Hyles-Anderson

All the Hyles people I have met do teach 1-2-3 pray after me, though they would not call it that. Hyles did advocate an easy-blievism salvation, that put a lot of emphasis on the "prayer for salvation".

This was the product of the man-centered theology and desire to report large numbers coming to Christ. I have read some missionary prayer letters from Hyles grads that would lead you to belive that half of Africa has come to Christ. This simply isn't true.

Now granted I do have a couple of pastor friends that are Hyles grads, but by God's grace are far removed from the "Hylesisque" mentality.

 

4His_glory,

but I've been there. I know what they teach.

 

I, too, have been at Hyles-Anderson and a member of FBC Hammond, but my experience is a bit dated. I received a Pastors Refresher Diploma (1977) and a Master of Education (1978). I was actively involved in the bus ministry and in personal evangelism.

With all due respect, I have to take issue with Bapmom. 4His_glory is right, at least when I was there. While at that time Hyles-Anderson was not so overtly KJVO, personal evangelism taught in class and practiced was basically taking someone down the so-called Romans Road and having them repeat a prayer, though it was emphasized that the prayer must be meaningful and to God.

Okay, maybe it wasn't a "1-2-3, pray after me." It was more like a "1-2-3-4, pray after me," but that doesn't rhyme as well! Then, 1 John 5:13 was removed from its context to offer assurance to the person who had just "prayed the prayer."

Again, my experience is almost thirty years removed, but that is what existed during the late 1970's.

Bill

 

Broadus,

let me preface, Im not arguing, so please don't add an argumentative tone where Im not meaning one. (not that you have, just making sure.) I truly am just exploring this.

But isn't it true that a meaningful, heartfelt expression to God asking for Jesus to save you is enough? Do you not like the Romans Road to lead someone through the Bible to show them their need for salvation? You said yourself that they emphasized that the prayer must be meaningful (they MUST believe what they are saying) and it must be to God (they MUST know they are talking to GOD.) How is that not salvation? I don't understand what more you would want.

 

Hi Bapmom,

Thanks for your spirit of seeking to understand and not being argumentative for the sake of argument. At the risk of turning a thread in a higher education forum into a theological discussion, please allow me to respond to your questions.

I think that, too often, the contemporary conservative church minimizes the gospel to the gaining of a mental assent to some basic biblical facts without there being a realization of what it means to be a follower of Christ. To be a follower of Christ entails a radical break with the world and one's old self. This break, of course, is wrought by God's grace, with the disciple longing to please his new Master, not just escape His wrath.

The "Romans Road" is truth, but, in my experience, it was presented (I was taught this and practiced it) more as a man-centered gospel than God centered. The purpose was to keep someone out of hell (a worthy desire!) rather than bring someone into a loving, submissive relationship with almighty God. Salvation was presented to alter man's destiny, not for God's glory. For a detailed and very readable book dealing with the difference between a man-centered gospel and a God-centered gospel, let me suggest to you Tell the Truth, by Will Metzger.

As I pointed out earlier, the "soul winner" was instructed to lay out the basic truths in the Romans Road, ask the hearer if he agreed, and then ask if there was any reason not to pray to God to be saved. More often than not, the hearer would repeat the prayer and be assured on the spot that when he died he would go to heaven, an assurance which no man can give but one which God Himself gives. As I said, 1 John 5:13 was taken out of context as the proof verse for this, but that verse is simply saying that all of 1 John was written so that a person may know whether he is a child of God.

So, it is this man-centered approach with a minimizing of the gospel with which I take issue. In addition, I take issue with leading someone in the "salvation prayer." Think about it: Where in Scripture are we instructed to pray a prayer to be saved, much less have someone repeat the words after us? Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. When one repents and believes on Christ, one doubtlessly will pray to God. A person will confess being a sinner and will seek forgiveness, looking to Christ who died in the place of believing sinners. Not only did Christ submit to divine wrath due the sinner, but the righteousness of Christ was imputed to the sinner (2 Cor 5:21). My issue is with a quick run through of a few verses, gaining an affirmative response, having someone repeat certain words (even with the caution that one pray to God with sincerity), and then offering assurance.

Now, are some truly saved even by the method with which I now (and for 15 years, at least) take issue? Doubtlessly, but I think it is in spite of the method, not because of it. Many, many more, I fear, are assured they are saved while their hearts remain far from God. If the thousands upon thousands baptized at FBC Hammond had been truly converted, northwest Indiana and much of the Chicago-land area would be an area of rarely-experienced godliness. Sadly, such is not the case.

I'll be more than happy to discuss this further with you if you want to PM me. I would encourage you to read Metzer's book which puts forward what I consider a thoroughly biblical presentation of the gospel.

Blessings,
Bill

 

So all of this begs the question,how do you witness and show someone how to come to Jesus as Lord and Savior? I understand we can only make the introduction,it is the Holy spirit that Convicts and Jesus Christ who does the saving.
Maybe I'm thinking like Goldilocks,I don't want the one that is to long or to short but the one that is just right.

 

I think we need to share the Gospel that Jesus is Lord. We lift up Jesus. Once a person understands the Gospel - who Jesus is, the reaction will be obvious. Either they will believe, repent, and confess; or they will disbelieve, rebel, and deny.

 

Hey Dr. Bob

How does one get to be a "DR" without understanding the critical distinctions between justification and sanctification.

The sinner's prayer 1-2-3 ditty is the gospel message.

The addition of works, repentance over particular sins, water baptism are all together the ANTI-GOSPEL. Justification is by God's grace - alone; through instrumental faith - alone; in Christ - alone. This is a very simple and easy to comprehend gospel.

The human flesh would rear up and have us earn or merit God's freely offered lavish gift of grace.

Lloyd

 

Hey Bob

It matters not where one graduates. YOu are using a fallacy that assumes godly education happens at a public institution.

If you are interested, I posted my credentials in some BB forum asking where you graduated. Look it up.

In the meantime, justification is the chief article by which the church or an individual stands or falls (Luther). Where justification is properly taught believers find forgiveness, life and salvation; Christ's Church thrives. Where justification is distorted believers fear, become powerless and lose the joy of their salvation; Christ's Church falls into apostasy.

The Greek verbs for "justification" relate to dikaioo. What follows can be verified by anyone with little or no formal training. I used the Blue Letter Bible Project at: http://www.blueletterbible.org/

As an active voice, the present tense is the only construct that can support conditional process justification. However, the present tense denounces conditional justification in the Rich Young Ruler's foolish trust in works (Luke 10:29); marks conditional justification as a lie (Luke 16:15); and denies conditions of obedience for justification (Gal 2:16, 5:4). God alone is active in imputing justification to the believing sinner at the singular EVENT of faith (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:17; 3:8). The aorist tense links historic justification with historic (for God; future for us) glorification (Rom 8:30). The future tense shows God will justify only by faith (Rom 3:30) in Christ (Gal 2:17).

As a passive voice, no tense supports conditional justification. Believers passively receive God's imputed justification by faith without the deeds of law (Rom 3:28) and apart from the law (Gal 3:11). Believers are vindicated before others by works (James 2:24). Historic justification is in parallel with historic sanctification (I Cor 6:11). Abraham was vindicated before others by his works (James 2:21). Significantly, the perfect tense demolishes conditional justification because it shows the permanence of a historic past event. The publican (Luke 18:14) went and remained totally justified. The believer who dies in Christ is and permanently remains freed from sin (Rom 6:7).

The Greek verbs for "sanctification" relate to hagiazoo.

As an active voice, the present tense shows God alone sets aside believers (Heb 2:11a). The blood of bulls purifies the offeror (Heb 9:13). As an aorist tense, disciples are purified through God's truth (John 17:17). God wants to purify His church by the Word (Eph 5:26). God wholly sanctifies believers (I Thess 5:23). Believers are commanded to set aside God in their hearts (I Pet 3:15).

As a passive voice, the present tense shows those who God has set aside are one (Heb 2:11b). Jesus has "perfected for ever" those who are being purified (Heb 10:14). The aorist tense shows God's name is to be hallowed (Lord's prayer). Believers are set aside in Jesus' name in parallel with event justification (I Cor 6:11). The perfect tense shows disciples are set aside (John 17:19b, Acts 20:32) to God by faith (Acts 26:18) through Jesus' once for all time offering (Heb 10:10). The Church is set aside in Jesus (I Cor 1:2). Believers are set aside by God, preserved and called (Jude 1). Those who purge themselves are consecrated vessels (II Tim 2:21).

Sanctification has three definitions. First, event sanctification is God's activity alone as He sets aside believers unto Himself (adoption). Second, sanctification is the consecration of a vessel unto holy service. Third, sanctification is the process of purification. Context determines which definition is required.

These lexical evidences teach:
__1. Justification is an EVENT.
__2. Human activity beyond the look of faith is denied for justification.
__3. Only God is active in justification.
__4. Only God sets aside believers unto Himself in EVENT adoption.
__5. Believers are only active in the PROCESS of purification.
__6. Justification is parallel with (yet distinct from) sanctification.

Beyond the LOOK of instrumental gnomic faith (John 3:16), there is no condition for human activity in justification. This is the little "ditty:" believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Billy Graham has it right after all!
Lloyd

 

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

That's where Hyles and his ilk fail. They don't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They believe in Jesus. Once saved, they believe in Hyles, and Hyles becomes Lord!

What does Dr. Hyles think. What does Dr. Hyles say.

They ask, "Do you believe in Jesus?" "Do you believe he died for you?" And when the answer is yes, the person is declared "saved."

But if justification is from God, then man's work of saying a prayer cannot save anyone.

We are not saved by faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith. God alone regenerates the heart of a sinner who then looks to Jesus in faith, repents of sin, and confesses that Jesus is LORD! Without understanding who Jesus is and confessing that he is Lord, no one can be saved.

Romans 10:9-10, 13.

 

Hello fellow board members! I am new to the forum, however having graduated from Hyles-Anderson I felt I could offer some insight into some of the thoughts and opinions expressed in this thread.

As for the "woefully" uneducated graduates of Hyles-Anderson, you don't have to look far to find examples from other universities. This criticism is often leveled at Hyles-Anderson and I took it to heart. I believed that my diploma wasn't really worth much in terms of education but was rather a memento of hard-earned life experiences that taught me far more than can be learned in a class room. With that mindset I decided to get a degree from a secular university where naturally none of my HAC credits were worth anything. From day 1 in class, my secular professors were very impressed with my knowledge and skills in the academic world. This past spring I graduated summa cum laude from the university, among the top students in one of the better undergraduate business colleges in the country. So perhaps the "woefully" uneducated HAC grads have only themselves to blame since my HAC education impressed the secular academics.

One of the unique concepts of Bible teaching at Hyles-Anderson is that the school does not pretend to teach you everything you will ever need to know about Bible doctrine. Certainly you get plenty of doctrine; however the thrust of the teaching is to teach the young men of God to "study to shew thyself approved". I remember many times Dr. Evans pointing out that he was not there to teach us facts so much as he was there to teach us how to learn. I mention this because in reading through this post, I find a good many of you seem to be simply spouting off the doctrines and beliefs that YOU learned at YOUR school, rather than what you may have learned in your own individual study of the Bible.

Regarding salvation and "easy-believism". I did not realize that it was that difficult to believe. One post mentioned that the Bible says it is very HARD to get to heaven. However if you will study the context there, Jesus is speaking to the fact that those who are very self-sufficient will have great difficulty in letting go of their faith in themselves in order to have faith in God. In the same context he mentions that you must "receive the kingdom of God as a little child" which makes it sound a little less difficult than those of you who think we must make him Lord at the same time as we make Him our Saviour.

Interestingly one of the charges leveled against Dr. Hyles is that he was very "man-centric". In reading my Bible I found the Great Commission reiterated several times and each time is was "man" that was being charged with the propagation of the Gospel of Christ. So it would seem that our very Savior was ALSO very "man-centric" with regard to His plan for seeing the Gospel spread throughout all nations.

Finally, there are some here who rail against the "1-2-3 Pray After Me" style of soul-winning. This is the most accurate of the criticisms leveled in this thread. There are many youthful soul-winners who believe that this is the way to win souls. Is it possible for someone to get saved that quickly? Certainly, if the Holy Spirit has prepared the heart, there is little in the way of persuasion that need be done. The thief on the cross didn't need a 3 hour discourse in Systematic Theology to understand that this Man next to him was dying for the sins of the world. On the other hand, the majority of those we come in contact with in our soul-winning endeavors certainly need more thought and effort to come to Christ. The Ethiopian eunuch was already under conviction and yet it seems it took Philip at least a little while to draw the net. Certainly there are inexperienced soul-winners who are unable to discern the difference and believe that 1-2-3 is appropriate at all times. As a graduate of Hyles-Anderson and as someone who maintains contact with friends and staff members back there, I assure you that this is an issue that is being addressed. The difference in Hyles-Anderson and other schools is that they are willing to allow their soul-winners to have zeal without knowledge for a while until the knowledge can be imparted. Not all of the students will grasp the concept which is unfortunate and certainly leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths.

The question then is, would you rather see young students on fire for God being given a chance to serve while learning the ropes? Or would you rather see young students have their zeal quenched with endless theological debates and discussions before being given the opportunity to serve God in a local church? There is probably not right answer for every person but by the wording of the question you can probably discern where I stand!