The REAL Jack Hyles

I was talking to a fellow in my church yesterday. He is getting ready to leave to go plant a church in Carrollton, TX. He mentioned that he was blessed to have had personal relationships with (among others) Jack Hyles and John R Rice. His daughter attends Hyles-Anderson College and is very happy there.

Anyway he said that while Jack Hyles has been much maligned (obviously) he found him to be a wonderful Godly man. He also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally. He said that Hyles used to say things in jest (if you don't use the KJB then you aren't spititual) which have been quoted out of context as Hyles' views. Many times my pastor (a great fellow) has made such joking remarks (you can disagree with me if you want - but then that means you're not right with God - (church laughs) - no I'm just kidding...). Anyway he portrayed Hyles as an opinionated but reasonable fellow.

Any thoughts? I guess (based on things I've read) that I've always considered Hyles a bad apple (assuming he was a hyper-legalist). Maybe that was wrong?

I attended Hyles-Anderson College 25 years ago. I would be very quick to agree that much of what is said about Dr. Hyles is exaggerated and taken out of context by those who are repeating second, third, fourth-hand stories.

However, when you made the following statement, "He also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally," I believe that Dr. Hyles own words would indicate that he believed otherwise.

Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New international version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.

The genes of the new birth must be incorruptible. I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." These words were penned in the first century, but it says that the incorruptible seed "liveth and abideth for ever." Since today is a part of "for ever," we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again.

Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed..." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever. Enemies of Soulwinng by Dr. Jack Hyles, 1993

Click to expand...

My friend, Dr. Dell Johnson told me that, in his opinion, this one chapter in Dr. Hyles' book has done more damage to the defense of the KJV than anything else of which he is aware.

I'll begin by addressing one of Charles' friend's comments:

Charles writes:

He [his friend] also said that Hyles' stand on the KJB was NOT that one must use a KJB to be saved, but rather that HE simply felt the KJB was better personally.

Click to expand...

Here is what Hyles wrote in his 1993 book Ememies of Soul Winning (Chapter Five):

...Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God. This means that the Revised Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Good News for Modern Man is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Living Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the Reader's Digest Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New Scofield Bible is not precious seed, because it is not incorruptible. This means that the New International Version (NIV) is not precious seed, and it is not incorruptible. This means that the American Standard Version is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible. If the versions do not agree, then all of them cannot be the very words of God that have been preserved for us.

3. The genes of the new birth must be incorruptible. I Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." These words were penned in the first century, but it says that the incorruptible seed "liveth and abideth for ever." Since today is a part of "for ever," we must have the incorruptible seed in order to be re-gened, or regenerated, or born again.

4. Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever. This is also borne out in Psalm 19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Notice the words, "the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul." It is the law of the Lord that converts. It is the Word of God that regenerates. The Word is the seed, and the seed must be incorruptible.

Click to expand...

Hyles never retracted that statement prior to his death in February of 2001. Of course, Hyles' own conversion to KJVOism took place in the early 1980's- after the death of his close friend & mentor John R. Rice. Prior to Rice's death, Hyles actively opposed KJVOism, going so far as to expel (c. 1978) Hyles-Anderson College students who promoted it. Also, in his earlier books, Hyles clearly did not believe the KJV to be a flawless translation. As an example, see his 1968 book Let's Study the Revelation. In that book Hyles points out in several instances what he believed to be imperfectly translated verses (in Revelation) in the King James Version. I could mention several other examples & incidents that demonstrate Hyles' pre-1980 non-KJVO stance, but these couple should suffice.

Since Hyles' death, many of his supporters seem to be engaged in some sort of revisionist campaign to soft-peddle the more extremist of his statements & views. Charles, your friend's statement about Hyles not really believing that one could be saved only through use of the KJV is an example of that. Hyles clearly did state, and wasn't known to have retracted, such a belief.

[I see that while I was busy typing, Pastor Bob was beating me to the punch!]

I am not a Jack Hyles fan. Sad to say my family and I went to a IFBC that was VERY cultish and legalistic and we were hurt tremendously for not conforming.The Pastor worshiped Jack Hyles not God.Below are some documented facts about Jack Hyles.

I have attended 2 legalistic churches which caused so much spiritual abuse to so many families I will never attend one again. No wonder they have so few members. I am happy to say I am once again part of a well balanced Babtist church.


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hyles/sin.htm

Woops I meant Baptist

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
I am not a Jack Hyles fan. Sad to say my family and I went to a IFBC that was VERY cultish and legalistic and we were hurt tremendously for not conforming.The Pastor worshiped Jack Hyles not God.Below are some documented facts about Jack Hyles.

I have attended 2 legalistic churches which caused so much spiritual abuse to so many families I will never attend one again. No wonder they have so few members. I am happy to say I am once again part of a well balanced Babtist church.


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hyles/sin.htm

Click to expand...

I am just curious, what you mean by "cultish and leagalistic.

Well, this is what we experenced. The Pastor new and young ( age 26 ) was very controlling. You could not disagree with him on anything or he would point you out or get very mad. You had to carry a KJV and the women had to ALWAYS wear dresses even at home or they were considered UNGODLY. Men had to wear suits. We had questioned him on this and he would advoid the subject and he would get mad at us for discussing the subject with others. We were told not to call certain people in the church and talk about him about anything that it would get back to him. He would get upset and say something from the pulpit if anyone would be sleeping, or not singing or making a face he didn't like ( one lady left because of this she was actually looking at a child and he basically pointed her out ). Outward apperences were MORE important than ones heart. One young couple were living together in sin , she already had a child out of wedlock with another man. But because he knew the family and they dress in dresses and suits and carried a KJV and never were any trouble, he never talked to them about living together. We had them over to dinner to talk to them about it and the guy admitted he would never marry her, why should he . When going to the Pastor about it he got mad at us and called us pharisees.

The Pastor and others would do visitation for NUMBERS sake only saying they won lots of souls but the church never grew and I know for a fact a couple he supposably won to the Lord were not really saved. They were my friends from my sons school and they said they prayed with him cause he kept pushing the issue.

Preaching was more on the importance of ones outward appearence then having Gods Holy Spirit do the work in and through us. Any kind of Alcohol was forbidden even cooking wine in food. Dancing was a Sin he said David never really danced it was something else, but not dancing. Everything was a Sin and he was in charge of EVERY thing. My son 10 was in his own front yard we were playing catch one HOT summer day and he wasn't wearing a shirt, we had to hear about it at church the next day. From a family that drove by. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. Jack Hyles was his God he talked and qouted more from him than Gods word.

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
Well, this is what we experenced. The Pastor new and young ( age 26 ) was very controlling. You could not disagree with him on anything or he would point you out or get very mad. You had to carry a KJV and the women had to ALWAYS wear dresses even at home or they were considered UNGODLY. Men had to wear suits. We had questioned him on this and he would advoid the subject and he would get mad at us for discussing the subject with others. We were told not to call certain people in the church and talk about him about anything that it would get back to him. He would get upset and say something from the pulpit if anyone would be sleeping, or not singing or making a face he didn't like ( one lady left because of this she was actually looking at a child and he basically pointed her out ). Outward apperences were MORE important than ones heart. One young couple were living together in sin , she already had a child out of wedlock with another man. But because he knew the family and they dress in dresses and suits and carried a KJV and never were any trouble, he never talked to them about living together. We had them over to dinner to talk to them about it and the guy admitted he would never marry her, why should he . When going to the Pastor about it he got mad at us and called us pharisees.

The Pastor and others would do visitation for NUMBERS sake only saying they won lots of souls but the church never grew and I know for a fact a couple he supposably won to the Lord were not really saved. They were my friends from my sons school and they said they prayed with him cause he kept pushing the issue.

Preaching was more on the importance of ones outward appearence then having Gods Holy Spirit do the work in and through us. Any kind of Alcohol was forbidden even cooking wine in food. Dancing was a Sin he said David never really danced it was something else, but not dancing. Everything was a Sin and he was in charge of EVERY thing. My son 10 was in his own front yard we were playing catch one HOT summer day and he wasn't wearing a shirt, we had to hear about it at church the next day. From a family that drove by. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. Jack Hyles was his God he talked and qouted more from him than Gods word.

Click to expand...

There is a lot here, but nothing here is cultish or legalistic. If what you say is true, the Pastor has a lot of maturing to do. There are different levels of Christianity. A person who has been saved for 10 years can't expect a person who just got saved to conform to there level of walk. I go to a IFBC, and nothing that you said goes on at our church. We are glad people are there, and BTW, it's God's church, not ours. We let the Holy Spirit guide the believer. As for the KJB, you can carry whatever you want, but you will never teach, preach or read outloud anything else but the KJ. There is a reason for that, we won't get into that here. I knew brother Jack, He preached at our church once in awhile. I enjoyed him. He wasn't perfect, but who is. He in my oppinion he was a great man of God. He is my brother in Christ and with the Lord. One day I'll see him again. I like to focus more on what someone did for the Lord, not what they didn't do.

Servant_96: There is a lot here, but nothing here is cultish or legalistic.

Yes, it IS. Nothing in Scripture says women must wear skirts or men must always wear a shirt in public. I generally ignore such chowderheads who ADD to Scripture. They have their reward.

If what you say is true, the Pastor has a lot of maturing to do.

Why should it NOT be true?

There are different levels of Christianity. A person who has been saved for 10 years can't expect a person who just got saved to conform to there level of walk.

There's a BIG difference in growing as a Christian and slipping into heresy.


I go to a IFBC, and nothing that you said goes on at our church. We are glad people are there, and BTW, it's God's church, not ours. We let the Holy Spirit guide the believer.

Excellent!


As for the KJB, you can carry whatever you want, but you will never teach, preach or read outloud anything else but the KJ.

That's YOUR loss. You're not utilizing everything God has made available to you.


There is a reason for that, we won't get into that here.

If the reason isn't PERSONAL PREFERENCE, it's WRONG.


I knew brother Jack, He preached at our church once in awhile. I enjoyed him. He wasn't perfect, but who is. He in my oppinion he was a great man of God. He is my brother in Christ and with the Lord.

You're right in saying he wasn't perfect; in fact he was the very antithesis of perfect. I suggest you study what he preached in his later years very closely, ignoring the KJVO stuff, focusing about what he preached about JESUS.


One day I'll see him again. I like to focus more on what someone did for the Lord, not what they didn't do.

While ignoring what they did AGAINST the Lord?

Thanks for all the responses so far. I've been hoping to hear that many of the stories about Hyles were somewhat exaggerated. Because a preacher in the vain of the one described by Rightfromwrong is NO man of God.

Jack Hyles was known for his frequent rants against the Southern Baptist Convention almost as much as he was known for his relatively late-in-life conversion to KJVOism.

Therefore, does anyone else find it ironic that Beverly (since moving to Texas) reportedly now attends First Baptist Church of Dallas- a non-KJVO, SBC church?

(I am not being critical of where she's at, BTW.)

BTW he ( the young Pastor ) taught that other leaders such as Billy Grahm, John MacArthur, Charles Stanley and many other men of God were " Wrong " he also would put down other Born Again Christian denominations. We would joke saying " IFB " are going to be awfully surprised when they go to heaven to see so many other denominations of people there. They are going to stay in their LITTLE and I mean LITTLE corner and never mingle with any of them, just their little group since they were the true Seperate HOLY ones.

Here are a few defenitions of a CULT sorry to say both IFBC we went to had these same problems.


Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

Now compare what I said in my true story to some of the things mentioned about cults you will find lots of similarities.

I rest my case

I know whatcha mean about cults. In my BC days, some moonies tried to recruit me, and I pulled some heat and said that's what I had for their guru Sunny Junk Moonshine if I got the chance, but THEY'D do as subs if they hung around another 5 seconds.(I was a VERY violent person before I submitted to Christ & He corrected me.)

However, while a new Christian, I almost got sucked into Herbie Armstrong's cult, "Worldwide Church of God". No threats, no coercion, just a pack of cleverly-disguised lies made from partial Scripture quotes and fabricated history. The HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to open my eyes by making me read about Herbie's annihilationism, while reminding me it's a false doctrine pushed by the Jehovah False Witlesses & 7th Day Ad-libbers among others.

To "civilized" peoples who've had the Gospel preached to them for centuries, those pseudo-Christian cults are the most dangerous of all, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it".

Seems the moonies, Hare Krishnas, Rosicrucians, Flower Children, etc. have died down considerably in America, while Maiatreya(sic) and a few others have never caught on here.(Beware of Quinn The Eskimo!) But we must be aware of all the little local cultettes that have sprung up. "Heaven's Gate" is an example of such.

The armor and the sword of God, which one acquires through diligent Bible study along with fervent prayer, can make anyone cult-proof. If we lead someone to Christ, we should follow up to keep this person from straying into the wide world of cults while they grow in Christ.

We're getting off the point about Hyles specifically. As a 1983 grad of Hyles-Anderson College, I saw the evolution of Hyles. I idolized him in my youth. But I have come to see that he is no pattern for a Christian pastor.
HAC is the most legalistic cult one could imagine. I learned next to nothing there from Scripture. The classes were a joke. We were there to be worker bees for the bus ministry. And don't get me started as to the mess that was! And don't get me started about all the people supposedly saved and baptized there.
I wouldn't recommend a young person to go to HAC if they paid him to go there. Don't waste the best years of your life building an empire for egotistical humbugs.

I apologize for not reading every single post here but I don't have time right now. I will add my 2 cents worth.

We need to be careful before we destroy a man's reputation after he has passed on. Obviously he was only a man and therefore could not perfectly interpret every aspect of scripture any more than the rest of us.

I believe the KJV to be God's preserved word as well. But I also believe people can be saved through other versions. I believe that most translations doctrines are intact.

But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved.

If his stance on the KJV was flawed it doesn't change a thing as far as someones getting saved. In other words, if a man was led to Christ with the KJV, it was valid. It didn't matter if that person didn't believe the N.I.V. to be the word of God. All the KJV haters cannot dispute that the KJV is and always has been the Word of God. It has been the other versions that have had the burden to prove they are up to the KJV for accuracy and longevity.

I believe Jack Hyles was a flawed but used of God man. I think we all fit that catagory.

We need to be careful before we destroy a man's reputation after he has passed on. Obviously he was only a man and therefore could not perfectly interpret every aspect of scripture any more than the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Jack Hyles destoryed his own reputation by his foolish actions. Pointing out what is public fact is doing no more damage to him. He is already dead anyhow.

Yes he was a man, but a man with a tremendous amount of responsability, which he abused. He therefore is worse than other men for the spiritual destruction he caused in the lives of many.

But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved.

Click to expand...

If a ministry is error, there is nothing wrong with exposing it for the protection of others. This is comendable.

His church was sucessful by man's terms not God's. The methods used by Hyles certainly were not pleasing to God. The ends never justify the means.

As to thousands of souls saved, that is not a proven fact. Hyles "easy believism" more than likely gave many a false assurance of salvation and further blinded them to the truth.

I believe Jack Hyles was a flawed but used of God man. I think we all fit that catagory.

Click to expand...

This does not justify Jack's flawlessnes. God used Judas for His purposes too. Jack Hyles ministry was not the example of what a good church should look like. May we learn from and avoid his many errors.

But to pick his ministry apart piece by piece is dangerous. Say what you will. God used this man and his ministry to build one of the largest most successful churches in this country. Many thousands have been saved.

Click to expand...

Why is it that Hyles' supporters will so frequently revert to these types of statements in regards to Hyles' ministry, but yet seem to absolutely refuse to extend the courtesy which they expect to the ministries of others?

The last two sentences that Soulman writes above could also be said about men such as Rick Warren or FBC Hammond's Chicago-area neighbor Bill Hybels- yet these men's ministries are the object of almost universal derision & scorn among Hylesites. Thousands have also been saved through the decades-long ministry of Billy Graham; yet I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any positive summaries of Graham among those who are within the Hyles camp.

The largest church in America at the moment is pastored by Joel Osteen. 57,000 people were in attendance for Lakewood Church's recent opening weekend services in their new 16,000 seat auditorium: Houston's former Compaq Center arena. Because he pastors the largest, most "successful" church in the country- should that mean that nobody should have any basis for critiquing either him or his ministry?

Good observation Larry.