A Deadly Contagious Plague of Easy Believist Baptist Churches

By -
It never stops to bother me up to no end that sometimes the biggest problem in the Baptist churches are Baptists themselves. As preposterous as it sounds but it's true. There's the recent plague of easy believism. I thought of how often salvation ends up like this, "Just pray a prayer and you're saved." It's no wonder why the late Dr. Leonard Ravenhill announced that the sinner's prayer has sent more people into Hell than the bars of America. It's because many people have become false converts. Now, I don't deny some people have said the sinner's prayer or were converted from a sinner's prayer evangelism. However, it's not because of the sinner's prayer evangelism but it's because the pastor preaches hard truths and would confront false converts about the possibility of false conversion.

I was just reminded of some person I ran into years ago. He claimed he was a Baptist and seems to act like he's some kind of "Jesuit expert" by labeling Calvinist preachers as "Jesuits". He was a die-hard supporter of the late Jack Hyles' ministry and a supporter of Jesus-is-Savior (and many saved people may have never noticed the heresies in it - myself included). I can't be too certain if Jesus-is-Savior's webmaster David J. Stewart is indeed guilty (considering that said site is still up for viewing) or I'm still looking at the allegations against Hyles - however this person I ran into across the Internet was someone who'd start fights over his precious beliefs of easy believism. He loves to proclaim that Calvinists are Jesuits (HUH???), that John Calvin supposedly never left Roman Catholicism (and his basis was that because Ignatius of Loyola went to the same school as Calvin which is a Nom Sequitur) and that people can be saved but never change from their sinful ways. After I confronted him - he simply hurled one insult after the other rather than sit down and listen. He was simply someone who believed he was a Christian and taught that people can be saved but never change. If that's the case then he's no better than religious Roman Catholics who live life like they have a license to sin. He was clearly teaching a twisted version of eternal security because how can one be secure in Christ yet live a life that has never been changed?

While the truth of eternal security is indeed 100% true yet we can't deny that not everybody who claims it has it. I believe in once saved always saved all the while I emphasis that this is once salvation from sin is obtained - it will continue until the last day of the Lord Jesus (Philippians 1:7-9). I believe in eternal security will not just be simply staying saved and never having a change of life. Remember, Jesus warned in Matthew 24:13 that whosoever endures to the end shall be saved. At first, I was scared that I might renounce my faith until I realized God provides the grace to do so. I was struggling with eternal security and found out that true faith in Christ continues and that it's impossible to truly stop believing in Jesus. Instead, 1 John 2:19 states that those who have departed from the faith were never of the faith. They were false professors in contrast to Christians who have some worldly compromise going on. Besides, Matthew 7:23 says that "I never knew you!" to the workers of iniquity. Not only does it show works salvation doesn't work yet there are many who claim to be Christians but were never saved to start with. They fail to see the true results of an authentic salvation what while Christians may sin, they may struggle with sin but when they do sin - they can't enjoy their sin for long and that they may not be perfect (Lot, Samson and Solomon didn't give their all) but they can't enjoy sin like the sin-loving false converts. Lot was vexed in Sodom, Samson was still named in Hebrews 11 as a man of faith (though Judges emphasizes on his backsliding more than his heroism) and Solomon made very foolish choices in life.

Saved and never change at all is not in the Bible. It reminded me of how after I got saved - I simply wanted to start making major changes. I was a new creature. I wanted to stop my temper tantrums. I wanted to stop lying and just tell the truth. I kept reading Acts and kept finding out people departed from their sins after they got saved. I don't see people there who were still stuck in sin. Instead, we see people who burned their occultism, they placed the idol makers out of business, temple prostitution was going bankrupt, sin was going down the drain - it was all because the Gospel is life-changing. 1 Corinthians 9:11 declares the wonderful truth that, "And such were some of you." to those who were once unrighteous. You can't just have salvation without resulting to a changed life! But we've got Baptist churches who are spreading that heresy.

How can someone repent of their unbelief if they don't repent of their sins first? What does it mean to repent of sin or to turn from sin? The term "turn from sin" has been frequently confused that even some sound preachers can falsely accuse another sound preacher of teaching works salvation when he's not. The term to turn from sin has been more explained to be as, "To repent of your sin." - I prefer to use repent of sin instead of turn from sin. Though there's always that need to be willing to turn from sin - it's because unless a person is willing to turn from their lifestyle of sin then such person will refuse to receive true salvation. People don't want to get saved because they know Christianity will change their lives. Yet, you've got people today who believe that you can be a Christian rapist, a Christian drug dealer, a Christian murderer, etc. or in short a Christian who is still living in so much sin and that no change took place. That's why I want to say I put a big question mark on the claim of someone who claims to be saved but never had any change. That's why I don't to believe sinful people claiming to be Christians are truly saved.

I was also wondering how true are the allegations against Hyles anyway? I was wondering was his daughter just a rebellious daughter turning against her father? I remembered reading through David W. Cloud's site (though he's pretty much anti-Calvinist and an King James only preacher even if he embraces Calvinist Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ) where he did explain how many false converts were there in Hyles' ministry because of a soft and easy message. Many prayed the sinner's prayer but never truly believed the Gospel. It even sickens me how a supposed Baptist church claims to be a Baptist church yet it was ran by sexually immoral deacons who owned a nightclub! You can't be a child of God and still run a place that promotes fornication and adultery! If the allegations against Hyles are true such as that he was actually a sexually immoral man are real then it's because of the idea of easy believism. I've even heard that Hyles was a very sexually immoral man, women had kissed lips-to-lips with him and he's claimed many victims through his charm and charisma. However, it was confirmed that his son-in-law and successor Jack Schaap was very sexually immoral. I would even dare assume (though I cannot confirm) that Schaap could be a Jesuit plant or that the Hyles church was ruined by female spies possibly set up by the Vatican to help ruin Baptist churches in America.

Should it be mentioned that it's hypocritical to accuse the Roman Catholic institution of revisionism or writing a distorted view of history - all the while these easy believist Baptists are doing the same. They have also thought of perverting the importance of the Reformation. While Baptists aren't Protestants but they did not emerge from John the Baptist! I've even heard that the Baptists were called Baptists by the Roman Catholic institution because not only did the former preach to Roman Catholics - they would also give them proper baptism. John the Baptist was called baptist because he was a baptizer. Baptists were also  called as such because they would give believers' baptism by immersion and not by sprinkling! They have also blasted the Reformation as "not of God" while they hypocritically enjoy the King James Version and insist in it as the only perfect English translation. The KJV was translated by Puritan scholars under the era of King James and it is a Calvinist translation. Now if those people who believe that Calvinists are "Jesuits" then the King James must be a Jesuit translation so why are they still using it? Yet, even if I do use the KJV as my only Bible translation yet I'm aware that John Calvin's translation was also part of why I can enjoy it today! I wonder where did these revisionists even get their idea that Martin Luther and Calvin were jailing Baptist preachers when William Tyndale (a Baptist) was executed by the Roman Catholic institution.

I guess it's why these guys are pretty much opposed or accusing Reformed Baptist preachers of teaching works salvation or take words out of context. I remembered the controversy of John F. MacArthur where many of these Easy Believist Baptists used the erroneous first edition of "Hard to Believe", twist his stand on the mark of the Beast (where he believes it's possible for unbelievers who received it to be still saved while he does emphasize such an act is still an act of treason against God) or even say Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't truly a Baptist because he was a Calvinist then therefore he's a Jesuit which makes me question such a ridiculous claim. I could care less about Calvinism or non-Calvinism as long as false conversion and Antinomianism are ground as much as salvation by works. Although Dr. Vernon McGee was supposedly an "opponent of lordship salvation" yet he rejected Antinomianism or that Aiden W. Tozer (though he made an error in quoting certain Roman Catholic mystics while preaching against it in his sermon called "Tainted Tradition") also said that you can't have Christ as Savior but not as Lord. It's because one truth is told by Reformed Baptists even before said group was established - if your Jesus Christ is not Lord then you've got another Jesus leading you to damnation!

Unfortunately, these churches are indeed increasing like rabbits because so few people ever care about the truth of the Gospel. The Bible is really a hard bitter pill to swallow. The Gospel itself is a hard message and it will never be an easy message. It's no secret that we're in the Laodicean church age where false converts abound. There will be many of them found lukewarm and the Lord Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. It's not a warning about a loss of salvation. Rather, it's a warning of people who thought they were saved but they were never served to start with.

See also: