The REAL Jack Hyles

The attacks on Graham were unfair. I don't agree with everything he did. I think he should have been more careful in appearing to endorse liberals. I understand that at some of the crusades some really left wing liberals led in prayer.
His justification was that it was not his meeting. The local churches held the meeting and invited him to speak at it. I can see that. If I was invited to speak at a liberal church, or a Catholic church, or a Buddhist temple, I'd probably jump at the chance.
The sermons I have heard of Graham were sound Gospel messages. I never heard him dilute the Gospel. Graham's personal life has been exemplory. I thank God for him.
The charge that some false professions may have been made is unfair. Graham deliberately calls the responses made at his crusades, "decisions." He does not call them "conversions." Whenever you share the Gospel, there is always the danger of shallow professions. Evangelism without follow-up is not good enough.
On that point, Graham can be criticized in that follow-up cards were distributed even to liberal churches. Given that he accepted invitations by some who were liberals there was really no other choice.
But to say Hyles and Graham in the same breath is entirely unfair. Hyles was an ego-maniac and dishonest person. It is a FACT that he covered up for child molesters and his degenerate son. It is FACT that he butchered Scripture. It is FACT that he adopted false teachings. It is FACT that he was an abusive manipulator. Hyles was no model for any pastor. I sat under the man for many years and know whereof I speak.

 

Regarding Jack Hyles, the old saying applies. "No man is totally worthless. He can always serve as a rotten example."

 

Posted by Paul33: If that's true, what are you doing at Baptist Board? If you were out there doing it, you wouldn't have time to post, would you?

Your statement is a joke! You obviousley have nothing constructive to say.

I my friend am out there doing it while you sit around trying to be whitty because you have nothing of substance to add!

 

Quite 'obviousley' written by a H-A grad. Please do us all a favor, just stay out there doing 'it' and resign from the Board so we don't have to put up with your prideful comments.

 

Some chickens are just all bone.

 

To be fair, I know of only one such accusation that had any substance to it. If I'm correct, the word "relationships" should be in the singular.

And there's good reason to believe that that one relationship never reached the point of physical contact.

I'm right with you guys regarding the relative demerit of Hyles's influence, but we shouldn't be careless in our language.

And I confess that I'm not privy to the inside scoop, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Pipedude, as far as anyone knows it was just one lady in the church outside of his wife that Hyles was interested in.

Ask Voyle Glover, the Author of "Fundamental Seduction: The Case of Jack Hyles" or Victor Nischik, the author of "The Wizard of God". Know them both personally, and believe they are credible, especially after catching Hyles in many lies myself.

 

Knowing what you do, would you agree that saying "relationships" in the plural overstates the problem? Any preacher can be accused at any time, and most successful ones are, but most accusations are void of merit.

Further, is there good reason to believe that this relationship ever became physical?

 

Dr. Bob,

What do you know about Finney that I don't?

My understanding of Finney was that he had a passion for holy living and total surrender to Jesus Christ.

Is there a biography of his life that you would recommend?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if you disagree with him over theology or lifestyle?

It seems to me that it was later followers of his "rightly constituted means" that so distorted the gospel he preached, such as Billy Sunday, and to a lesser extent, Billy Graham.

I look forward to your response.

 

Hi Paul,

I know I am not Dr. Bob, but here is a link with a lot of good ariticles on Finney and his heresy.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/revival.html

Read this artical its really good:

http://www.the-highway.com/articleMar00.html

This one is good as well:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I hope that helps. Finney has done much to damage evangelicalism and fundamentalism in Armerica.

 

I believe I pointed out my position plainly enough for you to understand it.

 

4His,

Thanks for the posts.

I've read the second one listed.

I agree that Finney's "methods" can be misused. I also agree that his assessment of revivals prior to his conversion is faulty. Most definately, the Calvinist revivals of the First Great Awakening proves him to be in error.

However, his "methods" in and of themselves are not necessarily wrong. Appealing to Scripture, one can certainly find support for asking another if they would like to "call on the name of the Lord?"

"Methods" were over-stated in Finney's meetings, but the lack of "methods" is also over-stated among some Calvinists.

Finney's life was characterized by holiness and walking with God. However, his "methods" created an opportunity for the less "sanctified" to abuse his methods. Ultimately, towards the end of Billy Sunday's career, we see this abuse fully implemented.

In any evangelistic effort their is a risk of "picking" green fruit. This is a serious problem. But if we truly believe that the elect are chosen by God before the foundation of the world, our witness to the lost needs to be clear and bold. The results are up to God.

Slamming Finney for all that is wrong with modern evangelism is, IMO, going too far.

The proof of true conversion is: 1) looking to Jesus (Calvin); 2) the inner witness of the Spirit (Moravians); 3) a changed life (Wesley).

 

4His,

I've just read another article on Finney from one of your posts.

I will read his Systematic Theology and Memoirs for myself.

But what I've read so far, if true, paints Finney as an heretic.

I'm not suggesting that Moody, Sunday, or Graham are heretics for using some of his methods. But clearly Finney did not hold to orthodox Christianity (both Arminian and Calvinistic) that his forebears lived and taught.

I especially found interesting the connenction between his views on depravity and regeneration and the corresponding need to emphasize perfectionism.

I believe when a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that person's life is changed and transformed!

 

Back to Hyles. I disassociated myself with him at the time the scandal broke out, but not because of the scandal itself. I have spoken with the woman's husband and he is convinced that there was adultery, but that hasn't been proven. I disassociated myself with Hyles because I finally saw how the worship and adoration of this man was so wrong. I saw that he fostered it. I saw him tell lies. I saw him cover-up for his degenerate son, to the hurt of many, many people. I saw him cover-up for a convicted pedophile. Then I saw him rewrite his theology as an attempt to deflect the criticism of his ungodly leadership. He actually claimed that the attacks done on him were done because he was the true heir of fundamentalism and his detractors wanted to change historic fundamentalism. It is at that time he adopted the "blood, the book and the bride" nonsense, things he openly criticized before. He was a man of no integrity and horrific ego. Whether or not he was also an adulterer is irrelevant. I am a HAC grad who saw these things with my own eyes. This is not second hand knowledge.

 

I read his ST while in college. In fact, I crawled through it line by line one summer. It's a long pull, I warn you. C. Hodge said that it was "in a high degree logical" and "as hard to read as Euclid."

A new, authoritative biography by Keith Hardman came out in 1987. Hardman shows that Finney, writing much later than the events he describes, used a selective memory. Although the Autobiography is glorious, it has some inaccuracies that will lead a reader astray regarding Finney's theology and the results of his campaigns.

I thought that Hodge's review of Finney's ST was very helpful. I found it in the April 1847 issue of Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, but I think it's been reprinted somewhere.