained Babes in Christ….Look at Spurgeon who smoked cigars all his life or Moody who was fat.(Moody asked Spurgeon “when are you gonna stop smoking?..his responce was”as soon as you lose weight”)My point is nobody is so perfect to repent of all sins upon getting saved…are any of you completely without sin?

  41. Bobby
    November 20, 2007 at 9:17 am


    Could you please give us your source for your statement about Moody and Spurgeon? Thanks in advance.

  42. November 20, 2007 at 10:53 am


    Are you going to continue the smack talk, or are you going to send me an e-mail?

    I’m still waiting, rather anxiously.

  43. Gerald Kelly
    November 20, 2007 at 10:57 am


    you said “we won’t know until we get to heaven weather he repented of all his sins”

    all? When I asked th Lord Jesus to forgive me, I don’t recall spending the week necessary for me to enumerate through 38 years of sin. I had a change of mind about sin in general and asked Him not to hold me accountable for dishonoring Him with a sinful life. Even today, several years later, something will come to mind that I had done in the past that I hadn’t thought of in a long time. I just smile and shake my head and thank the Lord again that the shedding of His blood was sufficient.

    This will be my last post on this topic. I enjoyed this topic, and also this forum. I’m new to it and hope there will be more thought provoking topics to come.

  44. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 11:14 am

    G.Kelly,thanks for making my point! Bobby,my source is twofold(a)I read it when I was in seminary in a book called 7700 Illustrations (b) also, and you guys probally won’t like this, I also heard it years later in a Jack Hyles tape……………Dave,according to internet service the e-mail has been sent 3 times…………I am also anxiously waiting,for both to get started with this debate and for someone to provide one(just one) verse that directly states repenting of all sins is a condition to salvation…….The bible doesn’t call it smack talk,it’s called rebuke and reprove,contending for the faith,and always ready to give a reason for your faith!

  45. November 20, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    I’ll check into why I haven’t received your e-mail. Meanwhile, I’ll be clear with everyone that since the Bible does not make the precise statement that Christopher is demanding, I will not be giving even one verse that says this exactly. Of course, this is a tactic (as opposed to what Christopher might say is “contending for the faith”) in order to win the debate before we even start.

    So, my question is this, Christopher… are we arguing that the Bible never says exactly, “repenting of all sins is a condition to salvation?” Because if so, then we have no disagreement, and you can drop out. If you would be so kind as to glance back to the top of this page, and refer once again to the original post, you will note what I have offered to debate. And yes, you can take your pick what you want it to be. But the basic issue is whether or not repentance is necessary for salvation.

  46. November 20, 2007 at 1:14 pm


    You said, “Show one single verse that repenting of sins is directly stated as a condition to salvation….since all the verses in regards to repenting of sins is for the people of God

    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

    Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

    Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

    Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (not call them to belief)

    Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

    Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (this is the opposite of what Christopher is saying!)

    Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

    Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (again the opposite)

    Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (yep, opposite)

    Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (but not in a Hyles church!!)

    Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (repentance and forgiveness seem to be pretty closely tied in Scripture…hm…)

    Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (“repentance unto life”!!! It probably doesn’t mean that…)

    Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (So the preaching of repentance IS the preaching of believing on Christ!! Interesting…)

    Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Man, why do they keep listing repentance first!! Don’t they know that it’s supposed to be the other way around!!)

    Act 26:20 But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (Doh!! This one’s got repentance before AND after turning to God [is this the same as changing one’s mind?])

    2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! “godly sorrow worketh REPENTANCE TO SALVATION”. Typo, I’m sure. Is this thing KJV…?)

    2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (so they can’t even acknowledge the truth [i.e. believe] unless God gives them repentance. I see.)

    Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (this seems to say that we AREN’T supposed to be re-visitting saving repentance AFTER salvation, but going on to perfection. Bro. Brandenburg can probably tell me where I’m wrong on this.)

    2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (Well, what about those that don’t perish but don’t repent [i.e. Hyles guys]?)

  47. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    This is no tactic,but rather a clear teaching of sripture in regards to contending for the faith…if I ask you to show me where the sripture says something it never says,then of course I win the debate before it begins.The devil in sripture is always defeated by the Word of God…..I accepted this challenge because of your critcal attack on a Godly preacher. 2 Peter 2:10,14 “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleaness,and despise government.Presumptuous are they,selfwilled,they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” Acts 8:20-23″ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,specially they of the circumcision:This witness is true.Wherefore rebuke them sharply,that they may be sound in the faith;They profess that they know God;but in works they deny Him,being abominable,and disobedient,and unto every good work reprobate.” Since Hyles does teach that repenting of sins will accompany salvation but contends that it is not a condition of salvation and that those who teach such heresy is an enemy to soul winning,and your purpose to the open challenge for debate is based on Hyles’s so called false teaching of this subject…then I think I understood the debate just fine.If we agree that repenting of unbelief is whats necessary for salvation,then there is no reason to continue,but if your saying that one must repent of all sins then again I offer the challenge to show just one verse…You said,”But the basic issue is whether or not repentance is necessary for salvation.”How do you define repentance is the real issue,the devil did it in the garden….it’s called trickery with words!….THE E-MAIL IS CALLED EXCEPT YE REPENT

  48. November 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Christopher, out of respect, we would all like to take you seriously, but did you happen to look at the long list of verses pinted by Jason Hodge? I’m going to assume that you’ll believe those now and your position has already changed. Since this was so easy to demonstrate, doesn’t it make you wonder about the doctrine that Hyles, Hutson, and others have taught about repentance, or how they could have missed it?

  49. November 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm


    Somehow your e-mail isn’t getting to me. Rather than go back and forth all day (or longer), how about if you give me a call at (801) 399-2871. I’m sorry about my e-mail. Not sure what is wrong with it. If you prefer, I could call you (if you want to send me an e-mail).

    By the way, from what you are writing here, it looks to me like you are saying that either one must repent of ALL of his sins for salvation, or he need not repent of ANY. Am I correct in that analysis?

  50. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Jason,nice try!But you can’t make God’s word say something it don’t.Again what is the meanings of repent and how should it be applied?Probally in context with all scripture that directly relates to the subject.Gen.6:6,Ex.32:14,2Sam.24:16 In these passages God repents,based on your interpatation God Himself needs a Savior………Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth”….again show me one verse that directly says to repent of all sins!…..O.T. saints sacraficed for a years worth of covering,when they died they went to Abrahams Bossom awaiting the one thing that could foever cover their sins…the blood and faith in the finished work of Christ.Acts 17:11,Jn 5:39 “Search the scriptures;for in themye think ye have eternal life:and are they which testify of me…and searched the scripturesdaily,whether those things were so.” Most false teaching tries to add works to get us to heaven.It’s root problem is pride.They want to feel that they have a part in salvation.It is still Jesus plus nothing and minus nothing! Eph.2:8-9;Titus 3:5

  51. November 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Sorry, Christopher, I put up the wrong number… try this one (801) 399-3855.

  52. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Dave,what I am saying is repenting of sins is not a condition of salvation…I do believe that it is an evidence of ones salvation and must accompany it…..Kent,no my position hasn’t changed,all Jason did was post verses with the word repent in it but still hasn’t shown a verse that proves repenting of sins is a condition to salvation……..Dave ,I will mail you once more before the night is through if that doesn’t work then I’ll be glad to call you

  53. November 20, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    “all Jason did was post verses with the word repent in it”

    That’s NOT TRUE!!!! I also searched for “repentance”.

  54. November 20, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Christopher, go back and look at Jason’s posted verses. He made it easy for us. Look at the first three in Acts. Those are being preached to unbelievers.

    I haven’t heard one person on earth argue that repentance is repentance of each individual sin, one-by-one, going through like a laundry list, but sins plural and sin generically. You’re arguing against a straw-man. To throw out repentance because someone has convinced you wrongly of a faulty definition would result in your preaching a false gospel. If you leave out repentance because you think it is renouncing each sin one-by-one would be a very sad story. That isn’t what repentance is. The men who taught this wrong definition wanted to destroy repentance and they did that by making repentance a work, which it isn’t. By abolishing repentance as a condition for salvation, those men kept intact their humanistic methodology, easy-prayerism, the 1-2-3 pray-with-me system. I’m officially done talking about this in the meta.

  55. November 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm


    Christopher and I just had a very good conversation on the phone, and with his permission, I want to relate a few things.

    First, Christopher is not from Hyles, and in fact has not ever been there even for a visit. As we talked, he found that he was not in as much disagreement with our position as he initially believed. That is not to say that he would see exactly eye-to-eye with us. But as I explained our position, he did not find as much to disagree with as he initially thought. And so, Christopher has decided to step back from the debate, at least for the time being.

    Let me just say that I appreciate Christopher’s willingness to step out and defend something that he believes. Which is more than we can say, at least up to this point, about any of the faculty at either HAC or Tom Neal’s, or Stephen L. Anderson.

    Apparantly (at least to date), Stephen L. Anderson is willing to run a web site. What he isn’t willing to do is to defend what he sees as being Scriptural. And that, my friend, is revealing.

    Of course he, or any faculty member at HAC or the “Jack Hyles School of the Bible” in Orange Park, Florida, is welcome to step up to the plate any time. Until then, I continue to twiddle my thumbs… ever so quickly.

  56. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Let me clarify what Dave and I agree on and disagree
    I agree that assembly line soul winning is not soul winning…let me explain myself,teaching people to go out and have people recite a simple prayer and then just because they believe in Jesus in some little way they are saved, this indeed is a false teaching(example;A cathlic who says the so called sinners prayer yet believes in Mary is not saved ..”they confess with their mouths but their hearts are far from me” If this kind of soul winning is what Hyles encouraged then I’d say he’s wrong!Or that all one must do is say this simple prayer and one would be saved and free to do whatever sins one wants….without conviction,without serious punishment, suffer some form of loss or even some form of death is not Bible!I checked the Hyles site and saw no indication of such teaching I read the suggested material and saw no false doctrine.So, unless you got another resource proving your accusations.I will have to disagree!I was also told that Hyles allowed a woman to be a main speaker at his church before or over men.I have yet to find proof of this!I still stand on the Bible on the issue of salvation,that belief or the repentance of unbelief is the only condition to salvation…repentance of sins comes after and is not a condition to salvation,my willingness to debate this issue is still open,and my challenge for one verse to prove otherwise is also still open……If any one from Hyles’s church or sister ministries is looking…..shame on you for not contending….Jack Hyles taught you better then that,even a former member like Dave Mallinek learned that truth,until then I WILL contend!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  57. Christopher Nelsen
    November 20, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Jason,you searched to find scripture to fit the false teaching that one must repent of sin as a condition to salvation you failed and then tried to make it say what your philosophy teaches,just like any other false teacher would do!….Kent,…! Corinth. 3:1 ” And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.”…..Acts 5:31 The turnining away from works and the false belief they could go to heaven just because they were Jews….they have to believe in Christ like every one eles (notice the turning away means to repent) then also forgiveness of sins for everyone….Acts 11:18 A means to turn away (repent) from death unto life and in context with bible,….by believing in Christ!!!!!Acts 19:4 Again, turn (repent) from unbelief to belief in Christ!!!!!Your right about one thing Kent,It is simple!!!!!!!!! And I’m glad your last entry was your last…because reproving four of you false teachers is making me tired!But make no mistake I’ll reprove ten of you….IS THERE NOT A CAUSE!!!!!!!!!

  58. November 21, 2007 at 6:12 am

    repentance of sins comes after and is not a condition to salvation

    Christopher, that is not what the Bible teaches.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    Hm, ten specific sins mentioned there – that must be repented of or else someone will not be able to inherit the kingdom of God – ie. be saved.

    Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    A few more.

    Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    Another few.

    1 Timothy 1:9-11 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

  59. November 21, 2007 at 6:13 am

    Don’t forget this passage too:

    Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

  60. November 21, 2007 at 8:21 am

    Christopher, you have said repeatedly that

    repentance of sins comes after and is not a condition to salvation

    Here is a question for you. If repentance of sins does not follow salvation, if there is no change of life that follows the profession of faith, is the person truly saved?

  61. November 21, 2007 at 8:46 am

    Christopher’s response in comment #56 is an example of the kind of duplicity that we encounter any time we deal with a Hyles-type. When we discussed the possibility of debate on the phone, Christopher revealed that he had never been to HAC, had never been to FBC Hammond, even for a visit, had never read Jack Hyles chapter “Misunderstood Repentance, the enemy of Soul Winning” in his book The Enemies of Soul Winning, was not even sure he would know Jack Hyles position on repentance if he met it in an empty hallway.

    Christopher had never even heard of David Cloud or Way of Life. He had never read anything that presented an “opposing view” on Hyles, other than what we wrote on JackHammer. In short, Christopher did not know what he was talking about when it came to defending Jack Hyles.

    And yet, only a few hours after talking to me on the phone (which was a more than congenial talk), Christopher is back at it on our blog, telling us that he doesn’t think that Jack Hyles teaches “easy-believism.”

    Proverbs 18:13 says,

    He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

    This applies to Christopher. He has repeatedly made an absolute donkey out of himself since he came on this thread. We have tried to be very patient with him, but this beats all. He speaks first and listens later, when the Bible commands the opposite (James 1:19).

    And therefore, while I will be glad to answer him in any comment thread, I will not allow him the privilege of debating this issue on the front pages of JackHammer. I will wait for someone who actually knows something about Jack Hyles, who has done more than listen to a couple dozen of Hyles’ sermon tapes.

    Of course, I’m not counting on anyone answering my challenge.

  62. November 21, 2007 at 9:46 am


    I guess I should apologize for misleading everyone here by posting verses from the KJV Bible. That was, admittedly, a low blow. I got over-zealous when I read Christopher’s admonition to “…search the Scriptures…”. When I saw that the topic was repentance as a condition of salvation, I wrecklessly went out and searched the Bible (’cause I thought it was Scripture) for the words “repent” and “repentance”. Instead, I should have consulted the Jack Hyles definition of “search the Scriptures” before I leaped out and stuck my foot in my mouth.

    But today, I’m a new man! Instead of searching for words (since that’s what makes up the text of Scripture), this time I searched for relevant stories in the Bible.

    It turns out, the woman at the well testified that Jesus had told her everything she’d ever done. When I “looked it up”, what Jesus told her was that she was and adulteress and fornicator! But I’m sure that it’s simply because Jesus had not read Jack Hyles book, The Enemies of Soulwinning. Lesson here: be careful about bringing up particular sins, they don’t matter and might turn the person away from the 1-2-3 prayer.

    Then there’s Saul (Paul), who got knocked off his donkey by none other than God Himself! The conversation includes a comical scene where God accidentally brought up Saul’s persecution of Christ, something along the lines of “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” What a blunder! Saul may have been offended at this! But we don’t see the “change in direction” that repentance may have called for, right? After all, he still wound up in Damascus. Lesson: A change of direction isn’t necessary at all for salvation!!

    Then there’s the rich young ruler. What a fiasco! Christ accidentally brought up the idea of the young man’s greed and love of money by telling him to go and sell all that he had and give it to the poor! The guy was offended, never prayed the “sinner’s prayer”, and is probably in hell today because of this slip up while “closing the deal”! Lesson: don’t bring up sin or repentance unless you want your subject to be another spiritual statistic!

    That’s right, the Bible clearly teaches that repentance is the enemy of soul winning, and that true repentance is only repenting of unbelief. Case closed, end of story. Anyone who can’t see it must be stitching a flower pattern on their undies right now.

    We’ve searched the words and the stories. This leaves only the “between the lines” section of Scripture to which only Hyles was privy.

    Again, I apologize for my slight-of-hand and deceptive tactics yesterday.

  63. Christopher Nelsen
    November 21, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    2 Corinth 7:10…This is regards to SAVED people turning from sin
    Heb. 6:1…Paul is talking about Jews who heard the gospel preached,saw the work of the Holy Spirit but still went back to their tradition.
    How childish,the Bible says, “Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay”!!!!GROW UP!!!!This is why I referredto you as a Corinth style church…babes!!!!
    My stance on scripture is because of scripture and scripture ( GOD’S WORD) is the final authority not HYles!!!!
    Poking fun at me is o.k.,even poking fun at Hykes is o.k.,…BUT DON’T MESS WITH MY GOD!!!!!! You utta be ashamed of yourself….call yourself a christian and make a mockery of God’s Word and expect me to believe your saved?!
    And the watchmen of this sight,..debating or stating what we individually believe or poking fun at each other is one thing but allowing someone to poke fun at God’s Word with God’s Word1…Shame on you!!!!!
    Back to the debate,and I’ll spell it out for you cuz I know your babes!
    1 Corinth. 6:9-11 “And such were some of you but ye are washed, but ye are santified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus”…thats the key…His righteousness covers our sins
    Eph.5:5…refer to the key found in 1 Corinth. 6:9-11
    RE. 21:8….unbelieving,thats the key
    1 Tim….which shows us the law is our school master
    Gal.5:19-21…Good thing we’re of the Spirit, covered by HIS righteousness….See 1 Corinth 6:9-11
    Search the sripture is one method used to rightly divide God’s Word…..Why?!, for one ( which was my point )a word in the original tongue isn’t always the same each time it’s used. Like the word love…does it always mean a Christlike love? ( I have an 8 yr. old boy who understands this ) So, when looking at a word in scripture, one must consider how it’s being used and take all scripture that directly and indirectly pertains to the subject,except the guidance of tht Hly Spirit and consider any possible rebuke and then decide what God is saying. ( of course you also have to be saved )……I thought this is taught in christianity 101,guess you missed that class at religous cult school!
    Let me illustrate again for you….Gen. 6:6 ; Ex. 32:14; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15;35; 2Sam. 24:16; Amos 7;3 and 7:6; Jonah 3:10…All say that God repented…So, is God a sinner ? Does He need a savior ?

    Dave, on both the Hyles and the repent issues….just cuz YOU say a dogs tail is a leg doesn’t make it so! I read the Hyles page and looked at misunderstood repentance and seen that Hyles says what I said he said,so again I say prove it to me with more then your private interpatation!!!!
    In John Jesus is soulwinning to Nicademus three times Jesus tells him to believe, thats the way for him to enter the kingdom of God….the only hint of repenting is of unbelief……but since the Word don’t seem to be good enough for you lets see what Paul and Silas have to say ” And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, BELIEVE on the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and thou shalt be saved and thy house”…..Now you can lump it any way you want……………..STILL WAITING FOR JUST ONE VERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Oh and I know this won’t get front page cuz I’m a donkey on the ‘HammerJack’ blacklist

  64. Christopher Nelsen
    November 21, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    HammerJack, I understand what you real beef is in regards to what you call 1-2-3 prayer and agree thats not soul winning,but Isee no evidence that is what Hyles taught……..One utta have a real salvation experience and evidence should follow “justified by works;Christ will finish the work he began……sooner or later the lifesyle will change ………To answer Daves question,..if a person says they got saved and there is no change in his lifestyle is that person saved?….since repenting of sinns is not a condition to getting saved,my answer must be there is no evidence of salvation.

  65. November 22, 2007 at 2:48 am


    First, It’s good to see a Hyles defender speaking of God and Hyles as though it’s at least in the realm of possibilities that they might have differing opinions on some issue. This is more than Hyles, himself, seemed to think. I think it’s growth on your part.

    Secondly, I was certainly NOT “poking fun” at nor “messing with” your God, who is also my God, and Who holds my very breath in His almighty hand.

    Thirdly, what I was doing was using “satire”. It’s a tactic of debate. Look it up. It’s meant to expose vice or folly through ridicule, irony and sarcasm. But I was not ridiculing God. Suppose you saw a still photo of a child holding the hands of a 300 pound line-backer. The motion blur seemed to indicate that they were twirling in a circle. Which of the two would you conclude was twirling the other? That’s how I would expect you to read my reply to Christopher. God is immovable. Therefore, I expect that the reproach would obviously be cast upon Christopher. You could only intentionally misread this.

    The tactic of debate you are using is called “hyperbole”: obvious and intentional exaggeration. By casting dispersions upon mine and Pastor Mallinak’s salvation, by stating we went to “cult college”, by calling us “babes”, screaming at me to “GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!”, claiming to be a “donkey on the HammerJack blacklist, calling ours a “Corinth style church” and claiming that we missed “Christianity 101” (where, no doubt, you were the professor). If this is meant to intimidate, then I think you picked the wrong venue. On the internet, midgets often pass as giants (and vise-versa).

    Next, I’m not sure where you are getting that “Christ’s righteousness covers our sins” or that “Christ’s righteousness covers us. Did you really mean to say that? Between men, charity covers a multitude of sin. Christ’s righteousness is never said to cover sin. This is what happens when you repeat something long enough in some circles; it becomes as true to members as though it came right out of the Bible. But this is false. You need to be more precise with your wording of important matters. Don’t string a bunch of spiritual words together and call it truth. That’s what passes for preaching in some circles, but it’s that lack of precision that causes the laity to be confused about weighty matters.

    I’ve looked closely at your scripture references and reasoning and, frankly, find them hard to follow. The references you state don’t at all say what you are implying. You just list one of the references that Jerry listed and then say “Good thing we’re of the Spirit, covered by HIS righteousness”. Huh? At least paste in the text that you’re referring to and explain how it fits your pretext. If this is how you “spell it out”, then might I suggest you not teach children?

    Then you said this:

    Let me illustrate again for you….Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:14Open Link in New Window; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15;35; 2Sam. 24:16; Amos 7;3 and 7:6; Jonah 3:10…All say that God repented…So, is God a sinner ? Does He need a savior ?

    Where did this come from? We were discussing A) the definition of repentance and B) whether it was a prerequisite to salvation. Are you suggesting that either of the proposed definitions apply to God? Could either apply? That He repented of sin, or that He repented of unbelief would both be ridiculous. Neither had anyone suggested that these definitions apply to God. What were you trying to illustrate here?

    You bring up Nichodemus as and example of belief-only salvation. You say that he was told 3 times to believe. This is true. But was he not also told that he “must be born again” (how does this align with belief?) and in verse 20 that those who don’t come to the Light (Christ) refuse to do so on the basis that they love their dark deeds and don’t want them reproved? Repentance is what this sort of person lacks. According to the Word, they don’t fail to see the light, or to acknowledge it as light. They simply don’t want the light to reprove their works.

    John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    Why don’t you take the passages that have been offered and educate us on why they don’t mean what we think they mean? No one has dealt with the passages, they’ve only dismissed them. And that’s what you must do to miss repentance in salvation: dismiss Scripture.

    Repentance is prerequisite to salvation (and natural to a true believer):
    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Repentance is not belief, but turning from sin to God (which can happen in an instant as with the thief on the cross):
    Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

    Act 20:21Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [isn’t faith the same thing as repentance? Why list them separately?]

  66. November 22, 2007 at 7:18 am

    1 Corinth. 6:9-11 “And such were some of you but ye are washed, but ye are santified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus”…thats the key…His righteousness covers our sins
    Eph.5:5…refer to the key found in 1 Corinth. 6:9-11…
    Gal.5:19-21…Good thing we’re of the Spirit, covered by HIS righteousness….See 1 Corinth 6:9-11

    His righteousness covers our sins, right. But that passage clearly teaches that at the point of salvation, they were no longer guilty of those particular sins – however, if they were STILL an adulterer or STILL a sodomite, etc. then they would STILL be guilty of those sins. They repented of those specific sins when they turned to Christ, and were sanctified, justified, and washed – these all happen at the POINT of salvation, not afterwards – therefore repentance of these sins (and other sins that God brings to our attention when we hear the Gospel and how we have broken His laws) are necessary to be saved. From all these passages, I do not believe God would save an unrepentant adulterer, or sodomite, or thief, or murderer, or idolator, etc.

    RE. 21:8….unbelieving,thats the key

    That’s one sin listed – but not the only one. God is saying ALL of those sins will send us to Hell if unrepented of – not just the sin of unbelief.

  67. November 22, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Christopher said,

    To answer Daves question,..if a person says they got saved and there is no change in his lifestyle is that person saved?….since repenting of sinns is not a condition to getting saved,my answer must be there is no evidence of salvation.

    Could you explain this answer… I can’t quite wrap my brain around it. I asked,

    If repentance of sins does not follow salvation, if there is no change of life that follows the profession of faith, is the person truly saved?

  68. Christopher Nelsen
    November 22, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    Who let the dogs out?
    The answer, the ” HammerJack”
    Isa.56:10 ” His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant,they are all DUMB DOGS” ( their I go using that cap lock again)
    Your methodology for your debate tactics might impress the Mallinites,but I know this tactic does’t meet the biblical definition of debate.
    “They profess themselves to be wise but are become fools’
    Why list all the verses that say God repented? ( “We were discussing A. the definition of repentance ” )…..DUHH!!!!!
    To show that the definition of the word repent doesn’t isn’t to turn away from sin…….you didn’t understand?!, let me brake it down and make it a little more simple for you.
    In the original tongue, ( thats the Greek and Hebrew) the definition of repent is:..to be sorry,console,to pity,to avenge,comfort,ease,turn back,build,do anything,do evil,feed,lay down,lie down,lodge,make,rejoice,send,take,weep,to think differently,reversal,and regret…..Thats funny,the word sin doesn’t appear even once in this definition.
    Yes, you listed adozen or more verses with the word repent in it,but the only thing you proved is that the bible mentions repent a few times,and that you have fallen into unsound doctrine and have believed another gospel.
    By definition the word repent doesn’t mean to turn from sin….not to say that the Holy Spirit can’t imply or apply it.
    You,however….have added it to the definition of repent..”If any man shall add these things,God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”…….Again,rightly divide!!!!
    The only reason you don’t like the way I spelled out the verses that you used is because it don’t say what you want it to say nor what you tried to make it say!
    You should’ve listened to the pastor of “HammerJack” when he confessed he wouldn’t and couldn’t offer even one verse because it isn’t in the bible….should’ve excepted his acknowledgement of defeat,the battle belongs to the Lord and thats why you lost this debate before it began!!!!!!!!!!
    Your ass. pastor (Kent) made a state in regards to Gods word being a hammer;….to bad your hammer is only plastic!!!!!!!

    Dave,let me better answer your question…..since I’m not God,I can not say weather this person is saved or not only that I see no evidence….”faith without works is dead”

    I am still waiting for someone to rise to my challenge!!!!!!!!!!

    Acts 16:30-31 “And brought them out,and said,Sirs,what must I do to be saved? And THEY said,(not Christopher,or Hyles)BELIEVE (I see what you mean by those heretics using cap locks) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”

  69. Bobby
    November 23, 2007 at 7:17 am


    At what point do we acknowledge that perhaps the following applies to Christopher? Pr 26:4 ¶ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

  70. November 23, 2007 at 8:39 am

    For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
    (2 Corinthians 7:10)

    Is someone sorrowful for unbelief or for offenses (sins) against God?

    But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
    (Matthew 9:13)

  71. Christopher Nelsen
    November 23, 2007 at 9:04 am

    Its easy for false teachers to label people like me as such…..making challenges to debate and finding the fisrt door that says exit, (stair a monkey in the face and reveal a coward), eventually, I ‘m sure this is what you’ll do,..since you don’t have a scripture foot to stand on!……Then you’ll tell everyone either you won the debate or that there never was a debate,and your still waiting for someone to step up……..”why are you angry with me for telling you the truth,…It’s hard to kick against the pricks……..,
    I pray the Mallinites will find the Lord Jesus somewhere on their road to Damascus!

  72. November 23, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Bobby said “At what point do we acknowledge that perhaps the following applies to Christopher? Pr 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

    Bobby, you need to make that decision yourself. For now, we will not be prohibitting him from commenting. Whether you follow Proverbs 26:4 or Proverbs 26:5 is up to you.

    It is interesting that he claims we now will not debate him, but it is evident that he is insistent on saying that we believe something we have never claimed.

  73. Bobby
    November 23, 2007 at 12:44 pm


    I did not have in mind a prohibition from commenting. I’m simply asking you if you think we should be answering him. There is a difference. Often my thinking is to let someone like him just babble on and show himself to be the fool that he is. I have made my decision for myself, but I was hoping to provoke you, Dave, and Kent along the same lines.

  74. November 23, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Bobby, I’ve already stopped answering him, see comment #54.

  75. Christopher Nelsen
    November 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    The bible says God can even use a donkey,..and if I gotta be the donkey in order for the finished work of Christ to be taught,..or even if I gotta be called the fool,..I’ll count it all gain afterv what the Lord has done for me.
    Whats funny is I’ve had this same debate with Catholics,pentacostals,J.W.’s,Mormons.Muslims etc

    Still waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  76. November 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Christopher Nelsen (a.k.a. Nelly or Hammerjacks Blacklisted Donkey) says, “The bible says God can even use a donkey,”

    My challenge to the rest of you watching is to find those words in the Bible. I looked and couldn’t. It seems that maybe he’s using a different Bible version than I searched in. Or, maybe he’s putting words in God’s mouth just like he’s trying to put them in our mouths. I don’t know exactly what’s happening, I’m just surmising…

    Anyway to respond to Bobby, I hope you did notice that I only gave two options for responding to Nelly, or Christopher, or the HJBD. Either answer the fool, or answer not the fool…

    Both ways, we’re still dealing with the same type of person.

  77. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 23, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Your bible don’t have the story of how God used an ass to speak to His prophet(sorry I was’t word perfect,I am only a man) thats right your using the bible that says repentance is defined as turning from sin only.

    Still waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!

  78. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 23, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    You say Hyles, in “enemies to soul winng”defines repent to narrow….to a point I agree.
    You said in blog #4 that he defines repent as a change of mind from unbelief to belief….( true, when it conserns how one is saved or the condition of salvation)…not true at all, Hyles defines repent as turning away.But the definition is much more broad then that,I proved that with the definition I offered.
    You call Hyles a heritic for this and claim he taught a false doctrine on the issue of savation…..not true, he hit the nail on the head with his hammer in regards to how one must get saved.
    The only thing he is guilty of here is not giving a more full definition of repent.
    By biblical definition,that don’t make no heretic!
    You on the other hand,claim that repent,..each time it’s used in your hand picked philosophy of verses means “only” to turn from sins (also to narrow) and that it’s a condition to salvation.Which is the same teaching as the cults I listed…….The Blood plus works. (if you weren’t so busy tring to make Hyle a heretic you might see this Truth)
    Which is what Hyles was tring to battle against in his “enemies to soul winning”
    Then you play antics and semantics…turning from sin “accompanies salvation” (TRUE) turning from sins is a “condition to salvation” (UNTRUE)…..you can’t have it both ways!
    Many gifts and works accompany salvation but are not a condition to one getting saved.
    To do this is to teach a false doctrine,and that makes you a heretic! Rom.2:1 “Therefore thou art inexcusable,O man,whosoever thou art that judgest:for wherein thou judgest another,thou condemnest thyself;for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

    I give Hyles credit for atleast getting the doctrine and the battle right.
    By the way FBCH last sunday had 10,000 attend and last Friday in R.U. had 400) Thats alot of people working or exercising the gift of turning from sins.(repentance,but you gods know their hearts aren’t really sincere)

    What is the condition to one getting saved?….”BELIEVE and thou shalt be saved”

    Still waiting for just one verse,JUST ONE VERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  79. November 23, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    You’ve already been shown various passages. Bobby has quoted various places where God commands us to turn from our wickedness, etc. – and the passages were clearly referring to sins. I have also quoted several places in the New Testament where the Bible plainly shows that those who practice those sins will not inherit the kingdom of God – ie. be saved; therefore that means they must repent of those specific sins to be saved.

  80. November 24, 2007 at 1:34 pm


    We’ve been civil to you. You are an easy target for ridicule because of the way you write and we have refrained for the most part from saying anything about that. The ridicule would actually be true, with lots of good evidence that you have provided and we have been tempted, but truly you do an adequate job of hurting your own cause. You have simply ignored very good exegesis about repentance from several on here.

    But my big concern is your repeated ad hominem (personal) attacks. I would be a little more understanding of them if they had even a grain of truth in them, but you have repeatedly essentially challenged our manhood and then you sarcastically in the above posts called us “gods.” I’m through with your act, frankly, and if I see any more of it, I’m going to suggest to the other Jackhammers that we kick you off this site. (by the way, don’t try to show us how biblical it is to talk like you do because of how serious it is—you actually do just the opposite; you take serious conversation and dumb it down to verbal dirt clod fights.) You are breaking our rule number four above in the left sidebar. I’m sure the other Jackhammers would agree with me that if you can’t keep a certain level of propriety in your writing then you should not continue to have discussions here. So it really will be up to you. You can take whatever position you think you should take and go after our views, but you can’t make the undocumented personal attacks anymore or we will push the eject button on you.

  81. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    Again,I never disagreed that repent couldn’t have sins,or wickedness attached to it….and NO!you didn’t show any verses that proved turning from sins is a condition to salvation….you did what any cult does,find a verse or two that fits your philosophy!In fact you teach the same heresy doctrine of repenting from sins as a condition of salvation as they all do!…………As far as my language goes,look whos calling the kettle black,you sure can dish it but you can’t take it!
    Now,cuz you didn’t win the day,you throw a temper tatrum….

    What must one do to be saved?…”Believe,and thou shalt be be saved”
    I know you don’t like that,but the bible says God’s Word is offencive to some.

    So,do what you already said you would do,….RUN!!!!Find the exit door,or push your eject botton!

    One verse,just one verse!But we both already knew you CAN”T do that!

  82. November 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
    (Acts 16:32)

  83. John Warren
    November 24, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Mr. Nelsen,

    Mat 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
    Mat 4:13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
    Mat 4:14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
    Mat 4:15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, [by] the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
    Mat 4:16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
    Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    In the context of this passage, could you explain what Jesus means in verse 17 when He said to “Repent”?

  84. Bobby
    November 24, 2007 at 7:20 pm


    That was a good one asking for the verse that says that. Thanks for the laugh.

  85. Gary Johnson
    November 24, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Revelation 9
    20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
    21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

    All that can be seen in these verses is not repenting of their sins. Unbelief is not mentioned. Thus the plagues continued in trying to bring these men to repentance.

    II Peter 3
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    Bible doctrine is not based on one verse of scripture picked out to justify your position, that is what cults do, but rather we should be “comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” No one is denying that by grace ye are saved through faith, we are simply agreeing with the Lord when he said. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Sadly many men who I shall simply call the Sword of the Lord crowd, desiring the praise of men, quickly present “the gospel”, so that they can report another decision. No repentance, and no conversion, and no faithfulness. I may not have as many numbers to report, but what a joy to see the true converts that continue to grow in the Lord and remain faithful.

  86. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 25, 2007 at 6:28 am

    Gary is rigt to say that doctrine isn’t determined by one veres but it is to be compared.thats one thing I’ve been tring to show you.It is also true that we are saved by grace.And since know one And since know one attacked they usually do then I will also refrain,but only as long as you do!John, I will explain those verses for you,but with scripture an not opinions as JackHammer does on this topic of repentance……(so, don’t think the verse I challenged was offered!) This will be a minute because of the hours of work I been putting in for my weife and kids,but by no means believe that I forgot or left or can’t prove my postion,…actually I won’t Gods Word will.

  87. Michael Marshall
    November 25, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Br Brandenburg and Mallinak,, I have been busy chasing down the Carrierwave, warding off the impending U.N. Invasion, and talking the woman I love into marrying me, and I missed all this!

    Do I hafta refrain???????? I know, I’ll just get a blot, but why not? One good blot deserves another…….

  88. HammerJacks Blacklisted Donkey
    November 25, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Mike,I think we have all agreed to keep this debate at an explaination of why our postion is as such…My yay is yay,so I’ll keep in line with what I said about refraining.However,despite this website accusation,I’m not yella,..I can give as good as I take,…so if you wanna take the gloves off be my guest!

    Bobby,these guys think they can or have given the verses,….that is a good laugh.

    Jack Hammer,I agree! The Words of the Lord have been given to you and your house,whats sad is the unwillingness to recieve the truth. A couple of the main problems here is that you have spent soo much time into proving Hyles a heretic that you have turned repentance into a dotrine,the real doctrine we debate is the doctrine of salvation.I don’t argue that repenting of sins is in the bible,..it is!But rather that it is an element within this doctrine of salvation,in fact it is an element found in a couple of doctrines,and I rebuke sharply that the teaching of the doctrine “repentance” is a false doctrine.The other clear problem is the mix up and confusion and twisting of Interpatation and application.

    Rev.9:20-21..(You have a bible please read yourself,have to work early so I don’t have time to type.)

    In verse 20 we see they build with their hands idols and worship them…even after God shows Himself through the plagues they still refuse to repent of unbelief,in fact their unbelief is so reprobate that they call to the rocks for protection,…also found in Rev.
    When we look at some of the scripture that directly deals with what the condition to salvation or getting saved,this is what we see….
    Acts 16:30-31….The question is asked,”Sirs, what must I do to be saved?The answer,”believe and thou shalt be saved” Paul and Silas spoke this,Paul being the writter of many of the verses that has been used to try and prove the false doctrine of repentance…..Paul is a witness against this postion!If thats not good enough,I’ll call Jesus to the stand……What saith the Lord?! “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life;he who believethon Him is not condemned;….by two or three witnesses a thing shall be established.”
    Then in verse 21we see the evidence of unbelief by their lifestyle……..In Matt. concerning the virgins,Jesus points out to the Jews that it is not by works of righteousness but by faith….so,what if your the decendants of Abraham only the Truth will set you free!
    Lifesyle,works or deeds…..what we produce and achieve!
    You stated something to the effect that it’s not about numbers but converts….A.thats why I called you gods,you seem to think you can judge whether a person is saved or not.I thought that judgement was reserved for God….The Lord judges whats in the heart.
    B. We are told three different times in Acts thge number of convertsso I think God might be a little concerned with numbers….He is not willing tha\t anmy should perish.

    2 Pet. 3:9
    This showsthat as long as you have breadth you can come to Jesus,if you refuse then you will find the promice of eternal death or the second death.It is also a warning to christians,that their is also a promice of consequences to our sins and they are inevitable,incalculable and up to God.If you return to the prior verses we see the topic is the judgement.But their are two judgements; “The Great White Throne”and “The Judgement Seat Of Christ.( which is for believers) 1 Corinth 3:11-15,……Here in this passage we are shown that a christian has works of righteousness or works of wickedness,…the christian whoes works are found to be wicked his rewards are burned up but he himself is saved.Don’t forget if you don’t obey we are also told He will laugh at our calamity,and that He will chasetise us.The wages of sin is death,eigther the second death or the death of loss…….and He is not slack in His promices,christians don’t tempt God!!!!!!!!!!!!

    John Warren,
    Matt.4:17,…Jesus taught both,..on what one must do to get saved, (repent from unbelief) He also taught of the victory we’d have over sin and how the Law brought our sins into the light,(thus repentance of sins)He did not teach repent as a doctrine nor that the repenting of sins is a condition of salvation.

    Again,…”Sirs,what must I do to be saved?….believe and thou shalt be saved.”

    To go along with Bobby,Ha!,Ha!,Ha!
    Still waiting for just one verses

  89. John Warren
    November 26, 2007 at 9:03 am

    Mr. Nelsen,

    To repent from unbelief, does this mean one must believe perfectly for true repentance to occur? Also, If someone’s actions are contrary to God’s will and way (I read your post from yesterday and you quoted Rev 9:20 & 21, I don’t see where unbelief is at issue) couldn’t those actions be sin and not unbelief? Does a believing unsaved person sin?

    One last thing, do you see a difference in scripture from what Christ spoke about and where it indicates Him teaching? Is there a difference, if any? Where’s the line drawn?

  90. November 26, 2007 at 1:47 pm


    Now are you aware that “repent of unbelief” is not found in Scripture? As many times as you’ve said it, it’s possible you think that. And if the words themselves aren’t found in Scripture, then you need to show Scripturally that “repent” means “repent from unbelief”. Simply showing verses that call on someone to “believe” for salvation do not establish that repentance = “repentance from unbelief”. For one thing, this is defining a word in terms of itself, which is circular. In the phrase “repent of unbelief”, what does “repent” mean?

    You’ve taken people to task for listing 30+ references (yes, that many, count them), that establish repentance as a prerequisite for salvation, yet you’ve only listed a few that call on one to “believe” only to be saved. Now, to be clear, both lists of verses are true. I don’t deny that. But what if I opened up a third front in defining the prerequisites for salvation. One must be lowered through a roof by men of faith! I have a clear passage that shows how that is all the lame man did in order for Christ to forgive his sins. Neither belief nor repentance were listed:

    Mar 2:4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

    Now if I wanted to, I could condemn the belief and repent camps as heretics for not believing in roof-salvation. Now to do that, I would have to ignore all other passages on salvation.

    One can believe without repenting. One cannot repent without believing. Repentance is the superset. Belief is the subset. We are talking as though there are only 2 sets of verses, the “belief” verses and the “repent” verses. Well, what about the “come unto me” verses,? What about the “call upon the name of the Lord” verses? What about the “turn” verses? What about the “confession” verses? Are they not also in the Bible? Do they not refer to Biblical salvation? Certainly (with the exception of my roof-salvation one, which is just for illustration sake).

    Then to get a full definition of salvation, we must take all of them and harmonize them and not cast any out. What we don’t do is say that that “call upon” means “believe” and “confession” means “believe” and “repent” means “believe” (or more cleverly “repent of unbelief”), and “reconciled” means “reconciled to belief” and “turn” means “turn from unbelief”. If you do that, then you must impose your opinion on all the verses that say anything besides “believe” in describing or commanding salvation.

    Now at the same time, we are missing each other when trying to connect or even debate the meaning of repentance. You call repentance a “work” probably thinking that we advocate works after salvation as the definition of repentance. But that’s not so. We also believe that works are works and don’t add one ounce to salvation. Speaking of works related to repentance, the Bible teaches in…

    Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

    Act 26:20 But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

    Neither of these verses ask repentance-based works from an unsaved person. In Acts 26:20, the Apostle Paul tells about how he demanded of the gentiles that they should first repent and turn to God, and then do works meet for repentance. Repentance is given by God:

    2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

    We also see here that until God gives repentance, these lost gentiles cannot even acknowledge the truth.

    Christopher, can you be very specific about what a person must believe? Write out everything that they must believe, if you would. Must they believe they are a sinner? Must they believe that Jehovah is God? Must they believe in Jesus Christ (consider the Old Testament saints). Must they believe that Christ died for their sins? Must they believe that God raised Jesus from the dead? Must they believe in the Trinity, the Triune God? Must they believe in God’s love for mankind or for them? Must they believe that God is their Creator? Must they believe that they are going to Hell? Must they believe the Bible? What all must a person believe? Could your definition be used to describe all of “Christendom”?

    Now what thing must they NOT believe? Must they not believe that they need to be baptized to complete their salvation? Must they not believe that Mary is the go-between betwixt them and the Father? Must they not believe that prayers to the saints will be heard? Must they not believe in purgatory? Must they not believe that they evolved from lower life-forms? Must they not believe that they must be circumcised? Must they not believe that their works avail anything to salvation? Must they not believe that other gods exist?

    God does not phrase the “turning” in terms of turning from Godlesness to Godfulness. Over and over He terms it as turning from sin(s) to God. In the reverse, the turning is not a turning from God to nothing, it’s always turning from God to sin(s).

    As you debate, I get the sense that if we asked you if one of your new converts had repented of his sin, you would say, “Of course not, he’s just a new Christian!” This makes repentance a work of man, rather than a work of God in man as the Bible teaches (2Ti 2:25).

    If repentance from sin isn’t required for the forgiveness of sin, then wouldn’t that be true after salvation? If I go out and commit adultery, I don’t need to repent of that sin to be forgiven, I just need to believe and my sins are forgiven, right? After all, it’s all under the blood!!! Or maybe, for you, salvation doesn’t even include forgiveness of sins? Consider these:

    Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (should we read that God gave them “belief”?)

    Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (Why would God command us against His own pattern? He wouldn’t.)

    Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. (ibid)

    1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (What if we don’t confess our sins? Are they still forgiven because we believe? Sin must be dealt with.)

    Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    (we know baptism isn’t required, but remove it and nothing is required!)

    It isn’t up to us to prove that “repent” doesn’t mean “repent from unbelief”. It’s up to you to prove that “repent” means “repent from unbelief”, and you have not done that. Or should I say, “NOT ONE VERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    You quote the Philippian Jailer:

    Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
    Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

    (Can you not see that he is kneeling at Paul’s feet as he asks the question. He’s seeking something he knows he needs. He believes that Paul and Paul’s God have it to give. God has already given him repentance. When he uses the word “saved”, he admits that he is damned in his sins. He believes there is a remedy. This man, at this moment, only lacks direction in whom to believe: Jesus Christ.

    The instantaneous result of instantaneous repentance is instantaneous reconciliation to God without and before works.

    Even if you ultimately choose your own way, you need to be careful what you dismiss and what you ridicule lest you might be found to fight against God. You’re not fooling anyone by adding “JUST ONE VERSE!!!!!!!!!” to the end of every response. Many verses have been given that do prove repentance is repentance of sin and the repentance is a prerequisite of salvation, but your treatment of the words of Scripture are treacherous. You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing everyone else here of doing. You need to stop and consider that maybe these aren’t cultist dogs, but redeemed men following God’s word.

    I apologize for the length.

  91. November 26, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    This post is now closed. If we want to return to this topic, we will do so in the discussion forums. We will let you know when or if that takes place.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: