The REAL Jack Hyles

Truly remarkable.

 

Don't we normally consider it a GOOD thing when a preacher goes from LESS fundamental to MORE fundamental?

Yet here some are criticizing him for changing his position on certain things over the years. Wouldn't it be better to be willing to change one's position if God shows you it is wrong, than to be so prideful that you stick to the wrong teaching for 40 years?

Ive seen some take their love of Bro Hyles and turn it into what looks like "man-worship", however, having heard him preach many times, I can tell you that this attitude was not one that he fostered himself.

Personally, I think it came from the fact that his first generation of church members knew him, and knew him well, and love him....then they have kids who perhaps don't know him as well, but see their parents love for him, so they carry it on. Then there is on top of that a third generation, who often are not even a part of his church, yet have had him built up in their minds by parents and grandparents to the point that they believe he can almost do no wrong.

But its not because he ever claimed to be that way.

 

Hyles was hyper-fundamental and thats never a good thing.

 

The changes Hyles made were for the "bad."

KJVO.
Difference between "eternal" and "everlasting."
Coverup of sin in his own life and those of his deacons.
Fidelity to infidelity.
etc. etc.

 

The first two you mention I do not consider to be bad.

The second two you have no proof of and you are merely descending into unproven, false allegations against a man who can no longer defend himself.

 

Im sorry, gentlemen, after this I won't bother you on this thread. However, to the OP, yes alot of what is said about Dr. Hyles is exaggeration. He tended to write in the same manner as he spoke, which could be somewhat disjointed and not always very smooth. So one needs to read his sermons with careful consideration of what he has said in other places.
Yes, he had some changes in his beliefs, haven't we all grown in that way?
AND, when the whole KJV issue became foremost in people's minds, yes he did change his stance. However, there WERE faculty and staff members who left over it. It was not blind followship there. In spite of that, they left without making a stink because they were upstanding men of character. Im sorry that most of us here did not get phone calls at home regarding it. Perhaps next time you will. The ones who stayed obviously had been convinced of the rightness of their pastor's new take on the matter.
You must admit, this issue did not used to even be any big deal, it is only in more recent years that people have begun to look into it and take strong stances on the matter one way or the other.

As to someone who said "Beverly" is now in Dallas at an SBC church, thats not true. MRS. Hyles is still an active member at Hammond. She still sits in her place in the choir and she even still has an office in the building.

As I do not know those who are so against the man, I don't know that I really ought to care what your opinion of him is. I do know Hyles, and I do know what he taught. This does not mean that I am totally in his "camp" (though I hate the "camp" mentality that has sprung up among fundamentalists), however, if you all were not so stringent about criticizing him none of us here would have to be defending him.

Also, since when is gossip not gossip if its true? Thats a very immature point of view, and you need to change your stance there.

 

Compare that to Jesus' critics condemning him for picking grain on the sabbath.

 

Compare that to Jesus' critics condemning him for picking grain on the sabbath. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you become 'more' fundamental?

Unfortunately, the word 'fundamental' has become sullied by being applied to every looney group (i.e. 'Islamic fundamentalists'). And that is not the only word that has lost it's original meaning- the word 'liberal' has also fallen into mis-use. It used to mean someone who did not believe the Bible. Now it means someone who does not believe the Bible like I do.

Also, what was 'fundamental' back in the 40's-70's has changed from being a Bible-centered standard to a man-centered standard. Fundamental has nothing to do with what you wear, your hair length, or even what version of the Bible you use (GASP!!)

 

Bapmom is completely in error when she says that Hyles himself did not encourage the worship he received. I was part of his ministry for years and I heard it. Even when I was under his spell, deep inside I knew it was wrong. The man worship that occured at HAC and FBC was carefully orchestrated by Hyles himself.
First of all, he was the hero of all of his stories. If you listened to him over time, the stories changed. For example, the "I'll take the bus kids" tale he told repeatedly eventually morphed into him being so deep in prayer on the streets in downtown Chicago that a crowd gathered around him and the incident was reported in the Chicago Tribune.
He repeatedly told his congregation that, when in other cities, he could boast to the crowds he preached to that if he called home and told the head of his deacon board that he felt they should all convert to Catholicism, the deacon would only respond, "Yes, Father." And, on cue, the crowd at FBC would shout, "Amen!" He must have told that story 100 times. What was the purpose?
We constantly, constantly heard him harp on loyalty. He chose staff first and foremost on the basis of their loyalty to him. His staff outdid one another in praise of him. We were told again and again to listen to whatever Preacher said. "Preacher says..." was the constant thread. No one EVER said that anything Hyles said was anything other than of God. No praise was too excessive.
More significant, there were times when Hyles made serious, serious errors. Like the way he covered up for his son. He never one time admitted to ever having made a mistake. I guarantee that any HAC student that would even HINT of Hyles being mistaken about anything would be shipped immediately.

 

Charles Meadows wrote,

I have some of Jack Hyles' tapes that were recorded in the late 1970’s. On these tapes he took a VERY strong stand against sin, but I would not say that the messages conveyed a legalistic attitude. About four years ago I heard Jack Hyles preach in a VERY staunch, pseudo-Christian KJO “church” and I was absolutely appalled by both the man and the words that he spoke, for he was very arrogant in his demeanor and brash in his choice of words for those who are not distinctly KJO. How very sad it is that this mans ministry was so severely marred by such a ridiculous, nonsensical teaching.

 

A web search for

jack hyles affair

will reveal some interesting and well documented scandal.

 

Dr. Bob,

Not wishing to start a debate, but what about repentance?

(I don't intend to defend either way, Im just asking. I believe Ive actually talked to you before about repentance, but I don't remember)

 

theres no way Id start another thread on that! lol

Imagine the chaos!

=)

 

KJVO....An unscriptural, false, man-made doctrine.

Difference between "eternal" and "everlasting."...
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/noeternl.htm


Coverup of sin in his own life and those of his deacons.
Fidelity to infidelity.

http://www.pipeline.com/~jeriwho1/2003_10_19_archive.html


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:u3TSvYNuZ6sJ:www.biblicalevangelist.org/jack_hyles_chapter3.php+jack+hyles+affair&hl=en&client=firefox-a

These weren't written from hate of Hyles...he wasn't nearly as despised as Dr. Ruckman is. These are but two of a whole gaggle of similar sites.

 

You guys are tough! I will admit that I have read alot of things I didn't know about Jack Hyles.

Thank God he's dead! He tends to take a better kickin when he's down. You've about beat that horse to death anyways.

 

Some feel that the horse hasn't been half beaten to death. As stated before, his legacy and brainwashing continues through his SIL. It will never be a "dead horse" as long as the same tripe is being taught and covered up by FBCH/HAC. Repentence should be the objective, and the administration there doesn't seem to believe there is cause for that, despite the lives ruined.

 

Does his passing nullify his sins?

 

I could agree with soulman if there wasn't a college in Crown Point, IN that continues the brainwashing of young people. When I criticize Hyles, I don't do so because of a need to expose something that a dead man did. I criticize Hyles for the sole purpose of discouraging any young people from making the mistake that I made, of going to HAC. I also hope to challenge pastors to define the pastor's role biblically. Hyles is a photographic negative of what a biblical pastor should be.