Good article. Thanks for writing that. It’s much needed. Hyles was a wolf in sheep’s clothing indeed (Matt. 7:15-20; Ac. 20:29-30). Those that partake with Hyles churches are guilty by association. I have often heard men proclaim that they are for repentance yet embrace Hyles. Hmmm.
You clearly demonstrated that the wicked are always lost. I would include the “wicked person” in 1 Cor. 5 who is often said to be a true believer disciplined out of the church. But not only are the wicked always lost, so are backsliders. You wrote concerning “backsliders among the true people of God to live up to their privileges.” I cannot however find anyplace in scripture where the term is used to describe the true people of God.
Please consider a brief exposition of the term.
The word and its derivatives is a noun translated from meshûbâh meshûbâh, which means apostasy, to apostatize. It refers to an apostate, one who falls away from the faith, and I can find no example in scripture showing an apostate to be saved. Apostates are always lost, false deceptive and hypocritical teachers living in a false pretence (e.g. Rom. 16:17-18; Phil. 3:18-19; 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 18-22; Ju. 1:3-16; Heb. 3:7-4:11; 10:38-39). Their heart is full of themselves and their ways, and not Gods ways (Pr. 14:14; cf. Ac. 14:15-16; Rom. 16:18). We also see no example anywhere in scripture where the apostate was a true believer but all examples of true believers being chastened of God (De. 8:5-6; Job 5:17; Pr. 3:11-12; I Cor. 11:27-32; Heb. 11:5-11), for God never stops working in His own (Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13).
In Scripture, namely the O.T., none of the sixteen occasions the word and its derivates show up does it ever refer to saved people but always to lost people and almost entirely to Israel as a lost nation: Pr. 14:14; Jer. 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 20-22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos. 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. The NT is silent on it, even on its principles. The term appears to only apply to the Jewish nation and individual Jew (the only context it’s ever used) with whom God has everlasting covenants and who’ve had incredible privilege and opportunity to be converted (Rom. 3:1-3; 9:4-5; 10:8; Ps. 78:1-72; 81:10-13; etc).
Both the O.T. and N.T. specifically state that the one who goes back, the backslider, is unsaved. “But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.” (Jer. 7:23). “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:38-39).
Thanks for the comment. You are correct in part, namely, that the common assumption that all backsliders are genuinely converted people is erroneous. Texts such as Hebrews 10:38-39 properly demonstrate that this is not the case.
I don't have time to get into a longer discussion, but based on my study here:
Very interesting article. I am not interested in defending the integrity of any person mentioned here, but I am very much interested in defending the integrity of Scripture. With that in mind I was wondering if you had any other scripture passage to support the central thrust of your claim here, other than a list of all the occurrences of "wicked" in the Old Testament.
Is there some reason you aren't mentioning some of the central passages on this such as Acts 26:18-20 or others? I'm sincerely interested why we are staying focused only on Old Testament passages and seemingly leaving out what seems to me the obvious. Is the New Testament not as clear on this subject so we left it out?
But with regard to book of Revelation 2:22, that is one interesting context you've given. I feel it is necessary to mount a defense of this verse here. It's true that with God, there is no respect of persons, and so we know that his method of judging the situation of churches there would be the same today. However, we also have to keep in mind Thyatira was a real church located in the day of John on Patmos. Are you suggesting that this verse was a warning to those 1st century Christians that if they did not repent, they would be time-warped to the great tribulation? In fact, I've often heard this verse misquoted as saying "the great tribulation," which tends to suggest this, but it actually says "great tribulation." Is this what you are actually suggesting, and if so, how do you defend it?
I'm most interested by what you left out, however: that you chose only to mention this one (1) passage out of the whole New Testament.
I'm not interested in defending Jack Hyles. It is also very unsettling to hear anyone use the term "mentally homosexual." Can we get any more info on this? On the face of it, it reminds me a bit of the people today who are trying to bring toleration of sodomy into churches, and that has to be stopped.
I will bookend this with a comment: I sure am glad that people, such as Roman Catholics, are not the ones who will decide I haven't shown sufficient "fruits of repentance" (i.e. going to their church, performing the mass, doing penance, etc.) and therefore am not saved. Or, that I haven't done as many good things as they have; or That I haven't met some checklist of works that they've decided on. I am glad it's not up to such persons that have such tendencies of thought. It's actually based on God's judgement— See, 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.
You are correct that many NT and OT passages teach this truth about repentance. I have a study at faithsaves.net/repentance/ that provides more detail. It is also in texts that do not even use the word "repent," such as 1 Thess 1:9-10. It is in Acts 26, which you mentioned. The human response to the gospel is the same in both the OT and the NT, so OT texts are very relevant. The same Greek is used for the great Tribulation in Matthew 24 and in Revelation 2:22, and, yes, I believe the risen Christ is warning the unconverted that they would be left behind were He to return. Of course, if you die and go directly to hell instead of enduring earthly tribulation judgments you are still not out of great tribulation–you have the worst possible of all tribulation; eternal judgment is the consummation of eschatological judgment. I appreciate you don't want to misinterpret Scripture.
I have no idea what Hyles meant by "mental homosexuals." You can examine the sources referenced in the blog post and examine his original sources. It isn't something taught in Scripture, just some garbage idea he made up. Furthermore, it would be one thing if he had said it and had later said that he had not been careful in what he had said, but I am aware of no evidence that he ever admitted this concept is unbiblical.
I am going to make an educated guess that you are Thomas Ross, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I would definitely, absolutely recommend including those passages that you mentioned just now in an explanation of this subject. They will surely help to get the Biblical and doctrinal point across for those who are concerned with it. Like Romans 10:17 says, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
I definitely think the New Testament greatly helps and clarifies what the Lord wants to teach— I would even go so far as to say it does the best job of explaining the Gospel out of anything.
As far as the doctrine in Ezekiel reflecting the gospel: I agree— this is also evident in other verses, such as 33:13. It bears strong resemblance to Matthew 7:22. And at the end of the day, this also accords with the Gospel, since, as the apostle Paul says "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Consider James 2:11-13. Romans 7:4 and 8:28. 1 Corinthians 15:10. 2 Corinthians 5:21. Philippians 1:6 and 2:13. And so on.
"I believe the risen Christ is warning the unconverted that they would be left behind were He to return."
I don't see a conditional in the book of Revelation 2:22. I see a very direct statement that those who did not repent WOULD BE cast into great tribulation, absolutely. No conditions like "if I return while you are still alive." Just, they will be. And I, at very least, accept that absolute statement.
So that means to go with this must imply they are, as a matter of fact, time-warped to the actual great tribulation. Otherwise, it is talking about great tribulation generally.
This leaves the latter case, unless we can explain time-warping from the 1st century to the great tribulation.
I would also add that Matthew 24 also uses the same Greek for trumpet as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does. So context is everything. Thanks for the article and reply.
Thanks for the comment. I'm glad we agree on the main teaching, even if we disagree on Revelation 2:22. I would just point out that the word "trumpet" is much more common than the phrase "great tribulation," which only appears on the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 24 and Revelation 2:22 in the NT. Also, the post was not specifically an exposition of repentance, but an expose of Hyles. Finally, while considering the original audience is a very important point and well taken, I don't view the fact that the return of Christ did not happen before the people in that church died as a problem any more than Paul's "we which are alive and remain" in 1 Thess 4 means that Paul must still be alive before Christ returns.
Thanks for your reply. I had failed to also thank you for your stand and contending for the truth and refusing to kowtow to the fear of man. It is good that you are willing to count the cost and pursue the praises of God rather than the praises of man (Gal. 1:10).
I read what you wrote in your article on backsliding, but I’ll have to continue standing behind what I wrote. You do make a fairly decent argument but none of the uses of backsliding in Scripture is referencing actual true believers but false ones, apostates, ones who professed but didn’t possess. No apostate is ever saved. Israel as a nation has never been converted (with the exception when it consisted only of the patriarchal fathers). They have perpetually been apostate, backslidden. In the article you stated that “The distinction between the clean or pure-hearted Christian and the backslider is clear throughout the canon.” I do not see that, but what I do see is the distinction between the clean or pure-hearted Christian and the false “Christian” is clear throughout the cannon. Thousands of places, literally everywhere. I wouldn’t even know where to begin, besides maybe the Israelites in the wilderness, the prototype of the false believer, who were almost entirely lost, which Moses said (De. 4:23-40; 5:27-29; 9:4-8, 12-13, 16-24; 11:1-32; 29:2-4, 10-28; 30:11-20; 31:16-20, 24-29; 32:15-43) as did the Psalmist (Ps. 78:8-72; 81:8-16; 106:4-33) and Paul confirmed (2 Cor. 3:12-16; Heb. 3:6-4:11) and Jude (Ju. 1:5), as did Stephen the deacon (Ac. 7:51-52), and others. Those that are truly born again and fall into sin, do not stay there very long. God chastises immediately in our age, who have the indwelling Spirit of God. False believers do not endure and persevere, but fall away, apostatize, which is precisely what soog means (backslider).
You referenced Ps. 80:18 as saved people backsliding but you’re not interpreting that according to what is said there to the nation of Israel. “So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.” (Psalm 80:18-19). This passage is all about salvation; repentance (“turn us again”) and faith (“call upon thy name”) which brings quickening (“quicken us”) and salvation (“we shall be saved”). It is the theme of the entire epistle (e.g. salvation specifically in reference also in vv. 3, 7, and Gods wrath upon them, vv. 4, 16) and actually further demonstrates that backsliding is only applicable to lost people (if God would save them, they “not go back from thee”), specifically the Jew who turns back from the great privilege and opportunity he has to be saved, God ever so near him, a subject that dominates scripture, everywhere in the OT, and NT passages such as Heb. 3:7-4:11 and the rest of Hebrews, 2 Cor. 3:12-16; etc. The passage itself supports my point; if you save us Lord, we will not go back from thee. Truly saved people do not go back. Lost, false professors do.
At the personal level, no true born again believer ever backslides. It contradicts what happens at salvation and all of Scripture and it contradicts Gods chastisement of His children. God is always working in His children, and He doesn’t wait prolonged periods of time to chastise them, since they have the indwelling Spirit of God, as we see with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:28-32). I also know that personally. No apostate is saved, something addressed in 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Many more passages reflect this truth.
I just found it strange to dedicate that amount of space to explaining Scripture about the Gospel, while leaving out such important passages.
But then, I saw the book of Revelation being used in this way. If someone had bound themselves to believe all of the glosses of someone such as Darby, I can see how they might see this conclusion as necessary. But, as no such person is among us, these things cannot possibly be exegetically sound from this passage, taking all things into account. They had to be read in. Not only this, but from this situation, other disastrous issues arise.
For this reason, even though I may reach functionally the same conclusion regarding the main point, this has not been my concern. My only concern has been, on this line, to defend the perfect word of the Lord, when necessary, from diminution. One needs not resort to misleading tactics to bring any one in line to the truth. I find it additionally disturbing that this is an item on which the point has been made to rest.
Because of that fact, that— you think the warning is, that they will enter the end times period (even considering such passages as Luke 21:36, of which we are aware) you therefore conclude that this is a proof text to show that unsaved persons are being called to repentance— this then diminishes the absolute nature of the statement that the persons will without any doubt enter great tribulation with the sole exception that they repented.
Furthermore, in order to uphold this conclusion of their being unsaved, you then made the exception that: those who did not repent would instead find themselves in hell, and that this MIGHT be what is spoken of— All this so as to avoid admission of the simple idea that great tribulation could refer in some cases to grievous tribulation of any sort (but not at all abandoning the possibility that it may refer to the end times in some cases, see Luke 21:36).
Yet, by making this very exception, you therefore overturned your own basis. Because you originally said, that this prophecy ONLY refers to the great Tribulation, and that this is even the proof text to show that these individuals were unsaved. But then in response to me you said: This could also refer to being in hell, relying on your assumption that said individuals were unsaved. Therefore you assumed that they were unsaved in your interpretation of the verse, so how are you using it simultaneously as a proof text to show that they are unsaved?
As regards the parallel use of terms, I find no objection even to this particular connection because great tribulation may refer to the great tribulation and to tribulation typologically connected to it; So I accept this connection in this case. I do find objection to the principle that because two phrases, even specific phrases, co-occur, they MUST be a perfect, complete link, and we may rely on this all by itself solely for proof of something. And I am sure that many examples that contradict this may easily be drawn. I suppose my point may have been missed… I'm sure you might find an objection, then, why we can't rely only on the parallel of fig trees giving forth figs in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and book of Revelation 6, as well as in Isaiah 34:16, Joel 2:22, and Cant. 2:13. Nor of the other parallel of Isaiah 34:16 and book of Revelation 6 regarding heaven being rolled together as a scroll. Rest assured, I wouldn't try to make that connection, solely based on the similar phrase, without considering first context.
"I don't view the fact that the return of Christ did not happen before the people in that church died as a problem"
Yes, it's not because great tribulation can refer to things other than the end times great tribulation, so there's no problem. But if you diminish an absolute statement then there suddenly is a problem.
"any more than Paul's "we which are alive and remain" in 1 Thess 4 means that Paul must still be alive before Christ returns."
Yes, this isn't a problem with this absolute statement either.
Thank you for writing this, Thomas. I have been asked about the current Pastor of Hyles quite often as well, and my answer has been the same as yours, though possibly a little lite on the details you include. I would add that, so far as I know, the church has never rebuked the sin of Jack Schaap before all as I Timothy 5:20 requires. I do not know of any discipline carried out by the church against Schaap. Not only this, but the church and the college still retain on their staff men who stood by silently consenting while Jack Schaap wrote some of the most heretically perverted things ever written about the Lord's Supper. Ray Young, who regularly and publicly proclaimed that he would commit sin if Jack Hyles told him to, was retained on staff by Mr. Wilkerson until his retirement. All of these things added together make it impossible for me to act as if the church or college can be cleared of their past sins or embraced by New Testament churches.
Again, thank you for writing what you have written.
Thanks for the comment. There is no reason to conclude that "repent" means something radically different for a justified and a lost person, so the verse in Revelation still proves repentance involves turning from one's sins even were I to grant your argument.
Dear Bro Mallinak,
Thanks for the comment. If they never obeyed 1 Tim 5:20 even on Schapp that would be awful. I don't know what Schapp taught about the Lord's Supper, but I am not surprised it was perverted in light of how perverted he was.
I just don't get it how "big shot" people can just pretend this all never happened and embrace 1st Baptist and Wilkerson, so that, for example, Jack Trieber from Golden State Baptist College will preach at 1st Baptist of Hammond:
Hey Thomas, I just wanted to apologize. Because I ran out of space to thank you in the previous post. Thanks for the responses and for letting me still post. I also strongly respect your answers. Have a fantastic rest of your week.
This explains so much! My daughter was raped by her father. The father was deep into following Jack Hyles way which was taught in a rural kansas town! This "man of God" who was the Pastor, bully supported and helped cover up the doings of my ex husband.
The church may very well have rebuked Pastor Schapp inside the church. Unless you were there or talked to someone who was, you are making an assumption and not believing the best. It’s very easy to look and determine what they should have done when you are not involved in the situation. Just like it’s easy for Presidential candidates to say this is what I would do in the Middle East and then as soon as they sit in the big chair they realize their are a lot more details they never knew before. So while I abhor some of the things Hyles did, I think we should still be understanding that there are probably a lot of details you don’t know and maybe he was brought before the church and dealt with and all that would have happened prior to the new Pastor coming. I am sure that Thomas or Pastor Brandenburg would have jumped on the opportunity had the pulpit committee at FBC Hammond come and asked them to be the Pastor. In fact, I imagine Kent would probably enjoy running a Bible College.
You are right that we ought to think the best. Unfortunately, if they are still promoting the same false gospel, we need to conclude they still believe it. If they are still "Hyles" Anderson college, are still making videos promoting Hyles, etc. then they still promote Hyles are are not honest about his sin.
What if they were called Jezebel-Anderson or Judas-Anderson College? Schapp-Anderson?
If they had asked me to be the pastor there I would tell them that I would be leading the church to change the name of the college, we would not sell Hyles books, and, in light of his very public sins, we would have a very public repentance, and see if they still wanted me to come. I would also tell them that I feared a very high percentage of the members were unconverted and would be preaching on texts like 2 Cor 13:5, etc., that we would no longer lure people in with gimmicks and marketing, etc. People on staff who were not going to support this or in any way helped to cover up immorality would be let go at a minimum or placed under church discipline.
That is if I thought they were still a church that had a valid baptism.
We would also separate from other churches that were unwilling to repent of the carnal weaponry and 1-2-3 pray after me stuff that we had previously been so zealously promoting, thank people like David Cloud for exposing Hyles, etc., again, on the assumption that they still had a candlestick.
This is all kind of like "what would I do if they asked me to be the Pope for a day"; I would proclaim infallibly that justification was by faith alone, that it was idolatry to bow down to images, that the wafer of the Mass remained unchanged, would infallibly tell everyone to leave Roman Catholicism, etc. I would do it on public TV so that there was evidence that I was actually proclaiming all of this before they all jumped on me and took me away, never to be seen again.
Actually, what I would do before accepting the pastorate is declare, in addition to all of the above, that we would be dissolving the church because of the false gospel it had proclaimed for decades, and those who gave evidence of true conversion and had received baptism at 1st Baptist would receive baptism at the hands of a sending church or at my hands as an evangelist sent out from, say, Bethel Baptist, and then we would re-constitute with a genuinely converted church membership.
Yet in my blog post I didn't even call on Hyles-Anderson to dissolve and reconstitute–just start preaching the true gospel, stop promoting a false gospel, and stop promoting an immoral and disqualified man.
In 2 Chronicles 29, we read of the great difference Hezekiah’s reign was from that of his father: in the first year, he opens the house of God, commanding a clean-up crew of Levites to get the place in order and “carry forth filthiness out of the holy place” (verse 5). Recognizing the evil of the previous generation in departing from the living God, Hezekiah openly defies the criminal actions of the former reign (his father’s) to defile God’s temple. Furthermore, he recognizes the impact these deeds have had on the kingdom—they have made Israel “an astonishment and a hissing” (verse 8).
It seems this would be the kind of thing appropriate for a pastor to do who has stepped into a ministry where sin has defiled and corrupted the people, in which many of the sheep have been spiritually slain, and where the testimony before the community has been darkened. Would it not be appropriate for this leader, like Hezekiah, to clearly break from the past, showing from his actions that the benighted church, the ruined testimony before the world, will be rectified? As in Hezekiah’s case, would it not be right for him to appoint (under church leadership) godly individuals, as described in Titus 2, to stand before God? As Hezekiah did, would it not would be proper for him to follow the biblical order in making God’s house a place of prayer and worship of a holy–not a carnal or fleshly–God? As Hezekiah made certain that each vessel was washed and sanctified, fit for service in the temple, should not every aspect of the place be rededicated and made holy to the Lord?
A rededication service and a time of confessing sin (as displayed in the multitude of sin offerings presented in the temple at this first service under Hezekiah) certainly seems an appropriate display of repentance before a holy God. It would seem that only then might true praise and worship be offered, as was done in Hezekiah’s time, when sin was confessed and atonement was appropriately made before the Lord.
Hi Thomas,
Good article. Thanks for writing that. It’s much needed. Hyles was a wolf in sheep’s clothing indeed (Matt. 7:15-20; Ac. 20:29-30). Those that partake with Hyles churches are guilty by association. I have often heard men proclaim that they are for repentance yet embrace Hyles. Hmmm.
You clearly demonstrated that the wicked are always lost. I would include the “wicked person” in 1 Cor. 5 who is often said to be a true believer disciplined out of the church. But not only are the wicked always lost, so are backsliders. You wrote concerning “backsliders among the true people of God to live up to their privileges.” I cannot however find anyplace in scripture where the term is used to describe the true people of God.
Please consider a brief exposition of the term.
The word and its derivatives is a noun translated from meshûbâh meshûbâh, which means apostasy, to apostatize. It refers to an apostate, one who falls away from the faith, and I can find no example in scripture showing an apostate to be saved. Apostates are always lost, false deceptive and hypocritical teachers living in a false pretence (e.g. Rom. 16:17-18; Phil. 3:18-19; 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 18-22; Ju. 1:3-16; Heb. 3:7-4:11; 10:38-39). Their heart is full of themselves and their ways, and not Gods ways (Pr. 14:14; cf. Ac. 14:15-16; Rom. 16:18). We also see no example anywhere in scripture where the apostate was a true believer but all examples of true believers being chastened of God (De. 8:5-6; Job 5:17; Pr. 3:11-12; I Cor. 11:27-32; Heb. 11:5-11), for God never stops working in His own (Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13).
In Scripture, namely the O.T., none of the sixteen occasions the word and its derivates show up does it ever refer to saved people but always to lost people and almost entirely to Israel as a lost nation: Pr. 14:14; Jer. 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 20-22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos. 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. The NT is silent on it, even on its principles. The term appears to only apply to the Jewish nation and individual Jew (the only context it’s ever used) with whom God has everlasting covenants and who’ve had incredible privilege and opportunity to be converted (Rom. 3:1-3; 9:4-5; 10:8; Ps. 78:1-72; 81:10-13; etc).
Both the O.T. and N.T. specifically state that the one who goes back, the backslider, is unsaved. “But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.” (Jer. 7:23). “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:38-39).
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment. You are correct in part, namely, that the common assumption that all backsliders are genuinely converted people is erroneous. Texts such as Hebrews 10:38-39 properly demonstrate that this is not the case.
I don't have time to get into a longer discussion, but based on my study here:
https://faithsaves.net/right-with-God/
I concluded that backsliding can indeed characterize those truly regenerate, as well as the lost, although God will chasten His own who do backslide.
Thanks.
Very interesting article. I am not interested in defending the integrity of any person mentioned here, but I am very much interested in defending the integrity of Scripture. With that in mind I was wondering if you had any other scripture passage to support the central thrust of your claim here, other than a list of all the occurrences of "wicked" in the Old Testament.
Is there some reason you aren't mentioning some of the central passages on this such as Acts 26:18-20 or others? I'm sincerely interested why we are staying focused only on Old Testament passages and seemingly leaving out what seems to me the obvious. Is the New Testament not as clear on this subject so we left it out?
But with regard to book of Revelation 2:22, that is one interesting context you've given. I feel it is necessary to mount a defense of this verse here. It's true that with God, there is no respect of persons, and so we know that his method of judging the situation of churches there would be the same today. However, we also have to keep in mind Thyatira was a real church located in the day of John on Patmos. Are you suggesting that this verse was a warning to those 1st century Christians that if they did not repent, they would be time-warped to the great tribulation? In fact, I've often heard this verse misquoted as saying "the great tribulation," which tends to suggest this, but it actually says "great tribulation." Is this what you are actually suggesting, and if so, how do you defend it?
I'm most interested by what you left out, however: that you chose only to mention this one (1) passage out of the whole New Testament.
I'm not interested in defending Jack Hyles. It is also very unsettling to hear anyone use the term "mentally homosexual." Can we get any more info on this? On the face of it, it reminds me a bit of the people today who are trying to bring toleration of sodomy into churches, and that has to be stopped.
I will bookend this with a comment: I sure am glad that people, such as Roman Catholics, are not the ones who will decide I haven't shown sufficient "fruits of repentance" (i.e. going to their church, performing the mass, doing penance, etc.) and therefore am not saved. Or, that I haven't done as many good things as they have; or That I haven't met some checklist of works that they've decided on. I am glad it's not up to such persons that have such tendencies of thought. It's actually based on God's judgement— See, 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.
Dear Andrew,
You are correct that many NT and OT passages teach this truth about repentance. I have a study at faithsaves.net/repentance/ that provides more detail. It is also in texts that do not even use the word "repent," such as 1 Thess 1:9-10. It is in Acts 26, which you mentioned. The human response to the gospel is the same in both the OT and the NT, so OT texts are very relevant. The same Greek is used for the great Tribulation in Matthew 24 and in Revelation 2:22, and, yes, I believe the risen Christ is warning the unconverted that they would be left behind were He to return. Of course, if you die and go directly to hell instead of enduring earthly tribulation judgments you are still not out of great tribulation–you have the worst possible of all tribulation; eternal judgment is the consummation of eschatological judgment. I appreciate you don't want to misinterpret Scripture.
I have no idea what Hyles meant by "mental homosexuals." You can examine the sources referenced in the blog post and examine his original sources. It isn't something taught in Scripture, just some garbage idea he made up. Furthermore, it would be one thing if he had said it and had later said that he had not been careful in what he had said, but I am aware of no evidence that he ever admitted this concept is unbiblical.
Thanks for the 1 Cor 4 thought.
I am going to make an educated guess that you are Thomas Ross, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I would definitely, absolutely recommend including those passages that you mentioned just now in an explanation of this subject. They will surely help to get the Biblical and doctrinal point across for those who are concerned with it. Like Romans 10:17 says, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
I definitely think the New Testament greatly helps and clarifies what the Lord wants to teach— I would even go so far as to say it does the best job of explaining the Gospel out of anything.
As far as the doctrine in Ezekiel reflecting the gospel: I agree— this is also evident in other verses, such as 33:13. It bears strong resemblance to Matthew 7:22. And at the end of the day, this also accords with the Gospel, since, as the apostle Paul says "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Consider James 2:11-13. Romans 7:4 and 8:28. 1 Corinthians 15:10. 2 Corinthians 5:21. Philippians 1:6 and 2:13. And so on.
"I believe the risen Christ is warning the unconverted that they would be left behind were He to return."
I don't see a conditional in the book of Revelation 2:22. I see a very direct statement that those who did not repent WOULD BE cast into great tribulation, absolutely. No conditions like "if I return while you are still alive." Just, they will be. And I, at very least, accept that absolute statement.
So that means to go with this must imply they are, as a matter of fact, time-warped to the actual great tribulation. Otherwise, it is talking about great tribulation generally.
This leaves the latter case, unless we can explain time-warping from the 1st century to the great tribulation.
I would also add that Matthew 24 also uses the same Greek for trumpet as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does. So context is everything. Thanks for the article and reply.
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for the comment. I'm glad we agree on the main teaching, even if we disagree on Revelation 2:22. I would just point out that the word "trumpet" is much more common than the phrase "great tribulation," which only appears on the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 24 and Revelation 2:22 in the NT. Also, the post was not specifically an exposition of repentance, but an expose of Hyles. Finally, while considering the original audience is a very important point and well taken, I don't view the fact that the return of Christ did not happen before the people in that church died as a problem any more than Paul's "we which are alive and remain" in 1 Thess 4 means that Paul must still be alive before Christ returns.
Thanks for the comment.
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply. I had failed to also thank you for your stand and contending for the truth and refusing to kowtow to the fear of man. It is good that you are willing to count the cost and pursue the praises of God rather than the praises of man (Gal. 1:10).
I read what you wrote in your article on backsliding, but I’ll have to continue standing behind what I wrote. You do make a fairly decent argument but none of the uses of backsliding in Scripture is referencing actual true believers but false ones, apostates, ones who professed but didn’t possess. No apostate is ever saved. Israel as a nation has never been converted (with the exception when it consisted only of the patriarchal fathers). They have perpetually been apostate, backslidden. In the article you stated that “The distinction between the clean or pure-hearted Christian and the backslider is clear throughout the canon.” I do not see that, but what I do see is the distinction between the clean or pure-hearted Christian and the false “Christian” is clear throughout the cannon. Thousands of places, literally everywhere. I wouldn’t even know where to begin, besides maybe the Israelites in the wilderness, the prototype of the false believer, who were almost entirely lost, which Moses said (De. 4:23-40; 5:27-29; 9:4-8, 12-13, 16-24; 11:1-32; 29:2-4, 10-28; 30:11-20; 31:16-20, 24-29; 32:15-43) as did the Psalmist (Ps. 78:8-72; 81:8-16; 106:4-33) and Paul confirmed (2 Cor. 3:12-16; Heb. 3:6-4:11) and Jude (Ju. 1:5), as did Stephen the deacon (Ac. 7:51-52), and others. Those that are truly born again and fall into sin, do not stay there very long. God chastises immediately in our age, who have the indwelling Spirit of God. False believers do not endure and persevere, but fall away, apostatize, which is precisely what soog means (backslider).
You referenced Ps. 80:18 as saved people backsliding but you’re not interpreting that according to what is said there to the nation of Israel. “So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.” (Psalm 80:18-19). This passage is all about salvation; repentance (“turn us again”) and faith (“call upon thy name”) which brings quickening (“quicken us”) and salvation (“we shall be saved”). It is the theme of the entire epistle (e.g. salvation specifically in reference also in vv. 3, 7, and Gods wrath upon them, vv. 4, 16) and actually further demonstrates that backsliding is only applicable to lost people (if God would save them, they “not go back from thee”), specifically the Jew who turns back from the great privilege and opportunity he has to be saved, God ever so near him, a subject that dominates scripture, everywhere in the OT, and NT passages such as Heb. 3:7-4:11 and the rest of Hebrews, 2 Cor. 3:12-16; etc. The passage itself supports my point; if you save us Lord, we will not go back from thee. Truly saved people do not go back. Lost, false professors do.
At the personal level, no true born again believer ever backslides. It contradicts what happens at salvation and all of Scripture and it contradicts Gods chastisement of His children. God is always working in His children, and He doesn’t wait prolonged periods of time to chastise them, since they have the indwelling Spirit of God, as we see with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:28-32). I also know that personally. No apostate is saved, something addressed in 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Many more passages reflect this truth.
Thanks,
To Thomas,
I just found it strange to dedicate that amount of space to explaining Scripture about the Gospel, while leaving out such important passages.
But then, I saw the book of Revelation being used in this way. If someone had bound themselves to believe all of the glosses of someone such as Darby, I can see how they might see this conclusion as necessary. But, as no such person is among us, these things cannot possibly be exegetically sound from this passage, taking all things into account. They had to be read in. Not only this, but from this situation, other disastrous issues arise.
For this reason, even though I may reach functionally the same conclusion regarding the main point, this has not been my concern. My only concern has been, on this line, to defend the perfect word of the Lord, when necessary, from diminution. One needs not resort to misleading tactics to bring any one in line to the truth. I find it additionally disturbing that this is an item on which the point has been made to rest.
Because of that fact, that— you think the warning is, that they will enter the end times period (even considering such passages as Luke 21:36, of which we are aware) you therefore conclude that this is a proof text to show that unsaved persons are being called to repentance— this then diminishes the absolute nature of the statement that the persons will without any doubt enter great tribulation with the sole exception that they repented.
Furthermore, in order to uphold this conclusion of their being unsaved, you then made the exception that: those who did not repent would instead find themselves in hell, and that this MIGHT be what is spoken of— All this so as to avoid admission of the simple idea that great tribulation could refer in some cases to grievous tribulation of any sort (but not at all abandoning the possibility that it may refer to the end times in some cases, see Luke 21:36).
Yet, by making this very exception, you therefore overturned your own basis. Because you originally said, that this prophecy ONLY refers to the great Tribulation, and that this is even the proof text to show that these individuals were unsaved. But then in response to me you said: This could also refer to being in hell, relying on your assumption that said individuals were unsaved. Therefore you assumed that they were unsaved in your interpretation of the verse, so how are you using it simultaneously as a proof text to show that they are unsaved?
As regards the parallel use of terms, I find no objection even to this particular connection because great tribulation may refer to the great tribulation and to tribulation typologically connected to it; So I accept this connection in this case. I do find objection to the principle that because two phrases, even specific phrases, co-occur, they MUST be a perfect, complete link, and we may rely on this all by itself solely for proof of something. And I am sure that many examples that contradict this may easily be drawn. I suppose my point may have been missed… I'm sure you might find an objection, then, why we can't rely only on the parallel of fig trees giving forth figs in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and book of Revelation 6, as well as in Isaiah 34:16, Joel 2:22, and Cant. 2:13. Nor of the other parallel of Isaiah 34:16 and book of Revelation 6 regarding heaven being rolled together as a scroll. Rest assured, I wouldn't try to make that connection, solely based on the similar phrase, without considering first context.
"I don't view the fact that the return of Christ did not happen before the people in that church died as a problem"
Yes, it's not because great tribulation can refer to things other than the end times great tribulation, so there's no problem. But if you diminish an absolute statement then there suddenly is a problem.
"any more than Paul's "we which are alive and remain" in 1 Thess 4 means that Paul must still be alive before Christ returns."
Yes, this isn't a problem with this absolute statement either.
Thank you for writing this, Thomas. I have been asked about the current Pastor of Hyles quite often as well, and my answer has been the same as yours, though possibly a little lite on the details you include. I would add that, so far as I know, the church has never rebuked the sin of Jack Schaap before all as I Timothy 5:20 requires. I do not know of any discipline carried out by the church against Schaap. Not only this, but the church and the college still retain on their staff men who stood by silently consenting while Jack Schaap wrote some of the most heretically perverted things ever written about the Lord's Supper. Ray Young, who regularly and publicly proclaimed that he would commit sin if Jack Hyles told him to, was retained on staff by Mr. Wilkerson until his retirement. All of these things added together make it impossible for me to act as if the church or college can be cleared of their past sins or embraced by New Testament churches.
Again, thank you for writing what you have written.
Dave Mallinak
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for the comment. There is no reason to conclude that "repent" means something radically different for a justified and a lost person, so the verse in Revelation still proves repentance involves turning from one's sins even were I to grant your argument.
Dear Bro Mallinak,
Thanks for the comment. If they never obeyed 1 Tim 5:20 even on Schapp that would be awful. I don't know what Schapp taught about the Lord's Supper, but I am not surprised it was perverted in light of how perverted he was.
I just don't get it how "big shot" people can just pretend this all never happened and embrace 1st Baptist and Wilkerson, so that, for example, Jack Trieber from Golden State Baptist College will preach at 1st Baptist of Hammond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74-kcBNo_s
and Baptist College of Ministry will have Wilkerson in for their biggest yearly conference:
http://victoryconf.org/#Speakers
Hey Thomas, I just wanted to apologize. Because I ran out of space to thank you in the previous post. Thanks for the responses and for letting me still post. I also strongly respect your answers. Have a fantastic rest of your week.
This explains so much! My daughter was raped by her father. The father was deep into following Jack Hyles way which was taught in a rural kansas town! This "man of God" who was the Pastor, bully supported and helped cover up the doings of my ex husband.
Dear Anonymous,
That sounds absoutely awful, I am very sorry about that.
Thanks, Andrew.
The church may very well have rebuked Pastor Schapp inside the church. Unless you were there or talked to someone who was, you are making an assumption and not believing the best. It’s very easy to look and determine what they should have done when you are not involved in the situation. Just like it’s easy for Presidential candidates to say this is what I would do in the Middle East and then as soon as they sit in the big chair they realize their are a lot more details they never knew before. So while I abhor some of the things Hyles did, I think we should still be understanding that there are probably a lot of details you don’t know and maybe he was brought before the church and dealt with and all that would have happened prior to the new Pastor coming. I am sure that Thomas or Pastor Brandenburg would have jumped on the opportunity had the pulpit committee at FBC Hammond come and asked them to be the Pastor. In fact, I imagine Kent would probably enjoy running a Bible College.
Don
Hi Don,
You are right that we ought to think the best. Unfortunately, if they are still promoting the same false gospel, we need to conclude they still believe it. If they are still "Hyles" Anderson college, are still making videos promoting Hyles, etc. then they still promote Hyles are are not honest about his sin.
What if they were called Jezebel-Anderson or Judas-Anderson College? Schapp-Anderson?
If they had asked me to be the pastor there I would tell them that I would be leading the church to change the name of the college, we would not sell Hyles books, and, in light of his very public sins, we would have a very public repentance, and see if they still wanted me to come. I would also tell them that I feared a very high percentage of the members were unconverted and would be preaching on texts like 2 Cor 13:5, etc., that we would no longer lure people in with gimmicks and marketing, etc. People on staff who were not going to support this or in any way helped to cover up immorality would be let go at a minimum or placed under church discipline.
That is if I thought they were still a church that had a valid baptism.
We would also separate from other churches that were unwilling to repent of the carnal weaponry and 1-2-3 pray after me stuff that we had previously been so zealously promoting, thank people like David Cloud for exposing Hyles, etc., again, on the assumption that they still had a candlestick.
This is all kind of like "what would I do if they asked me to be the Pope for a day"; I would proclaim infallibly that justification was by faith alone, that it was idolatry to bow down to images, that the wafer of the Mass remained unchanged, would infallibly tell everyone to leave Roman Catholicism, etc. I would do it on public TV so that there was evidence that I was actually proclaiming all of this before they all jumped on me and took me away, never to be seen again.
Actually, what I would do before accepting the pastorate is declare, in addition to all of the above, that we would be dissolving the church because of the false gospel it had proclaimed for decades, and those who gave evidence of true conversion and had received baptism at 1st Baptist would receive baptism at the hands of a sending church or at my hands as an evangelist sent out from, say, Bethel Baptist, and then we would re-constitute with a genuinely converted church membership.
Yet in my blog post I didn't even call on Hyles-Anderson to dissolve and reconstitute–just start preaching the true gospel, stop promoting a false gospel, and stop promoting an immoral and disqualified man.
In 2 Chronicles 29, we read of the great difference Hezekiah’s reign was from that of his father: in the first year, he opens the house of God, commanding a clean-up crew of Levites to get the place in order and “carry forth filthiness out of the holy place” (verse 5). Recognizing the evil of the previous generation in departing from the living God, Hezekiah openly defies the criminal actions of the former reign (his father’s) to defile God’s temple. Furthermore, he recognizes the impact these deeds have had on the kingdom—they have made Israel “an astonishment and a hissing” (verse 8).
It seems this would be the kind of thing appropriate for a pastor to do who has stepped into a ministry where sin has defiled and corrupted the people, in which many of the sheep have been spiritually slain, and where the testimony before the community has been darkened. Would it not be appropriate for this leader, like Hezekiah, to clearly break from the past, showing from his actions that the benighted church, the ruined testimony before the world, will be rectified? As in Hezekiah’s case, would it not be right for him to appoint (under church leadership) godly individuals, as described in Titus 2, to stand before God? As Hezekiah did, would it not would be proper for him to follow the biblical order in making God’s house a place of prayer and worship of a holy–not a carnal or fleshly–God? As Hezekiah made certain that each vessel was washed and sanctified, fit for service in the temple, should not every aspect of the place be rededicated and made holy to the Lord?
A rededication service and a time of confessing sin (as displayed in the multitude of sin offerings presented in the temple at this first service under Hezekiah) certainly seems an appropriate display of repentance before a holy God. It would seem that only then might true praise and worship be offered, as was done in Hezekiah’s time, when sin was confessed and atonement was appropriately made before the Lord.
Dear Anne,
That would be absolutely appropriate, since the church is the holy God's house, not a place to hide sin under the rug.