The Sword of the Lord, Part 1: Man-Centred Revivalist Ministry that Peddles a Perverted Gospel and False Doctrine, Exemplified by Tom Wallace, Michael Sullivant, and Most Revivalist IFB Churches

Updated: July 5, 2025

John R. Rice started the Sword of the Lord (SOTL) on Sept 28, 1934 while pastoring Fundamentalist Baptist Church of Dallas, TX (later called Galilean Baptist). Though SOTL has existed predominantly as an Independent Baptist publishing ministry, distributing a bi-monthly 24 page newspaper (peaking at 300,000 in 1975), while holding campaigns and conferences across North America and around the world, it has never been governed as a ministry of a local church. For all intends and purposes, it has always existed as a parachurch ministry, hence the conversion from pastor to evangelist for its editors. John R. Rice co-edited the paper with his brother Bill until Bill's death in 1978. Curtis Hutson replaced Bill Rice as co-editor, and he became the sole editor two years later when John R. Rice died. Hutson died in 1995, and editorship passed to Shelton Smith, former pastor of the Church of the Open Door/Carroll Christian Schools, Westminster, Maryland. SOTL is based presently out of Murfreesboro, TN.

SOTL classifies itself as an "Independent Christian Publication, that stands for the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, His blood atonement, salvation by faith, New Testament soul winning and the premillennial return of Christ, while opposing modernism (liberalism), worldliness and formalism." (SOTL website video). SOTL says it exists to "promote revival and soul winning within our local churches." The SOTL Annual Conference is an annual big deal, which "feature[s] a revival atmosphere that equips, encourages and excites the servants of God to work for the Lord with renewed fervency and faithfulness."

What we will demonstrate is that SOTL and SOTL editors and other SOTL champions such as Tom Wallace, promote heretical revivalism, a corrupted gospel, man-centeredness, and other serious errors, and that there is good reason why the SOTL newspaper has been ridiculed for many years as the "Sort of the Lord." The first part will expose SOTL, followed by an expose of Tom Wallace specifically in the second. The Tom Wallace expose is secondary to appearing at Calvary Baptist Church in southern Alberta, Canada, at the invitation of pastor Brad Friesen (a Michael Sullivant disciple), to preach their annual Missions Conference. Other men from IFB churches couldn't resist the temptation to come and watch an old time IFB mega-churcher at 95 years of age who rubbed shoulders with the who's who of super-mega church producers and ungodly wolves such as Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson, and heretical compromisers such as John Rice and Lee Roberson, men such as Tim Krahn and some of his faithful followers from Victory Faith NT Church (now calling themselves "Baptist" though they are not truly Baptist, a ploy to join the Big Boys Club headed by Michael Sullivant).

The influence of the SOTL paper, their books and conferences cannot be calculated. >90% of all the thousands of IFB churches are revivalist, and essentially all of these are associated to some degree with the SOTL. The coalition is directly, and some indirectly. Its founder, John R Rice, is probably the most influential preacher in the fundamental Baptist movement, certainly somewhere in the very top.

Before continuing, let us just warn you. If you don't accept, read, and diligently study the Scriptures, you might not get what we're doing (applicable to not just this 20/20 report, but all our reports). You may well think this is gossip, slandering, touching the Lord's anointed, divisive, fleshly, or hurtful to "the cause." If you are born again and have opened eyes, hearing ears, and a converted heart, and thus the Spirit of truth indwelling you, and do pay attention to the Bible by vigilant study and right division, and have actually looked at the ministry of the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, you will understand our burden and appreciate our feeble efforts to warn of error, teachers of error, and to call Independent Baptists and other likeminded churches to purity. On the other hand, if you are unsaved or do not pay attention to what Scripture is actually teaching, you might well be tempted to I us that we should be going privately to these men, then taking witnesses, etc (Matt 18:15-17). Matt 18 doesn't actually apply, so no need to write us about that (we are saving you time and energy). We do not need to go to these men privately (though we have done that in some cases); Matt 18:15-17 deals with a private offence in a local church. It is not written concerning open error and participation with error. Keep reading concerning this subject here: Misuse and Abuse of Matthew 18 by Sinning, Erring Church Leaders, and Others.

Undoubtedly, God’s Word commands the judging and testing and the proving of all things (Jn 7:24; 1 Cor 2:15; 10:15; Lk 7:43; 12:57; Phil 1:9-10; Lev 19:15, 35-37; Pr 21:3, 15), thus we will judge what SOTL and Tom Wallace believe and teach, by the Word of God. For further details of these commands, see The Biblical Necessity to Critically Test, Judge, Expose Error, and Name Names and Warpath Against Error and Sin, by the Faithful Soldier of Christ and False Teachers are a Great Enemy to the Soul - the Critical Necessity of Warning and Separating.

SOTL, Promoter of a False Gospel and Revivalism

Any change to any of the elements of the one true gospel, including repentance and Christ's Lordship, is a false gospel, which we deal with here.

Though the SOTL has stood for a lot of good Biblical teachings and practices, its corruption of the gospel and damage to the lives of people has been unsurmountable. They have denied, ignored, rejected and corrupted repentance and Christ's Lordship since its inception, and have been at the forefront of the promotion of the heretical and ungodly practice of “Easy Believism” and “Quick Prayerism,” getting "converts" through psychological manipulation, human salesmanship, an anemic gospel that leaves out repentance and the Lordship of Christ, and an empty “sinner’s prayer,” which have too often replaced Holy Spirit conviction, reproof, repentance and surrender, and miraculous regeneration.

SOTL says it exists to "promote revival and soul winning within our local churches," but the "revival" of SOTL from its inception was a vehicle to spread revivalism of revivalistic fundamentalism which doesn’t represent the true gospel or true sanctification.

Under their "Mission and Purpose" on their website SOTL claims,

"Each year, thousands of people are led to Christ with the help of our Soul Winners' Club program. Thousands of pieces of gospel literature and copies of our Sword of the Lord newspaper are made available to chaplains working within the prison systems. Missionaries are also sent literature so that the Gospel can be spread to all the ends of the earth. Each day, we hear of souls saved and Christians discipled because of the ministry of the Sword of the Lord."

SOTL claims their "greatest desire is to see souls come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour," but is that possible when the gospel is false and perverted? Is it possible without the true gospel that genuinely saves, redeems and changes the sinner permanently?

Most that read here at 20/20 know that we don't believe in ranking doctrine into essentials/non-essentials or major/minor in any regard, especially as it relates to separation and unity. However, that doesn’t mean that certain doctrines are not more serious in their consequences. People who believe a false gospel go to Hell. That is more serious than being "baptized" by pouring or sprinkling. The Bible emphasizes the seriousness of a false gospel in Gal 1:6-9, when it says:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

What is to be our response to those who preach a false gospel (which includes any element of the gospel)? "Let him be accursed." That is very serious. So if SOTL and its affiliated churches are presenting, preaching, and then encouraging others to preach a false gospel, we need to say to such, "Let him be accursed." And then those who fellowship with him are not taking the gospel seriously. They can't be serious about people's eternal destiny. They are disobedient to Gal 1:6-9. If we love the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel, which has saved our wretched souls, we shouldn't want anything to do with anyone who fellowships with someone who preaches a false gospel.

Since its inception, SOTL has had a serious problem with true faith (which must include true repentance) and the true Jesus of the Bible (He is also Lord, not only Saviour). A top reason very likely is because of its effect on church size. Your church won't grow much if you are relying on true conversions. SOTL represented (and promoted) the frenzy for bigness, and this was part of the motivation for a change in soul winning doctrine and methodology.

We believe that SOTL has always been committed to a perverted gospel right out of the starting blocks. On purpose, SOTL has almost consistently left out biblical repentance as a necessary prerequisite for justification or salvation, also noted in their present statement of faith, and essentially most preaching you will here from SOTL men as printed in their publication. Even if some of the participants of SOTL believe in a scriptural view of repentance, the SOTL paper itself leaves it out in part because many of its supporters would oppose repentance.

John R. Rice (and Jack Hyles)

All of the SOTL editors have rejected true Biblical repentance to some degree, including John R. Rice, the founder and first editor. All SOTL preachers have a real difficult time with the doctrine of repentance, willfully and purposefully, while there is nothing difficult about it at all in Scripture. It’s actually not hard to understand. Almost every single preacher and church that associates with SOTL believes, embraces and purveys a false polluted gospel that corrupts or outright denies repentance and Christ's Lordship, and that includes Tom Wallace, a SOTL old timer, as will be exposed in the next part.

There are many things that we appreciate about John R. Rice (including his hard working attitude and scandal-free personal life of integrity, proven by the testimonies of his six daughters) but his attempt to hoodwink and deceive the people into believing that he embraced and taught a true gospel is wrong and dishonest. The sad truth is he did not, evident alone by his very close associations with wicked perverts of the gospel such as Jack Hyles, but also for other reasons. We cannot say this intelligent man would've been ignorant to what Scripture teaches about repentance and Christ's Lordship, and then associate with gospel perverters such as Hyles. He willfully and purposefully promoted a corrupted gospel. He double-spoke when it came to repentance and the gospel. He would make statements that appeared Biblically right (that repentance is “a change of mind toward God and toward sin” and “to turn from your sin” though the former is only partially Biblically accurate, and in his book Here Are More Questions, he stated, “People ought to be taught to turn from sin in genuine repentance” (Vol. II, p. 425), but then almost in the same breath completely contradict himself, revealing his true belief on the subject. Firstly, one tell tail sign of a denier of some aspect of the gospel is never actually going any deeper than skin on the subject, if it gets mentioned at all, and that was normal in the days of Rice running SOTL. Secondly, it didn't appear that he actually believed in Biblical repentance, even in the least, for he believed faith and repentance were the exact same thing, and it didn’t require sorrow:

“One who believes in Christ has repented. Repentance and faith are the same thing put in different words, and neither requires a long period of time, nor a process of mourning and sorrow.” (Rice, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?”)

That is plain heresy and very troubling. In one short paragraph he reveals his true position on repentance and thus the gospel, and what he had been writing in the words leading up to this in the ultimate source for him on the gospel, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?”, were a manipulative and crafty deception, while godly ministers "have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor 4:2). Repentance and faith are NOT the same thing. (We address both here in our report on Lordship Salvation is Salvation). Though it is true that repentance doesn’t require a long period of time, it is not true that it doesn’t require sorrow. True salvation involves godly sorrow as 2 Cor 7:10 reveals, and we believe is common biblical sense when it comes to true contrition and sorrow over sinning against a Thrice Holy God, whom we have offended all our life. Someone that truly understands their offence and sin towards God will have a poor, broken and contrite heart, in similitude to king David in Ps 51, and that is godly sorrow. Rice undermines the sorrow in repentance by creating a straw man by adding in the qualifier “process.” 2 Cor. 7:10 says, “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation” and no man can be saved without a poor, broken and contrite heart (Matt 5:3). Contrary to his unsubstantiated claims, not everyone that “believes in Christ has repented.” Many people “believed in Christ” in the Bible but they were unrepentant false “believers” (e.g. Jn. 2:23-25; 6:60-66; 8:31-36; 1 Jn. 2:19; Judas Iscariot; Simon Magi; Balaam; Diotrephes; etc). In Acts 8, Simon the sorcerer "believed" in Christ (v. 13) but had never repented (v. 22) and was yet lost in his sin (vv. 20-23) to which he was self- and demonically deceived (v. 24). The “devils also believe” and they even “tremble” (Jam. 2:19) but they don’t repent so they cannot be saved. According to what John R. Rice says, they could be. That same chapter in James teaches about a “dead faith” which is a faith that is not saved, an unrepentant faith that produces no godly fruit. Faith and repentance are two entirely different doctrines, with entirely different underlying inspired Hebrew and Greek words and meanings. For continued reading, please see the following link on the Doctrine of Repentance.

Jack Hyles popularized (and created to some degree) the new "soul winning" and "church" planting methods that produced many mega-IFB churches in the 1970's, and certainly became the most influential teacher of these unscriptural programs to build up church numbers, but it was SOTL and John R. Rice that gave Hyles teaching theories and methods a very wide promotion. After Hyles was kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1950’s, he was befriended by John R. Rice and subsequently put on the Board of Directors of the Sword and made director of SOTL conferences. Hyles became an independent fundamental baptist (IFB) after his departure from the SBC. At the end of 1952, Hyles accepted the call to pastor Miller Road Baptist Church of Garland, TX, which grew from 44 members to 4,100 in 6 years! The membership rolls were filled with inactive people. Of the alleged 4,000 members, only a small percentage could fit into the church building, but that didn’t matter, since most didn’t attend services; they had prayed and "accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour," had their "ticket to heaven," and continued on with business as before, a two-fold child of hell more than Hyles himself! Eventually he took up the pastoral office of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, and headed up what was billed as "The world's largest Sunday School.” He built the church into a personality cult that boasted over 25,000 members with high attendances over 100,000. His leadership style was dictatorial and his preaching style was idiotic (that is a technical theological term). It was so bad, it went way beyond any normalcy into the dark world of psychosis. He also specialized in the ungodly interpretation method of eisegesis, though story telling after reading a text was his preference. He died in 2001 due to surgical complications post-massive myocardial infarction, following a period of intense scrutiny and criticism over his handing of many horrible moral issues in the church including his own adulterous relationship with one of his deacon's wives, a home that he destroyed. Rice and Hyles preached together in every state except one and “shared the pulpit over 2,200 times during 22 years,” according to his secretary in her book. In 1963, Hyles’ book Let’s Go Soulwinning was published by SOTL. He taught salvation as a “ticket to heaven” by means of a sinner’s prayer, devoid of the true the gospel and true conversion, purely reflective of a perverted gospel delivered by an “accursed” man (Gal 1:6-9). He also hated repentance. By changing the doctrine of repentance and by calling the old doctrine of repentance the “enemy of soul winning,” Hyles was saying that a biblical understanding of repentance got in the way of his numbers program. The old doctrine of repentance is not the enemy of biblical soul winning; it is the enemy of the Jack Hyles-type soul winning. And Jack Hyles was an enemy of God (Jam 4:4).

Rice was 100% on board with the damnable heresy that Hyles was spouting (cf. Am 3:3), and didn’t contain enough discernment to see through the mans heresy, damnable heresy, scripture corruption, false teachings, immorality and speak out against it. Some of Hyles garbage was blasphemous and anti-Christ. The SOTL dismissive handling of Jack Hyles' adulterous affair with his secretary and the slaven support the SOTL continued to give Hyles after the scandal broke, is outrageously wicked. A gospel minister is to be "blameless" and above reproach. Hyles was neither and SOTL couldn't care less. This is consistent with how many fundamentalists operate within the culture they have created, where politics often trump truth and biblical principles.

It was Jack Hyles who popularized easy believism and quick prayerism "soul winning" among the IFB. This was the emphasis of his soul winning books and annual Pastor’s School. He said, “You must try to get them to pray.” Hyles was a blatant wolf in sheep’s clothing, but that didn't matter to Rice who appears to not know the difference, which reflects on Rices likely unregenerate nature himself, since all truly saved people know the difference between “the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” and therefore they “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:6, 1). Over 2,200 times Rice had the personal opportunity to witness the horrendous perversion of Scripture, corruption of the gospel, unBiblical preaching and manners of Hyles, but things continued on status quo. Unbelievable. 1964, Hyles began his annual four-day Pastor’s School. By 1976, 4,000 preachers and “lay people” were in attendance, being brainwashed into the horrid methodologies and techniques of perverted soulwinning by Hyles, in their endeavour to build big, mega churches loaded with “tithers” and quiet submissive servants to the “man of God” behind the podium. The horrible and eternal damage done by this wicked wolf Hyles through his influence of millions of people through First Baptist Church, Hyles-Anderson College, thousands of pastors who attended the yearly pastors’ conference, thousands of churches through the 18 books he has written and the thousands of ministers through the many pastor’s conferences where he spoke each year, including the annual SOTL conference.

Under Rice, the SOTL published Hyles’ heretical books Let’s Go Soul Winning and Let’s Build an Evangelistic Church in the 1960s. Rice and SOTL were right on board with the wolf in sheep's clothing Jack Hyles, and that really should tell you everything about the "gospel" at the SOTL. Rice and Hyles were two peas in a pod, Rice only knew how to conceal the gospel corruption in a much more effective manner than Hyles, and he obviously had no issue whatsoever with a false gospel that denied and perverted repentance and turned salvation into empty professions of easy believism and quick prayerism. The prophet Amos asks:

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Am 3:3)

Rice and Hyles were certainly agreed, in spite of the ravening wolf Jack Hyle’s horrible perversion of the gospel and endless false teachings and heresy and horrible wresting of Scripture and chronic adultery and other wicked and grievous sin. In spite of these horrible issues (the gospel issue itself was enough to condemn him as a false teacher and wolf), Rice was close buddies with him and a strong supporter, even hosting “soul winning conferences” together with him, many, many times, preaching thousands of times together. There we go, ‘Soul winning Conference in Conjunction with Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Jack Hyles, by your Host, John R. Rice and SOTL' and Rice didn’t appear to have the discernment to know the difference. This point alone is highly suspicious of Rice spiritual nature, since spiritual discernment is found in all of God's children through the new birth, seeing that they all have the indwelling Spirit of God, and how much more when they've been professed to be saved for decades already, and in a pastoral and teaching position?? If a 13 year old boy in Greenville, SC knew the sexual indiscretions of a minister in Hammond, IN, in the late 1960’s, it is not a "local church matter" as these men falsely claim. Why did it take John R. Rice, Harold Sightler, Bob Jones Jr. Rod Bell, Walt Hanford, Oliver B. Green, Jack Van Impe and many others, 20 years to bring Jack Hyles to account. Surely they knew more than this 13 year old boy. But they clearly didn't have the same desire for righteousness and godly justice as the 13 year old boy, certainly not God's!

Even if all of Hyles sexual immorality, adultery, repeated abominable lying and deceiving, and his sons (the youth leader) truck loads of immoral sins hadn’t come fully to light while Rice was yet alive, his false gospel and massive scripture perversion and theoretic antics and dictatorship, always exposed him as a grievous wolf (Matt. 7:15; Ac. 20:29). He was a master at twisting passages to fit his sermon, horribly wresting, misusing and abusing scripture, which should have been exposed, dissected, and rejected, but never was, certainly not by Rice. He gave a horrible example of what preaching ought not to be. He became the poster-boy for choosing a short text and then fleeing from it with incredible stories and illustrations. There was a lot wrong with what and how Hyles preached, and yet he was exalted, seen as “great,” and never reproved by Rice. If Rice had even just an ounce of spiritual discernment and desire to please and obey God, he would’ve surely reproved and then separated himself from such a ravening wolf. But he didn’t. Instead he promoted him and preached with him often, having no issues with him whatsoever. Very, very tell tale.

SOTL under Rice would publish Hyles or Hyles type of gospel messages (Do you want to go to heaven?!) and have a tear-out attached. If you answered yes, you were to ask the Lord to save you, tear out that card, and mail it in. Then you had assurance of eternal life. The card was like an altar call. That’s heresy and further proof of his perverted gospel. It was more than likely Jack Hyles that invented the “do you want to go to heaven when you die, then pray this prayer after me” methodology, and the SOTL gave him a large forum to promote it and his perverted gospel of easy believism and quick prayerism, starting in the 1960's with the publication and promotion of his book, “Let’s Go Soul Winning” (1962). This book begins with the amazing account of a man getting "saved" without any actual understanding.

“I know a fellow in Texas who, when he got converted, couldn’t even spell Jesus. The first year he won 169 to Jesus. He picked up a hitchhiker and tried to witness to him. The hitchhiker shook his head. He then talked real loud, but the hitchhiker pointed to his ears and shook his head. So this new convert started writing the Gospel out and the hitchhiker pointed down and shook his head. He couldn’t read, he couldn’t hear, he couldn’t talk. So this soul winner, who went to the third grade and couldn’t even spell Jesus, stopped the car and got out, took his Bible, pointed to the Bible, pointed to his heart, pointed to Heaven, made a motion to open your heart and let Him come in, got on his knees and began to pray. The deaf and dumb fellow got on his knees and mumbled a bit, got up with a smile of Heaven on his face, pointed to the Bible, pointed to Heaven and pointed to his heart.”

This is not only ridiculous; it is frightful and shocking in its biblical ignorance and gospel perversion. There is not a single example in Scripture anywhere of someone getting saved without understanding the true gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the opposite, where unsaved people are discipled and trained in the gospel, until its able to make them wise unto salvation (e.g., Jn 2:11; 2 Tim 3:15), just as commanded as the Great Commission (Matt 28:19, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...")

The number of genuine converts at the “biggest and greatest” churches that Rice promoted in SOTL, such as FBC of Hammond, IN, and Highland Park of Chattanooga, TN, did not add up to anything even close to half of the professions. Concerning the many false and empty professions, Rice argued that it is better to have 500 professions with 250 of those being genuine than to have 15 professions with 13 or 14 genuine.

“But suppose it were true that out of a church that baptized over five hundred converts in a year . . . only 250 of the 500 were actually saved. Wouldn’t that be better than a church that had fifteen professions of faith and perhaps one or two of them were not saved?” Wouldn’t you rather 250 people go to Heaven than thirteen or fourteen?” (I Am a Fundamentalist, pp. 227-228)

The most troubling aspect of this sort of humanistic, pragmatic heresy is the mentality behind it. Who thinks like this?

Along with the false repentance and denial of Christ's Lordship, Rice promoted and taught the decisionist techniques of the apostate Charles G. Finney (who rejected justification by faith alone) and was a major promoter of the Quick Prayerism false gospel and the big numbers of professions that were reported in the 1970s and 1980s through this methodology. Christ’s Lordship is completely missing from any salvation presentations, relegated entirely to post-salvation for sanctification, thus promoting “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4).

In all, it is very apparent Rice embraced a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9). On purpose, he left out true Biblical repentance and Christ' Lordship as a necessary prerequisite for justification or salvation, which results in a false gospel and false Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4). He avoided preaching a true gospel and didn’t care that he proclaimed a false one. Rice, the head and founder of the SOTL was this bad with his gospel, so one can only imagine how bad it was in the average SOTL church. It was very bad and continues so. This is why Rice had no issues being in fellowship with Hyles and promoting him.

John R. Rice went into full time evangelism because "he believed that great revivals could occur as they had in the days of Finney, Moody, Torrey and Sunday. He felt called of God to be that someone." Or was it because there was a conflict between his job as pastor and his job as editor of the parachurch SOTL, knowing that parachurch organizations are abhorred as a rule within the IFB? Why exalt heretical men? Finney was an utter heretic who believed in a false gospel of works and plenty of other erroneous doctrine and practices. Moody at best was a terribly compromised and ecumenical man, but I fear much worse. His preaching was superficial, tons of Scripture twisting and wresting and misuse, rarely had any depth to it, emotional appeals and feel-good stories, and a corrupted gospel that emphasized quick and shallow invitations, which produced tons of empty professions and false converts. Billy Sunday was a lot worse than DL Moody in every area, whose preaching was more showmanship than anything, and plenty of corrupted gospel purveyance. These are men that helped built the foundation of the corrupted repentant-less, Lord-less, easy believism, quick prayerism perverted "gospel" that runs rank through evangelicalism, contemporary Christianity and the IFB (amongst all other professing Christian groups), that Rice called "revivals" (they were not, they were counterfeit placebos) and that Rice wanted to emulate. At least (to some degree) Rice understood that Biblical revival was referring to unsaved sinners being born again, though the message, methods and manners of how he went about this was unscriptural and heretical.

And how did Rice's "great revivals" go? As an evangelist, Rice had a lot of numerical success in meetings throughout Texas cities, frequently extending evangelistic meetings up to 12 weeks. The numbers of professing converts were so high in many cases, he organized churches and called pastors, which occurred in Decatur (500 professions after 12 weeks), Waxahachie (300 professions after 12 weeks), and Sherman (300 professions after 12 weeks). He named the churches "Fundamentalist Baptist," a title that had come to be associated with J. Frank Norris. He held evangelistic meeting in Oak Cliff suburb of Dallas in 1932 (hundreds of professions, which he organized into the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle, the first IFB church in Dallas, and became their pastor for 7 years). By 1934, the church reported more than 900 members, and by 1939, 7,000 professions in this church and 1,700 members (Viola Walden, The Captain of Our Team, pp. 30-31). Thats a whole lot of professions of faith, while only about 25% show up to church. And of that 25%, how many are quite possible unregenerate, considering the compromised and distorted gospel Rice is pushing, the easy believism/quick prayerism, and the lack of a careful scrutiny and testing for true fruit and perpetual evidence of salvation? As one can see, Rice was a major influence in transforming churches into revivalist preaching stations during his lifetime.

A traditional biblical understanding of true repentance does not allow a man to claim that thousands of sinners are being saved when most of them show no evidence of regeneration, and then to give them assurance of salvation. That goes for both Rice and Hyles, and others. This brings in an additional corruption of the gospel, where the biblical doctrine of eternal security was divorced from a life-changing salvation experience. Christ’s promise of eternal life is not for fake professions of easy believism and quick prayerism but for those who have been dramatically born again, and thus henceforth hear His voice and follow Him (Jn 10:27-30). Biblical eternal security is never divorced from a life-changing born again experience. People that are genuinely saved, will always exhibit complete change, immediately, dramatically, and permanently. Profession of salvation is not the same as possession (Ti 1:16). True assurance of salvation comes only from the evidence of salvation.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17)

“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim 2:19)

“But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak” (Heb 6:9)

“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn 2:4)

Even early on Rice was all about numerical success, big churches, even if it meant bogus numbers. And this is how he managed the SOTL. We know there was no way he was conducting evangelistic meetings with lowly numbers in the double digits, nor was he happy with hundreds of professions when you could have thousands.

This attitude is quite contrary to historical Biblical Christianity. True Baptist/Anabaptist churches over the last twenty centuries for the most part had zero interest in dead-faith pew warmers, inflating numbers, reporting false professions, picking green fruit in a rock orchard, looking all prettied up from the outside while dead mans bones from the inside. Consider a few examples.

The Somerset Confession (1656): “In admitting of members into the church of Christ, it is the duty of the church, and ministers whom it concerns, in faithfulness to God, that they be careful they receive none but such as do make forth evident demonstration of the new birth, and the work of faith with power.”

J.M. Pendleton’s Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches (1867): “Let it never be forgotten that the only suitable materials of which to construct a church of Christ, so far as spiritual qualifications are concerned, are regenerate, penitent, believing persons. To make use of other materials is to subvert the fundamental principles of church organization. . . . Great care should be exercised in receiving members. . . . There is much danger of this, especially in times of religious excitement. Pastors should positively assure themselves that those who are received for baptism have felt themselves to be guilty, ruined, helpless sinners, justly condemned by God’s holy law; and under a sense of their lost condition have trusted in Christ for salvation”

The careful and diligent acceptance of professing Christians as church members, the biblical polity, the old Baptist polity of zealous maintenance of a regenerate church membership is lost on organizations such as the SOTL, and all of its editors, corrupted by a false gospel, revivalism, and unscriptural church growth motivations. Not one of these men, or most of the other SOTL churches, established church polity on a thoroughgoing NT foundation.

Though Rice was by far the most sound among the SOTL editors, he was not as sound as people think. We also expose him in this report: Exposing the Great “Fundamentalist” John R. Rice, and Jack Hyles here: Jack Hyles - Part 1: The Manifold Evils and False Teachings of this Cultish Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

Curtis Hutson

Curtis Hutson was worse than Rice, a lot worse. Considering Rice's own denial of repentance and deception surrounding the doctrine so as to appease those who took somewhat of a stand for the doctrine, it came as no surprise that Curtis Hutson, a brash rejector and hater of Biblical repentance, was given the leadership of the SOTL publication. Hutson became Rice's successor, the editor of SOTL at the death of Rice in 1980. He followed in Rice's footsteps and became an "evangelist" when he entered the position of SOTL editor.

Hutson’s mentor and master was the wolf in sheep’s clothing, Jack Hyles, and both equally hated the doctrine of repentance, which should tell you everything about these men's gospel and spiritual condition. Hutson’s book Winning Souls and Getting Them Down the Aisle (published by SOTL in 1978) was very influential and revealed the perverted gospel and soul-winning methodology that dominated the SOTL. In Hutson's influential 1986 booklet Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach?  he revealed his rejection of the Biblical doctrine of repentance. He denied that repentance means to turn from sin (p. 4), that repentance is sorrow for sin (p. 8), and that repentance means “a change of mind that leads to a change of action” (p. 16). He claimed that repentance simply is “to change one’s mind.” He twisted and wrested a slew of scriptural passages to support his heresy while mixing in a heavy dose of human reasoning, and then ignoring the many, many passages that plainly contradict his corruption. He even misquoted the writings of men like his predecessor John R. Rice, which is ironic because Rice's position was likely closer to Hutson's than the Bible.

A sample of from his heretical book, on his corrupted gospel:

“The problem and confusion is not preaching repentance but attaching the wrong definition to the word. For instance, to say that repentance means to turn from sin, or to say that repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change of action, is to give a wrong definition to the word” (Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? SOTL, 1986, p. 16)

Hutson is guilty of corrupting repentance, and thus the gospel. Hudson denied that repentance meant to turn from sin, denied that repentance is sorrow for sin, and denied that repentance means “a change of mind that leads to a change of action,” which is a very basic definition of repentance (only partially true), whilst a more biblical definition would be a change of mind and will that leads to a change of action, and brings a change of life. He says repentance/salvation does not necessarily result in a change of life, like Van Gelderens out of Baptist College of Ministry, Rick Flanders, Michael Sullivant, and a host of others, who mix in heavy doses of human reasoning, man-made error, into the true gospel, which results in a false gospel. A common argument is that repentance couldn’t mean to turn from sin because man cannot turn from all sin. That is a smokescreen, because no one has ever taught it like this. It is a straw man argument. The very statement alone is amazing. You don't have to repent of all your sins to be saved? Alright, so what sin do you get to keep and still be saved? It is often one or a few particular sins that is the issue in repentance. But repentance does necessitate all sins that one does remember will be turned from (which is typically what we would consider pet sins, favourites in particular), and those not remembered—turned from in principle. Sin will be turned from in general and then specific sins that are particularly loved by the sinner.

Hutson truly hated the true gospel, but that would be natural for a man who never repented unto salvation. He even preached a sermon titled, "I Hate The Repent Of Sins Heresy!" The heretical and blasphemous sermon was all about Hutson corrupting the doctrine of repentance, by redefining it as a mere "change of mind" and synonymous with believing. Under Hutson’s watch, the SOTL removed repentance from some of the hymns in the 1989 edition of the Soul Stirring Hymns. The Sword Hymnal was purged of many references to repentance. For example, the lyrics of “The Old Account Was Settled” were changed from “O sinner, seek the Lord, repent of your sin” to “O sinner, trust the Lord, be cleansed of all your sin.” They did the same with the lyrics to “Almost” and “Give Me Thy Heart.”

In the 1980s, during Hutson’s tenure, SOTL stopped publishing Leon Maurer’s Soul Winning: The Challenge of the Hour, which said,

“A rotely memorized prayer or some repeated statement without true repentance and faith never saves anyone.”

Hutson was all about the numbers and bigness as well, like his predecessor, and like most of the big dogs in the IFB movement in that day (and today). On the SOTL website short bio writeup on Hutson, we read, maybe the pinnacle of his career:"many as 625 souls trusted Christ in a single service. In an 8-day meeting, 1,502 salvation decisions were recorded." These are likely bogus and inflated numbers to make men like Hutson look great in the eyes of other men. Does the Bible not describe them as servants of their own belly and not the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 16:18)?

To believe and teach a true gospel requires true conversion. This is paramount and it's really everything (cf. Mk 4:13). True born again believers do not corrupt the very life-giving soul-saving gospel that saved their wretched souls from an eternity in hell, and false believers do not have the convictions and divine understanding of the true gospel to defend it, to contend for it, to labour for it, and will inevitably corrupt some element(s) of it, which then results in a perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Most times this is right out of the starting blocks. Besides the corruption of repentance and Christ's Lordship/surrender, he also corrupts the self-denial, death to self, and then later in his tenure as a "pastor" and "evangelist," twist and wrest the many salvation passages in the four gospels into something post-salvation, which changes the gospel into something untrue. Even Hutson’s “testimony” of salvation reflects the basis of his heresy on the gospel and exposes his unconverted condition:

“I trusted Jesus when I was eleven years old; but I lacked assurance of salvation, not knowing upon what to base my assurance. One day I would think I was saved, and the next, I would wonder if maybe I was wrong about it and perhaps was lost; until finally I came out of the darkness of doubt into the broad daylight of certainty. . . . When I doubted I was trusting Him, I didn’t argue about it; I just prayed again and told the Lord if I had never trusted Him, I was then trusting Him. “When the Devil would say, “How do you know you are trusting Him?” I would pray out loud, “Dear Lord, if I have never trusted You, I am trusting You now.” Immediately all doubt would leave.” (Curtis Hutson, "As Many As Received Him”)

Wow! Those are very sad words of a lost and false professing "believer," one who refused to come to Christ according to Scripture, that is by true repentance, self-denial, and surrender. He refused to repent, maybe out of ignorance and bad teaching, but that would eventually lead to a hatred and rejection of true repentance through hard heartedness, and thus could never get any assurance because he was unregenerate. What he describes as his testimony is nowhere near a Biblical testimony of salvation. Nowhere in Scripture is salvation ever described or illustrated even remotely like that. Furthermore, repeating a sinner's prayer to get assurance of salvation is utterly foreign to Scripture and comes only through modern evangelistic methodology of dubious value and false professions. True assurance of salvation is through one means: a true testimony of salvation followed by evidence of salvation (or will demonstrate a false profession), God mercifully giving us entire epistles for that purpose (e.g., Johnine Epistles, James, Jude). We cover this false gospel of doubting here: The Counterfeit Salvation of Doubting, Uncertainty and Rededication, Frequently Accompanied with Asking Jesus Into The Heart.

Shelton Smith

Shelton Smith, the current President and Editor of SOTL, continues in the same vein as his predecessors. His gospel is corrupted in both its denial and perversion of repentance and Christ's Lordship, along with other aspects (i.e., easy believism, quick prayerism, corruption of salvation passages into post-salvation, etc).

In 2011 Smith wrote and published an article in the SOTL titled, "The Bible Definition of Repentance, Part II,"(June 10, 2011), and though he acknowledged, "When we come to [Jesus] to be saved, there is a certain acknowledgement of His lordship. After all, we would not look to Him for salvation if He were not Lord," he constructed a serious strawman in stating "But as Lord, He does not force Himself on us. He doesn't force us to be saved, and after we are saved, He doesn't force us to serve Him." Why would someone that professes to be saved use the word "force." This is a logical fallacy, which is bearing false witness, because His Lordship doesn't require Him to "force Himself on us" or force someone saved or force someone to serve. God wants to save us and when we surrender to Christ He saves us and then we serve Him because He is our Lord, because we love Him (cf. Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5). The word "force" is what Bible deniers use and it's very troubling coming from a "president and editor" of an alleged "Christian publication."

In his denial of Christ's Lordship, he stereotypically brings in "carnal Christianity."

"A convert (genuinely saved) may continue, however, to exhibit carnal traits. Even a casual read of 1 Corinthians makes a very clear case on this. Salvation is instantaneous, but sanctification is progressive, (that means it takes awhile). Therefore, a person who is truly converted is fully and everlastingly saved. The evidence of that conversion may come quickly, or it may come more slowly. Although the convert is a "new creature" (II Cor. 5:17), that does not mean that the old nature is eradicated. Carnality can still be present (1 Cor. 3:3). The "new creature" is not a fully mature adult the moment he or she is born again, but rather a 'newborn babe' (1 Pet 2:2)."

If the so-called professing believer had received Christ as Lord, he wouldn't be "exhibit[ing] carnal traits" any longer. Almost everything he writes here is a lie, including his use of "the" and "a." He is perverting 1 Corinthians to get to his "carnal Christian" theory, including 1 Cor 3:3, a popularly perverted passage in support of this unscriptural doctrine, exposed also here and here. 1 Pet 2:2 "newborn babe" is also misused by Smith here. Evidence of conversion DOES NOT "come more slowly" for some people than for others. The fruit and evidence of salvation comes at the same speed to every single true born again believer, even as 1 John reveals to us, noted in passages such as Ezk. 36:25-27; Jer. 23:3; Ps. 1:1-3; Pr. 11:30; 12:12b; Matt. 3:1-12; 7:15-20; 13:8-23; 21:28-32, 41-44; Mk. 4:20-29; Lk. 8:15-16; Jn. 4:35-38; 15:1-16; Rom. 11:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; 9:10; Col. 1:4-6; Jam. 1:18; 2:14-26; 3:17; etc. To the Colossians the Apostle Paul wrote, "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:" (Col 1:4-6). Fruit starts the very moment of the new birth, not only for the Colossians, but for all the world.

Some of the Corinthians were acting like unsaved people, carnal people (1 Cor 3), natural people (1 Cor 2:14), but they were not themselves carnal. "They that are in the flesh," carnal people, cannot please God, because they are not of God (Rom 8:1-9). They do not have the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom 8:9-16). In 1 Cor. 3:1-3 Paul is not teaching that a believer can be carnal or that there is such an elusive category as “carnal believer.” At the end of chapter 2, Paul divides everyone into two categories, not three: natural or carnal, and then spiritual. That should be a basis for what we read in 1 Cor 3, and Rom 8 will harmonize with 1 Cor 3. The carnal are the lost, and the “carnal” of 1 Cor. 3:1-3 is the “natural man” in 1 Cor. 2, which is all the same context. In this very context Paul doesn’t give three categories, but two (1 Cor. 2:14, context vv. 9-16), identical to the rest of Scripture: spiritual and natural. You are one or the other, not both. “Carnal believers” are lost and Rom 8:1-14 makes that more than abundantly clear.

Being a "new creature" does mean that there is immediate evidence of conversion. Everything changes. Old things are all passed away, all things are become new. That is what 2 Cor 5:17 says, and it is true. Smith says it doesn't always. Not with everyone. He says that sanctification is progressive. That's true in [art, but that is not all there is to sanctification. Sanctification is progressive, but it is also positional, and it is also immediate, starting at the very moment of the new birth. Change does begin immediately, dramatically, and permanently. If it doesn't, that person wasn't and isn't saved. What Smith is doing is assigning an explanation for all the false professions that come from his and others' fraudulent evangelistic methodology. How fiting and convenient. Twisting, misusing and abusing God's Word to fit the narrative.

Smith also says, in the context of denying Christ's Lordship and true Biblical repentance:

"Salvation is "by grace . . . through faith" (Eph. 2:8) and "not of works" (vs. 9). Anytime you mix works with the receiving of salvation, you are in error."

The SOTL train is off the rails here. Sure, salvation is not of works, but repentance isn't a work. God grants repentance unto life (Ac 11:18). That is true repentance, and not the false repentance that he believes in, and >90% of all SOTL churches. And about that Lordship, no one confesses that "Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor 12:3). Those aren't works. When Peter confessed that Jesus was "the Christ, the son of the living God" (Matt 16:16), Jesus said that "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 16:17). Peter's confession was not a work. God revealed it unto him. Nor was Peter's surrender to Christ in Lk 5:1-11, the moment of his conversion he said (Matt 19:25-27, ffs. v. 30). Smith and so many others like him shift true repentance and confession of Jesus as Lord into a work category and a progressive sanctification category, making room for all of their pseudo and faux "soulwinning" statistics. Those statistics are much more important to him than a true gospel or a right handling of the Word of God, and the same could be said of the vast majority of SOTL men.

The next thing he states fits with what was just stated, that repentance and Lordship are works, and they tie to sanctification, not salvation:

"Once salvation is in place, then and only then does sanctification begin. Whatever works we see in a person's life should be tied to sanctification. So let's keep the proper scriptural order---salvation first, then sanctification."

Smith has slid repentance and Lordship into the later sanctification process, some point after salvation (which also ties into heretical Keswick theology) and so doing changes the doctrine of repentance, salvation and the gospel itself (cf. Mk 1:1-5; Ac 20:21, 24; Lk 24:44-48). Repentance is not a work. Confession of Jesus as Lord is not a work. Losing your life (Matt 16:25; 10:32-39; Mk 8:35) is not a work. Surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord is not a work (Lk 5:1-11; Phil 2:10-11). These things are all preached in Scripture to unsaved people, all in the preaching of the gospel.

The false repentance that heretical men like Smith, Hutson and Rice (to a lesser degree) advocate for is one that only includes a "change of mind"about something, whether it be you, God, the Bible, the gospel, Jesus or even sin. This is of course how Smith defines repentance, and of course we would've expected nothing different.

"Repentance is the first step. Remember (Acts 20:21), it is "toward God." If you "change your mind" about God, you will have no trouble seeing yourself a sinner, lost and in need of a Saviour."

Its ironic and a bit hypocritical that Smith with his English preservationist position, someone who would rarely to never rely on or give credence to the original language of the NT, Greek, or OT, Hebrew, for their point of view, but when it comes to repentance, he strains at this camel. Though he doesn't say he is doing this, because that clashes with the many English inspirationists and preservationists in the crowd (Ruckmanites, Gippites, Kellyites, Hoggardites, Riplingerites, and others), so he just says "change of mind" with no explanation whatsoever. He is referring, however, to the Greek word metanoeo for repentance, taking meta as "change" and noeo as "mind." Understanding the Greek word does not come from simply breaking down the compound word. It can be helpful, but the meaning of the word is more than just its etymology. Smith and others strain at assigning a meaning to repentance that allows their corrupted and wicked evangelistic methodology.

One comes to understand repentance by how it is taught or used in the NT, not by some etymological game playing. If repentance really is "toward God," it is not just a "change of mind," but a change in direction and a change in emotion. Men like Smith would say that the Bible defines repentance is one word, "metanoia," thus "change of mind." But they lie twofold when they say this. There are four words that define repentance, and "metanoia," is never defined as just a "change of mind." Of the four words that are used in the Greek gospels to describe the process of repentance, (1) one, metamelomai, emphasizes the emotional element of repentance/regret, sorrow over the past sinful and evil course of life (noted in Matt 21:28-32; 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8; Heb 7:21); (2) two, metanoeo/metanoia expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude about everything related to salvation/gospel, carrying the sense of turning (noted in such passages as Matt 12:41, Lk 11:32; 15:7, 10); and (3) three, epistrepho, denotes a volitional change in the direction of life, a wilful turning, one master being substituted for another, a turning from ones self, from oneself, from ones stuff, from ones people (noted in passages such as Matt 13:15 [and parallels]; Lk 17;4, 22:32). The mind and the will are not the same. Some may recognize or acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, but that doesn't mean that He is Lord for that person. You can recognize Him as Lord and remain in rebellion against Him. The devils know Jesus as Lord, but do not worship Him as such. They won't repent and surrender to Christ. There lies the difference. Repentance is not limited to just the single faculty of the mind: it engages the entire man, intellect, will, affections and emotion. In the new life which follows repentance, the absolute supremacy of God is the controlling principle. He who repents turns away from the service of self and mammon to the service of God, in surrender to Christ as King and Boss.

Over in the OT, the verbs “shub” and “nacham” are used for the doctrine of repentance. (1) “Shub,” means to turn away from sin/self/stuff/people and around to God and be converted, to abandon a course of action to desist from doing wrong (e.g. Is 55:7; Ezk 14:6; Hos 12:6; Jon 3:8). "Shub" is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Ps 85:4). Its two sister words in the Greek NT are "epistrepho” and "metanoeo/metanoia.” It is a common verb and most generally utilized to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance, a conscious response to forsake all (sin, self, stuff, people) and to turn to the righteousness only available and provided through Christ (De 4:30; Neh 1:9; Ps 7:12; Jer 3:14). It typically refers to God in His relation to man (Ex 32:12; Jos 7:26). "Shub" is the word for repentance in passages such as Ezk 14:6; 18:21, 23, 30-31; 33:9, 11, in the words "turn" and "turn away" and "turn yourselves." (2) “Nacham” emphasizes the emotional aspect of repentance, conveying the expressive idea and deep feeling of sorrowful regret, to regret something, and is found with reference to human repentance in texts such as Jer 31:19 and Job 42:6: “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It literally means "to pant; to sigh; or to groan" (Vines). Its sister word in the NT is “metamelomai.”

As an example, the Ninevites repentance in the book of Jonah is noted in the intellect in that they believed what Jonah had proclaimed about Gods coming judgment and their sinful estate (Jon 3:4-5). The emotions are noted in their sorrow for their sin exhibited in a very striking way by humbling themselves, “cry[ing] mightily unto God” (Jon 3:8), “in sackcloth and ashes” (Jon 3:5-6). Then the volition is noted, the purposeful turning away from their evil ways and violence unto God in such humble contrition that even their cattle wore sackcloth and ashes (Jon 3:6-8). They turned from their sin. “Evil ways” contain the idea that it's worse than mere common sin, though all sin has an element of evilness. This is in fact the benchmark of repentance, God’s expectation of repentance for salvation, according to the very words of God the Son (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32).

This is also where Lordship comes in. We are not going our way anymore, but His way, and that takes place immediately. Recognizing Jesus as Lord is to recognize Him as King, which means allegiance to Him. That means we surrender to Him, how salvation is described in many places (Phil 2:10-11; the rich young ruler in Matt 19; Lk 18; Mk 10), and as all testimonies of salvation in Scripture illustrate. The major issue in salvation is not "faith" or "believing" but repentance, and within repentance, its the will or volitional element, and not knowledge or intellect, i.e., the mind. True saving knowledge is inexorably connected to the will of man. Rom 1 tells us that all unbelievers "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18), that is, they suppress the truth out of their rebellion. It is a will/volitional problem. They are rebels against God. A sinner cannot remain in rebellion against God and be saved. The sinner cannot keep going His own way, having His own will, saving his own life, and be saved. Its impossible, because Jesus says it is impossible (Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; 10:17-31; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; Jn 12:24-26; etc). Repentance involves much more than the mind. The "repentance" of Smith and 90% of SOTL and other IFB is an intellectual only repentance, like the devils have in Jam 2:19-24, and it does not save. It is a dead faith that cannot save.

We discuss this in further detail here: Repentance is Not Just a Change of Mind.

The SOTL President and Editor also says:

"Some folks teach that unless you "make Jesus Lord of your life," then you are not saved! That is simply untrue! It is false teaching. . . . Once again, you must not garble things up by mixing faith and works or by confusing salvation and sanctification."

I'm not sure who teaches that, a strawman argued to make room for SOTL's "no Lordship" and "no repentance" position. What people teach that believe and teach the true gospel, is that you receive Jesus as Lord. You don't make Him Lord. If you are receiving Jesus as Lord, you are getting off the throne and letting Jesus on it, like the King of Nineveh did (Jon 3). That is biblical repentance. That is believing in Jesus Christ. When John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus began to preach, they were both very clear to connect repentance with entry into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 3:2, 4:17; Mk 1:15, etc.). God was not your king if you did not repent. And if God is not your king, then you are not in the kingdom, hence you are not saved. Again we will exemplify the account of the Ninevites salvation, illustrating Christ’s Lordship in salvation, which dovetails with true repentance. The king of Nineveh “arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.” (Jon 3:6). He, the king of a very powerful and ever growing in power Gentile nation (Assyria), stepped off his throne so Christ could get on it — he set aside his kingly robes, took upon himself the garb of affliction and humility, and turned from all his evil ways with humbleness before Almighty God in acquiescence and contrition while crying out to God for mercy. This earthly king recognized his subservience to God, his evil towards Him and that God was God and he was not, and thus forsook all that he had in humble surrender to the King of kings and Lord of lords (Lk 14:31-34, 26-27). Surrender to the King derives from a repentant heart.

The only one who is "garbling things up" is Smith, and much worse than that, he is 100% teaching a false gospel that cannot genuinely save a sinner but will make them two-fold children of hell in their counterfeit position and false assurance. If anyone is mixing faith and works it is the SOTL evangelism, which actually involves works salvation, because they lead people in a prayer and act as if it is the prayer that saves (SOTL on How to Get to Heaven). In other words, there needn't be any inner change, no repentance, no surrender, just say the words, and bingo, you are on your way to heaven. What about mute people? Can a person be saved without voicing a verbal prayer? Can a person who does not use all the words that Smith prescribes for them be saved? Of course they can and of course mute people can be saved. This is the works salvation of "accept Christ as your Saviour," without repentance, without surrender, without losing your life. Jesus said that only those who lose their life, their psuche or soul, will find life. The psuche is more than just the mind. This SOTL "salvation" is little to no different than the "confirmation" that takes place in apostate churches. There is no evidence that the thief on the cross or the Saul of Tarsus or any of the apostles or any of the other salvation testimonies documented in God's Word, said any sort of sinners prayer. But the Word of God tells us that they were saved and it tells us how they were saved: through faith and repentance, and their repentance was true to Scripture and involved surrender. It was not then the work of their prayer, but the heart attitude of repentance and faith that saved them.

Everything that Smith writes and believes, in synchrony with the rest of the SOTL world, fits into the false "salvation plan" that they present on their website, titled "Are You Sure About Heaven?" starting with the question, "If you were to die  today, do you know for sure that you would go to Heaven?" As noted above, there needn't be any inner change, no repentance, no surrender, no acquiescence to Jesus Christ as King, Lord and Saviour. Just say the words towards heaven, and abracadabra, you are on your way to heaven. It is the very essence of easy believism, quick prayerism and its corrupted and perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9). "Let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8-9) and "let him be Anathema Maranatha" (1 Cor 16:22) is the appropriate response.

The emphasis of “going to heaven when you die” is a corruption of the practice of evangelism, which was the heart and soul of Jack Hyles’ "soul winning" program. Not even once and not even close anywhere in the book of Acts do we find a preacher saying, “Do you want to go to heaven when you die? If so, you need to do this...” There is not a hint of that type of thing in Scripture. Preachers in the NT promised eternal life through Jesus Christ, but they never used the “do you want to go to heaven” approach in evangelism. The emphasis, rather, was always on the call to repentance and to follow Christ, to surrender to Him, things pertinent to this present life and that will genuinely save a person, not a reward of the new birth that comes after the grave.

In this same article on repentance published in the SOTL, Smith claims "Repentance Does Not Mean a Fully Surrendered Life or Sinless Perfection!" Who has ever said that? I have never heard someone equate repentance with sinless perfection. It is yet another logical fallacy and "proof" for his position and against true repentance and Lordship. Repentance however does involve full surrender according to Scripture. To have life, we must lose our life. In other words, we can't hang on to our life, if we are to receive God's eternal life. At salvation, God restores our soul, converts our soul. He does that because He has our soul. We offer by faith our soul, our life to God. He converts it, restores it. He won't do that if we keep our soul for ourselves. That is the rebellion that runs contrary to repentance. "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt 10:39). In the Smith gospel, we offer God our mere lipservice or acknowledge certain salvation facts and for that we receive eternal salvation. We get the pearl of great price and God gets an IOU. This is a serious perversion of the true gospel and it does not and cannot save a sinner, only inoculate them to the truth about their soul and make them two-fold children of hell.

As Smith continues his endeavour to prove repentance and Lordship wrong, he proclaims, "Numerous 'Salvation' Passages Do Not Mention Repentance!" Wow, what a straw man. He could have also written: "Numerous Salvation Passages Do Not Mention Faith!" What does that prove? Nothing. It is not just seriously bad exegesis but it is preposterous. These men will expose themselves as circus clowns in their aspirations to prove the Bible wrong, while seemingly blinded to their idiotic "apologetics," reflecting unregeneracy (2 Pet 3:16-17; 2 Cor 4:2; 2 Tim 2:15). He lists off a column of verses, which include Jn 1:11-12, 3:14-18, Rom 10:9-10,13, and Eph 2:8-10, and then asks, "Where is the repentance in all this?" He should've considered Rom 10:9-10, 13, and rethink His Lordship position. He should've also gone to Matt 4:17; 11:20-21; 12:41; Mk 6:12; Lk 3:3; 5:31-32; 13:1-5; 15:1-32; 24:47; 2 Pet 3:9; Ac 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 17:30; 26:20; etc, and then asked, "Where is the faith in all this?" In the verses he referenced, you'll find none of his observations including anything about changing your mind ("there is a call in each of them for the unsaved sinner to "change his mind" and come to Christ! Though the word repent is not there, the concept certainly is!" and "acknowledge those facts, repentance occurs"). He's merely reading all of that into those passages. Most unsaved people know they are sinners, know Who God is, and even recognize the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. What he says here is tell-tale. Smith sees repentance as an acknowledgement of mere facts, and when someone does, he's trusted in Christ—all nothing but intellectual and not even close to what salvation is Biblically. Intellectual assent to facts is not faith or repentance; it's just a perverted gospel.

Smith claims that repentance is required for only one sin, the sin of unbelief or rejecting Christ: "Once you get your mind-set right toward God, you will have a different attitude toward your "sins" (here comes sanctification again)." Jack Hyles believed and taught the same heresy ("In order to believe, you have to repent of unbelief. That which makes a man lost must be corrected” — Jack Hyles, Enemies of Soulwinning, 1993). According to Smith, believing and repenting is getting "your mind-set right toward God," which will result in a different attitude toward your sins (plural), but that isn't until after you're already saved. This even further corrupts the gospel. When Jesus preached His Sermon on the Mount, He preached individual sins that were an issue regarding the sinner's salvation—murder and adultery among others. Not until Zacchaeus confessed, "Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Lk 19:8), did Jesus proclaim, "This day is salvation come to this house" (Lk 19:9). It is true that salvation doesn't come from a sinner confessing individually every one of his sins—I've never heard anyone define repentance as even meaning that—but repentance does occur from sin in general and also from certain sins, which especially will be idols that keep him from turning to follow Jesus Christ. "Unbelief" is nowhere said in Scripture to be the one sin for which a sinner needs to repent; and it's not even mentioned anywhere specifically as a sin when sin is listed. Nowhere. The teaching of "unbelief" as the one sin to be repented of for salvation is taught very commonly by the same false teachers who claim that saved people can be live and dwell in "unbelief," an erroneous and heretical teaching that derives from Keswick theology and requires a second blessing or some other corruption of sanctification to overcome, which only further establishes their unregenerate and false teacher nature ("Unbelief" is Only a Characteristic of Unsaved People, Not the Saved!).

The Smith article is a very good reflection of the standard views on repentance and Christ's Lordship and how they relate to the gospel amongst revivalist-type IFB churches, especially SOTL, and also how they corrupt the gospel through easy believism and quick prayerism. Most of the professions they conjure up as "saved" are in fact false. SOTL churches, however, become masters at getting their new people involved. They have techniques that involve manipulation and deception to get their new believers into the baptistry, often using similar ploys to succeed as they have invented for their evangelism. The people involved feel good about what they are doing, even though they have fallen short of scriptural salvation, of the new birth . The church programs are many times built on keeping them busy with the activities they have designed to occupy their membership. Sermon after sermon is motivational and pragmatic to produce a morality that would closely match a Christian life. The music, activities, and programs appeal to their emotions and captivate the audience, giving them experiences that could easily counterfeit real conversion. The schedule is crafted to have enough of these to hold everyone, leading them along from one to another to another. The preaching fits the program like the soundtrack of a movie. It moves people and even keeps them entertained. The church has a social aspect that feels good like a family many never had. The results produced seem like God is working. He must be. How else could one explain it? The feeling they get from the emotional music and preaching they mistake for the Holy Spirit. Many of these aspects have their parallel in false religions. It often is nothing more than another religion. It takes almost zero faith to be a part.

The hatred towards repentance and the truth gospel is so bad at SOTL, they have revised or edited sermons and songs and taken out "repentance" where it should be (e.g., many of Spurgeon's sermons). In this way they are very much like the Watchtower Bible Tract Society who did their own "Bible" perversion, the New World Translation -- corrupting the words of the text because they didn't like what the words actually say, especially concerning Christ's deity. Very bad.

If you read SOTL and you can't tell that it preaches a false gospel and corrupted evangelism methods, then you either don't understand the gospel at all or well enough or you don't care about the gospel enough. The major premise of the SOTL’s gospel is a lie. It is a very dangerous lie, for even just one person who accedes to their repentant-less and Lord-less message, but the sad fact is that its not just one but millions on top of millions (the heretic Tom Wallace who is exposed further below, boasts about "the millions of christians I have seen and preached to in 75 years.” (“The Plan for Success,” Mar 6, 2025). He is just one guy, and in spite of these numbers being definitely inflated, the masses of people that have been exposed to his preaching have been done untold damage by a false gospel and confirmed in their unregenerate estate. The vast majority of SOTL churches are guilty of this, guilty of swallowing a placebo, duped and sucked into it with their methods, and for the most part on the broad road.

We can't react to this SOTL false gospel harshly enough. This is a false gospel and it doesn't save. We shouldn't associate with it. 2 Peter deals with a SOTL type of false gospel. The lascivious, those walking after their own lusts, have their trouble with having a Lord. They deny the Lord who bought them (2 Pet 2:1). They would receive a salvation that does not include Lordship. And the term "Lord" in 2 Pet 2:1 is a uniquely authoritative term. It is despotes. It is the strongest word for "Lord." These unsaved turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. They want salvation without a Lord. Having that Ultimate Boss clashes with their lust. And this is a denial of the Word of God, which presents Jesus as the King, the Messiah, God, Creator, and the One having dominion, that is, the Son of Man of Dan 7:13-14. For someone to be saved, he believes in Jesus, he receives Jesus Christ. Belief is not belief without true biblical repentance. The Jesus He receives is Lord, is Saviour, and is God. You aren't receiving one or two attributes of Jesus and still receiving Him. You receive Him. If He isn't Lord, then He isn't Jesus. This selective reception of Jesus isn't receiving Him. Leaving out Lordship is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. That too is a false gospel. It is a grace and a faith that does not save.

Nothing has changed with the SOTL under Shelton Smith. They continue advancing the sermons and articles of false teachers preaching false gospels. He has never owned up to the confusion, horrible compromise and corrupted gospel caused by the very paper he edits, which has faced two opposing ways on the issue of repentance, but this cannot be shoved under the carpet. Though he and SOTL might treat this as trivial but a more important issue probably doesn't exist.

Easy believism and quick prayerism have been the main stay methods and message of SOTL's gospel since nearly its beginning. It has emphasized the “if you want to go to heaven, then pray this prayer” approach to “soul winning,” removed all aspects and principles of repentance, rejected Christ's Lordship, very basic and brief in giving a watered-down and anemic gospel with the intent of getting right to the point of “praying the prayer,” along with shameless methods of psychological manipulation, such as leading with questions that require a positive response (“you do want to go to heaven when you die, don’t you?”) or pretending to pray for an individual when in reality you are attempting to get them to pray a sinner’s prayer. These are the men who called Carl Hatch one of the world’s greatest soul winners. Why? He invented what he called the “Carl Hatch squeeze,” a slight improvement on their standard methodology. Instead of merely asking the individual to pray the sinner’s prayer and hoping he would do it (after manipulation into bowing the head), Hatch actually squeezed the persons shoulder to give a little psychological "encouragement."

Easy believism and quick prayerism are not Biblical means to salvation. They almost without exception produce false converts. They are polar opposites of salvation testimonies and gospel preaching in Scripture, noted for instance in Christ's preaching to the multitudes of people following Him (Matt 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26; 14:25-15:32; Jn 12:24-26), Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21), Woman at the Well (Jn 4:1-43), Rich Young Ruler (Mk 10:17-31), Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10), Ethiopian Eunuch (Ac 8:26-39), Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), Philippian Jailer (Ac 16:23-40), The Athenians (Ac 17:14-34), etc.

To make matters worse, SOTL editors, pastors, other IFB, target the kids. School buses bussing in thousands of children into church for Sunday school served(s) an important purpose. It was a means to “child evangelism,” a major emphasis of these Big Boys Club mega-churches or wannabes. The goal was to “win them to Christ” and baptize them into the church membership. Boom, up fly the numbers, as noted in the Southern Baptist Convention. A good example of this is found in the SBC, where there was a 96% growth rate from 1970 to 2010 in baptisms of pre-schoolers. Consider the statistics for 2013: A full 60% of SBC churches baptized zero youth between ages of 12-17 and 80% baptized zero or just one young adult ages 18-29. But there was an explosion in the baptisms of “five and under” (Annual Church Profile, 2013). Unbelievable, and these numbers aren't far off from the IFB. Its just another form of infant baptism, and its the only way they can increase in numbers, since the false gospel they preach and the truck loads of heresies and damnable heresies they embrace and propagate, their lives reflective of wicked hypocrisy, causes so many to flee from these ungodly and corrupted institutions, blaspheming the Holy Name of God. People aren't genuinely being converted, and numbers would decrease dramatically, so infant baptism is the answer to increase the numbers. Of those who stay or migrate into another heretical church, are mere imitators, either stony or thorny soiled “Christians,” pretending to be something they’re not. Vacation Bible School program was geared toward infant/child "conversion" and baptism as well. These programs almost entirely only produce empty professions and false “conversions.”

We know that there were no small children baptized on the day of Pentecost, because all of the 3,000 who were baptized “continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Ac 2:42). This is not the description of a small child. There is not even one example in the entire NT of a child being converted. That is on purpose because in their innocence they are already "saved" and under the care of a just God, until they reach an age of accountability, which will differ between children depending on the protection of their innocence by God-fearing godly parents (God separates the children in a home where at least one parent is saved, and the unsaved spouse--1 Cor 7:14). ith that said, it is possible for a child to exercise specific repentant faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation, but in today’s massive apostasy and with vast majority of churches heretical and peddling perverted gospels that reject true repentance, surrender and Christ’s Lordship, almost without exception these child professions are faux and counterfeit, pressured or coerced by parents, teachers, friends, or others.

Thankfully not every SOTL preacher is or was of this kind. I believe men like Oliver B. Greene believed in the true gospel or at the least were certainly much closer to the truth than any of the SOTL editors, though he proclaimed it infrequently, maybe due to the SOTL influence or compromise, or maybe because of the censorship. This is what he said:

“True repentance is sorrow for sin committed against a holy God and not only sorrow for sin, but turning from sin, forsaking sin and turning to God. Sin nailed the Savior to the cross and certainly that fact alone is sufficient reason why all who have genuinely repented hate sin and forsake sinful ways.” (Commentary of Acts of the Apostles, Acts 2:37-38, 1969).

SOTL, Purveyor of Scripture Perversion and Other False Doctrine

It is literally endless. So much, so often, so common, so normal, no one even bats an eye when confronted with it. Very sad.

In so many cases in certain branches of fundamentalism, preaching isn't judged by its absolute faithfulness to the text as it is to its style and effects. Someone can preach something that a particular passage does not say, and many people respond positively to it, and it was a good sermon, maybe even a great sermon. Passages wrested from their appropriate context. Greek and Hebrew words robbed of their meaning. Yet, because the preacher hollered and stood upon the pulpit and the men ran the aisle, then God met with us. Never-mind that there was no sound exposition of the scriptures. This is what defines many men associated with SOTL.

SOTL men are also highly gifted at perverting and wresting salvation passages into something post-salvation, sanctification (e.g., Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; 10:17-31; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; Jn 12:24-26; etc). They force conclusions on salvation passages into being better Christians. This takes salvation passages and moves them into a sanctification category, which is the norm with heretical Keswick theology, the forcing of salvation passages into sanctification ones, which perverts the meaning of Scripture, and corrupts the gospel in the process. Not good. Very bad. By doing so, the idea emerges that a true Christian can get by without being a disciple, without bearing fruit, without the godliness and holiness reflective of all saints, etc. All this is an attempt to keep alive this false and heretical notion that repentance is only intellectual. Sad. And very bad.

SOTL Unscriptural Position on the KJV, and the Doctrines of Inspiration and Preservation

SOTL in their mission and purpose:

"Believing the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God, both inspired and preserved in the King James Bible, we promote and preach it unapologetically." 

In the SOTL statement of faith on their website we read concerning the Bible:

"the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic Text (Old Testament), Textus Receptus (New Testament), and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things. (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19).” ()

This is an English preservationist position, by people who would rarely to never rely on or give credence to the original language of the NT, Greek, or OT, Hebrew, for their point of view. We strongly believe that English speaking churches should only use the KJV, but God did not inspire the King James Version (KJV). He inspired the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT), and no other language. Thats it. These are the texts that underlie the English Authorized KJV and constitute the perfectly preserved Word of God according to God’s promises of perfect preservation of the words He gave. All other languages fall under translation and when they are faithful to the Text that God inspired and preserved as promised, and follow the translation methodology of formal equivalence (vs the ungodly dynamic equivalence). The heresy that the KJV is preserved on equal footing as the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus and that God directly inspired it, as the above statements purvey, derives from the heretical theory of Ruckmanism.

Concurrently, Rice did not genuinely hold to the Received Text position, and opposed KJV Onlyism.

He was okay with modern versions that hack, mutilate and butcher God’s Word, such as the NIV, and the Critical Text from whence it was born.

Read here as to Why Modern Bible Versions are Corrupt, and the King James Version is Not.

SOTL embraces and teaches the heresy of “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty,” and practices fake unity.

This popular but heretical false teaching denies tons of scripture and foundational principals of Gods Word. It’s a vehicle for ecumenicalism, which is what Rice, the founder of the SOTL, appeared to love, as illustrated in the SOTL publication of Aug 20 1976:

“The division of lesser and weightier doctrines, essentials for Christian fellowship, and those not so essential, is scriptural.”

SOTL taught that separation on the basis of “non-essentials” is “secondary separation,” which he rejected, because apparently it was not practiced in the Bible:

“The practice of Bible saints was never secondary separation." (Sword of the Lord, Apr 13, 1979).

In his 1974 book Come Out or Stay In, Rice said that there should be no separation for “minor differences in doctrine and methods.” What exactly are these "doctrines and methods" that he would deem "minor"? Baptism, tongues, prophecy, election, association with the utterly heretical and mostly apostate SBC, etc. Rice claimed that we should work with those who disagree with us on these doctrines and beliefs. Wow. That’s plain heresy. Considering the corrupted gospel that SOTL purveyed, they could associate and work together with nearly every single heretical "Christian" group that comes along, including the SBC, all other heretical mainline Baptist denominations, neo-evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, Charismaticism, etc.

The Bible doesn’t teach ranking doctrines. There is no such thing as “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty.” The gospel is not the only doctrine essential for fellowship or unity or of importance, and nowhere does God give us liberty to divide doctrine into what we deem as major and minor. The SOTL advocated for a false unity (which he also practiced), by reducing the teachings or issues over which you will separate to a manageable number, which is really just one. Scripture on the other hand explicitly says every doctrine is essential. We don’t have even one example in Scripture of something God said being dispensable or something we can discard for “unity” sake or some “noble” cause. We are not given liberty in the Bible to disobey God (uniting with error, compromisers, heretics, apostates, cults, etc) or to believe differently than what Scripture says. Anything that God did say in His Word is primary and fundamental and is what “true believers should be united on.” Even a “minor” issue of not working is presented as reasonable grounds for separation (2 Th 3:10-15).

The Biblical version is: “In all Biblical issues, unity. In non-Biblical issues, liberty. In all things, love.” If you won’t separate over every teaching of Scripture, then you may as well fellowship with everyone no matter what their beliefs. When you rank doctrines, you are going to let teachings go like tomatoes falling off the back of a produce truck. The God of the Bible doesn’t approve of any disobedience of Him. In essence, God is left out of this discussion. It’s man-centred “theology” that displays a false banner of "love." Ironically, ranking doctrines doesn’t love God. God is loved by keeping all His commandments, words, and sayings (Jn 14:15, 21, 23; 1 Jn 2:3-5). You may claim to love your neighbour or “brother,” but you don’t actually love him or God when you disobey the Scriptures in your relationship (1 Jn 5:1-3). We have doctrinal and practical light and then doctrinal and practical darkness with no shades of grey in between. If everything that He says is true, then all of it is important. All of it needs to be followed.

SOTL embraces experience over grammatical exegesis.

John R. Rice for instance believed and taught the infamous Keswick (Pentecostal) heretical hermeneutics of placing experience over grammatical exegesis, especially seen through his perverted views and beliefs on the Holy Spirit. As noted here:

“We have retreated from fanaticism. We were afraid of "wild fire." And the truth is that, fearing what men would say, we have not thought enough about what God would say. We have gone in human wisdom. We have gone with educated sermons, with entertaining sermons, with doctrinally sound sermons; but, alas, we have gone without the Holy anointing, without the miracle-working, supernatural power of the Holy Spirit!”

Since the real Holy Spirit power is in the subjective experience according to Rice (and fairly common amongst the IFB), "what God would say" is not necessarily "doctrinally sound," but that's considered to be in harmony. No wonder IB fundamentalism is so oriented to personalities and carnal philosophies and generally less concerned (or even unconcerned at all) with sound doctrine! That is why they have such unholy hatred towards the criticial necessity of testing, sharp discernment, judging, admonishment, reproof, rebuke, correction and so forth. It opposes their agenda of having large churches full of warm bodies, even if thy are dead man's bones. In fact, that is how they prefer them, the accepted environment to control and domineer their will and agenda over the people.

What Rice is advocating for is actually a type of continuationism and Hyles often said the same thing, as do many other IFB heretics that we have personally have heard and read (such as the false-gospel preaching revivalist heretic Rick Flanders). It is also the same man-centred, carnal, Bible-rejecting teaching we have experienced at various revivalists-type Baptist Churches throughout the world. Being too doctrinally sound might take the fun and emotion out of Christianity. Essentially these are akin to Pentecostals, only without the holy laughter and slayings, which makes further sense when we consider the rampant heretical Keswick theology in all revivalists IFB churches, the doctrine that created Pentecostalism. The context was Rice arguing for the need for a Spirit baptism like "Finney, Moody, and Torrey," while bashing the "Darbyites" for their "self-assured Bible teachers" and "small groups of believers" (which is sin to Rice) unaccompanied by the conversion of "harlots and drunkards." His hermeneutics was “not the case of a teaching that gains a hearing, but events that attract a following.” (Vinson Synan, “Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins,” pp. 25-27).

This dovetails well with the rampant Hylesism. It all comes down primarily to an error-filled hermeneutic in which man-determined results govern the interpretation of Scripture. I say "man-determined," because the results of living by the fruit of the Spirit, being submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and the evidence of grace-producing sanctification are not among the results used by these men to judge whether their hermeneutic is correct.

Most SOTL churches have a certain style of "preaching." They think of it as "alive." The preaching isn't dead, but "alive." What they consider "living" is actually just emotional. They mostly can't handle biblical teaching or at least much of it, because they don't think that it is endued or anointed with the Holy Spirit. The preaching and the music go hand in hand. The feeling all tends toward emotional decisions that might also produce "dedication." All of it amounts to manipulation and it fools people, and yet the advocates say "God is blessing" or "God worked." It mostly isn't God, and the odd times the true Bible preaching is there, God does bless that, but only when it occurs.

SOTL, a major influencer of sanctification corruption amongst IFB, of the Keswick theological kind.

The corrupted and false Keswick-type of sanctification (aka., Higher Life, Deeper Life, Crucified Life, Victorious Life, Keswick Movement, Revivalism) rampant in practically every IFB pulpit has been largely spread by the SOTL newsletter and its preachers.

John R. Rice did not take a biblical view of sanctification. He preached second blessing or Keswick theology. His book "The Fulness of the Spirit," a book he had written about sanctification, clashes with what the Bible teaches. The Rice false view of sanctification is also noted in the Nov 3, 2017 edition of SOTL and the article specifically authored by Rice, entitled, "Anointed with Fresh Oil." He said, "'Anointing' is a sign of the gift of the Holy Ghost or special anointing with Holy Spirit power."  He wrote that the "anointing" was "an obvious picture of an enduement of power." Rice claimed "that would be a good thing for a Christian to claim and pray for."

Anointing is what every true born again believer already has, from the very moment of salvation, which then means these men must not have the indwelling Spirit of God if they are indeed missing the anointing.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 Jn 2:27)

Rice teaches in his article that the apostles had received the Holy Spirit in John 20, when Jesus said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," but that they were anointed with fresh oil on the Day of Pentecost, "a new anointing." He ends the article by writing,

"Will you pray for a fresh anointing for yourself and for me?  Will you pray for a fresh anointing for yourself and for the rest of us?"

The Bible tells us something different though. Someone who receives Jesus Christ also receives the Holy Spirit, who indwells him the rest of his life and can never be lost for the believer. The anointing or the unction never departs the regenerated believer, and will manifest itself in continuing in the right doctrine and practice. The Holy Spirit keeps believers in the truth, so that they cannot apostatize, no matter what false doctrine a false teacher brings. If someone does turn from the faith, 1 Jn 2:19 and 3:6 say he was never saved in the first place. No one needs to pray for that anointing. He cannot lose it. Why is John R. Rice asking for prayer for something that he should already have?

Keswick theology is expounded in the following report, which is found in all revivalist IFB churches, including SOTL associated ones, A Warning on Keswick Theology and Why It‘s So Dangerous, in a Nutshell.

SOTL, Proponent of Man-Centeredness and Man-Worship Pragmatism

The SOTL has also been at the forefront of exalting and puffing up men far, far beyond scriptural bounds, into man-worship. Men like Rice, Hutson, Smith, Hyles, Clarence Sexton, Jack Trieber, Tony Hutson (son of Curtis), Doug Fisher, Johnny Pope, Larry Brown, John Vaughn, Ron Hamilton, David Gibbs and thousands more like them, almost completely do their work by pragmatic philosophies and principles, while twisting and forcing the Scriptures to fit their presuppositions and programs, whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.

Believing in “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty” has man-centredness written all over it. It’s man-centred “theology” that pursues a bigger church or bigger growth in the church or expanded coalitions at the expense of truth, sound doctrine and true unity.

SOTL man-centeredness is noted in their sickening idolatry of man.

The following is a good example of the idolatry of Hyles amongst IFB churches, with a pamphlet created to honour Hyles, and a picture of Jack and his wife Beverly titled as Our "First Family": https://www.baptist-city.com/remembering.htm

Hyles-Anderson College erected a statue of Jack Hyles after his death.

Curtis Hutson consistently promoted and defended Jack Hyles through SOTL, and also attacked those who held Hyles to account for his grievous sins and doctrinal heresies and perverted gospel.

SOTL man-centeredness is noted in their lust after mega-churches and spite for small churches.

How IFB men build big and "great" mega-churches is through man-centred theology. SOTL promoted the “biggest” and “the fastest growing” concepts for church in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's, what Tom Wallace championed, covered in the part 2. The game of numbers, church growth, big churches, big men in the big camp, reflects the extreme man-centeredness of SOTL. Rice regularly published reports from evangelistic campaigns that became publicity tools for approved revivalists.

SOTL's founder John R. Rice laid the foundation for the advent of the IFB mega-churches of the 1970s, while mocking “bland, self-assured . . . Bible teachers" preaching to "little groups of saints,” and lumping “doctrinally sound sermons” with “entertaining sermons” that were “devoid of the anointing power of the Holy Spirit,” which doctrine was also corrupted by Rice. Rice considered small churches to be sinful.

The level of "success" a pastor or evangelist or missionary or Bible college president must achieve before he can be considered to be one of the "Anointed" ones varies from group to group. Years ago Rice honoured pastors who had baptized more than 200 converts a year. The following immortal words were stated by Rice about small churches being sinful: “It is not a sin for a church to start small. It is a sin for a church to stay small.” Wow. I’m sure that he had a chapter and verse on that one, twisted to the degree needed. But he didn't need one. He, after all, had a big church. Make sure you do not sin so against the Lord. Three to four hundred will not do. Dr. Rice reminded us the church at Jerusalem had thousands. We don’t know about any of the others, like Corinth or Ephesus, but we can assume that they did too. Otherwise, they would have been in sin, and since Paul never rebuked them for being small, they must’ve not been. Because Paul would have rebuked them if they had been small. Because it is a sin to stay small (Rice 9:2). So, get big (Rice 9:3). If you can’t get big (say you are in a town of 300 people), then move to a bigger town or bigger church, and get bigger. Mediocre pastors have no place on the platform of the Sword of the Lord. I guess there goes the unreproved of "little strength" church of Philadelphia (Rev 3).

The worse about that statement, is that Rice makes God to be a liar. The Bible never says anywhere what Rice/SOTL is claiming here, and contrariwise, the most exalted church in the Bible might have been quite small (Rev. 3:7-13), while the biggest was the worst and apostate, with an unregenerate "pastor" and church membership (Rev. 3:14-22).

Rice was a neo-evangelical at heart (which is why all his children and grand children are neo-evangelicals today) and church growth guru, and that is why these kind of heresies run strong amongst IFB churches tied to the SOTL.

Rice must have been greatly impressed with Curtis Hutson, setting his cross hairs on him to be the next big man of the SOTL. Why? Because he was merely a "pastor of a small church in Decatur, Georgia," (we know what Rice and SOTL thinks of "small churches") until he made the fateful decision in

"1961 to attend a SOTL conference, at which time the Lord set his heart on fire. He then set out to build a soul-winning church. Forrest Hills Baptist Church grew from 40 to 7,900 members. In the 1970s, the church was recognized as one of the fastest-growing in America and the largest in Georgia." (SOTL About).

Wow! That is impressive! Rice must have been tickled pink. We see the SOTL accomplishing swhat it set out to do and planned: turn sinfully small churches into mega-churches! Hutson would fit in real well with the pogram, having become a champion of easy believism and quick prayerism (which he learned at the SOTL conference), turning thousands into two-fold children of hell, but he did the impressive feat (in the Bible belt of America where everybody is a "born'd again believer" and its not very difficult to built a massive church) turning a wee-little church into a large organism with many warm bodies, empty professions, who "outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity," (Matt 23:28), and "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matt 23:27). These hypocrites are quick to charge someone with "scribe and Pharisee" (such as Hutson, Tom Wallace and majority of the rest) when proving these men and exposing them, as Scripture commands (Rom 16:17-18; 2 Tim 3:8-9), but the truth is, they are actually the "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" likely hidden to them because of their blinders and blindness, but Christ' warns: "Woe unto you . . . !" (Matt 23:27).

SOTL man-centeredness is noted in their support, promotion and fellowship with ungodly men and heretics.

There are a number of examples that could be given, but the two Jack's of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, is all the example needed. Jack Hyles and his son-in-law, Jack Schaap.

We have covered Jack Hyles to some brief degree in this report, and further here: Jack Hyles - Part 1: The Manifold Evils and False Teachings of this Cultish Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, with brief specific mentions here and here.

Jack Schaap’s disgusting, horrifying and blasphemous sermon, “Polishing the Shaft” is linked here (its tell-tale that not a single "Christian" man had the basic manhood and decency to stop this incredible and truly insane display of unimaginable vulgarity):

It's been reported that Schaap consumed porn, but that is not what led to him having an immoral relationship with a young girl, as some have hypothesized. Schaap, like so many IFB leaders (including his predecessor, his father-in-law), is a malignant narcissist and an unregenerate false teacher. The flesh/carnal/natural man is all he knows, and everything he has ever professed is feigned, faux and a counterfeit. Thats the real and foundational reason why many preachers are of this nature.

Many of the current SOTL mega-influencers among IFB's publicly supported, promoted, and fellowshipped with Jack Schaap while he was preaching perverted doctrine, continuing the man-worship and false Gospel popularized by Hyles, blaspheming God (including in the sermon linked above), financial corruption, etc. They would not take a stand against his false doctrine and practice though they knew of it and were lovingly challenged to separate from it. The doctrine and practice referred to was commonly reported, documented by many, and public. Some of it was very wicked and blasphemous. It took him being ungodly immoral with a teenage girl, which ended with him spending 12 years in prison, for them to finally distance themselves from him. Jerry Kaifetz has written a book exposing Schaap titled, Profaned Pulpit: The Jack Schaap Story. Until the sexual immorality they were happy to be numbered with him, which is absolutely norm in the world of contemporary "Christianity," especially neo-evangelicalism, who do not separate from anyone until they commit some massive gross sin from which they cannot hide. This is always how it is with false teachers, and it's a sure sign of one. True born again believers do not deny, reject or change the doctrine of separation. That is one of the glaring errors of too many independent Baptist "big men." In so many cases, they won't draw lines where the Word of God draws them, which is way far before the sexual immorality stuff, but starts with their doctrine, their handling of Scripture, their practices, detailed in the above linked report. Consider the current pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, and chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, John Wilkerson, who has tore his garments, heaped ashes on his head, and issued a timely apology for allowing a speaker with moderately long hair to reference the NIV during a presentation on Creation at a college and church event back in November of 2023 (did no one do any actual research on the speakers?!), which compromise was reproved by Old Paths Journal, yet neither Wilkerson or FBC has ever formally or publicly apologized and repented of the heretical and perverted gospel that Hyles and Schaap and hundreds of others have preached and promoted, including Wilkerson, not to speak of the actual direct and blatant attack on the true gospel, or the massive coverup of sexual predators that have come and gone through the church and college, or its history of horrible toxic and cultish environment. This is the ungodly hypocrisy and false balance of unsaved charlatans who play church while walking dead.

Among "leaders" who promoted him are the late Clarence Sexton, Jack Trieber, Tony Hutson, Doug Fisher, Johnny Pope, Larry Brown, John Vaughn, late Ron Hamilton, and David Gibbs. The fellowship of these terrible compromisers with Schaap allowed a heretic with terribly perverted doctrines and false teachings to influence IFB's, and these leaders actually furthered his influence by introducing him to others. After being sentenced to prison, most of them acted as if their horrible lack of discernment (at best) or blatant disobedience (at worst) never actually happened. They scrubbed their websites and social media of any Schaap mentions, and then carried on as if nothing had changed — the same conferences, same line-up, same philosophy, and NO PUBLIC REPENTANCE. That should tell you just about everything concerning these heretical men, who are no different in fact than Schaap according to Scripture (i.e., Am 3:3).

SOTL and many other IFB's talk, argue, preach, and write about separation, yet very few of the nationally known IFB's, with their tremendous influence, actually use that influence to warn about those in their ranks who are subverted and condemned. Very few actually practice separation from false doctrine and practice "in the camp."

SOTL man-centeredness is noted in their attitude towards criticism, negativity, admonishment, reproof, exposé' and separation.

A major symptom of the man-centred disease that runs rank among IFB churches (and most other churches today), especially SOTL churches, is the repudiation of any criticism, judging, admonishment, or reproof. It is utterly disdained and rejected by this crowd, who have been brainwashed with this cultish idea that it is wrong to test and warn, many of which have a knee-jerk reaction against such things. Yet scripture is clear, only gentile lords over the people (cf. Mk 10:42-43)--dictators in other words--have an issue with lowly "lay people" exercising discernment, testing, judging, criticism, admonishment and reproof/rebuke. They hate the one that is negative and critical towards their teaching in any fashion, and it really doesn’t matter how much the critic attempts to sugar coat the criticism or reproof. They have been brainwashed with the idea that it is wrong to test and warn, and therefore, have a knee-jerk reaction against such things. These people are absolutely NOTHING like Paul the Apostle or any of the other Apostles or the Lord Jesus Christ, who didn't attempt to exercise dominion over the faith of others (2 Cor 1:24), which is a precise description of what these lords attempt to do. Like, Diotrephes, they love to have the preeminence among the people, and will not tolerate those who oppose them (3 Jn 1:6-9). When Jesus was criticized, for instance being called the Devil (Beelzebub), He refuted the idea with Scripture and logic. Paul said he loved those who judged him, and called them "wise men" (1 Cor 10:14-15) and "noble" (Ac 17:11). These SOTL heretics on the other hand don't because they can't. Their love is with self and with their homies, and not the Lord Jesus Christ, just like Scripture warns us:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Rom 16:17-18)

In these false gospel preaching bastions of false converts where the church programs are designed to keep the people emotional and captivated, whether it be the music, activities, or something else, giving them experiences that could easily counterfeit real conversion. The social aspect, emotional music, and preaching they mistake for the Holy Spirit, seem like God is working here. Where it becomes insidious in many of these SOTL churches is what happens if you question what's going on. You, a true born again believer in a cess pool of false professors and counterfeits, are testing and critiquing what is occurring and being preached, and that is considered to be disloyal and unspiritual. You are attacking the man of God like the young boys did with Elisha (and you know how that turned out). And you're also not to "touch the Lord's anointed," a reference to David's experience with Saul. In other words, switch off your discernment, because discerning would be akin to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The people who question are considered traitors. Strategies such as these hold people in lockstep, sometimes out of fear and intimidation.

Just as a disclaimer here, since many make all sorts of logical fallacies concerning this matter, we understand that some criticism can be wrong and dangerous, but we aren’t going to focus on the “manner” it is delivered, which is essentially always a serious logical fallacy (straw man, red herring) to obstruct or ignore the biblical admonishment. It is possible that someone always questioning is factious and a rebel, but we believe in most cases that is not the case. Nevertheless, it should be easy for a true church to show from the Bible why they do what they do, but man-centred, man-worshippers who lord over the people will not be able to do that very effectively, because they have a different agenda. Oh yes, they speak much of "love," and "Jesus," and the "Bible," and the "gospel," but it's all a facade, maybe even self-deceived in the matter. Most, if not all, of evangelicalism is like this, and worse, certainly no better than these professing fundamentalist churches that take this SOTL false gospel position. SBC churches are even worse in many cases, and definitely more outwardly worldly and ungodly. The big difference is that the neo-evangelical churches keep their people entertained with more corrupt forms of entertainment than these SOTL churches. Don't be fooled into thinking that a right reaction or response to the SOTL strategy is to swing over to evangelicalism. You're just co-opting another form of foolishness, one likely even more banal and corrupt in many ways than what is seen in a certain segment of fundamentalism.

Neither should those that criticize be living a false balance. You should be involved in your local church (if there is an actual sound, true, pillar and ground of the truth in your area, which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth today), an active preacher of the gospel in evangelism, and active in helping out in a godly and humble manner as you can around the local body of believers. It’s easy to tear things down but hard to build up. While it is wrong to dishonour spiritual authorities in a carnal manner, and it is wrong to be ungracious and unmerciful in one’s judgments, it is scriptural and right and necessary to have a testing mindset toward sin and error, and correct it as possible. The idea with any criticism, judging, admonishment, or reproof is to firstly obey Scripture, and secondly to help other born again believers, or those under "the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2 Tim 2:25-26). A good question to ask is “if the whole church were like me, what would the church be?”

With that said, while it almost always will be construed as “tearing down,” in vast majority of cases its actually not, but obeying Scripture, glorifying God, and it’s got true biblical unity and real edification as the motive because both of these things are only possible through the truth and the truth is greatly hindered and being destroyed with unchecked, unchallenged sin or error. True born again believers rejoice when they see boldness and contending for the faith (Ju 1:3), while fakes and counterfeits abhor it.

Without godly discernment and testing, following by criticism and reproof, sin and error, both leaven (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9), go unrecognized, unchallenged, and uncorrected, and that is beyond dangerous. Eventually the whole is leavened because of the tyrant behind the pulpit, who exercises his strong Gentile arm with threats, manipulations, logical fallacies, and other tactics of the ungodly. He does exactly what Paul and the rest of his ministry tream did not:

"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor 4:2)

No man is above reproof or discipline, yet majority of IFB SOTL preachers act like they are, and many genuinely believe they are. They think they are God's gift to mankind and are to be treated as kings and lords, and we know what Scripture says about "touching the Lord's anointed." God’s Word is clear in its command to “prove ALL things” (1 Th. 5:21). The Bereans were called noble for exercising spiritual discernment and comparing everything that Paul said with God’s Word (Ac 17:11). Paul loved to be judged and called them who did so as noble (Ac 17:11) and wise (1 Cor 10:15). Paul was referring to pastors when he said, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim 5:20). Nowhere in the NT are we taught to blindly follow any man or institution other than the Lord Jesus Christ. To do so is idolatry.

It is a rebellious and stiff-necked people that won’t listen to the Word of God but manipulate scripture, because they despise reproof and rebuke, and hate error and sin exposed, and put themselves above it. But God commands, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” (Ti 2:15). To despise means to detest, feel contempt for, scorn, hate, loathe, shun, to depreciate, etc. That sounds familiar. This is what one experiences at the hand of majority of IFB men, especially the SOTL crowd. But I’m to let no man despise me, when I speak, exhort and rebuke. If I say something that is wrong, tell me; otherwise you have a responsibility to listen. The saved servant of Christ is commanded to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim 4:1-2). That happens to be 2/3 negative. Did you know that negativity happens to be a trait of the Holy Spirit, Who inspired scripture, a lot of which is negative? The ten commandments are essentially all negative. The Holy Spirit, God the Spirit, is the Author of Holy Writ, of which is also 2/3 negative. When the Holy Spirit manifests Himself in and through a believer, the believer will be negative too. Very often, people who are often negative are assumed to be unspiritual. Spirituality is many times seen almost entirely as chipper and upbeat and positive. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Lk 1:15). How positive was John the Baptist? Not very. His preaching consisted of one theme: repentance. He was very often as negative as someone could be. Practically everything that was written as to what he said, is negative. That manifested the Holy Spirit in Him. The sermons preached with boldness by the Apostles and others in Acts were very “negative” and sharp. But that was a manifestation of being “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Ac 4:31), since it is the Spirit of God that gives man the ability to speak “the word of God with boldness”

Paul the Apostle had zero respect of persons regardless of the person (Gal 2:6), and this he commanded for all other true believers (1 Tim 5:19-21). When it came to obeying the truth of Scripture, it made no difference who the man was in front of him, including the apostle Peter, his senior and the unofficial leader of the apostles. He reproved Peter in front of everybody in the church at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), and Peter loved him for it (2 Pet 3:16).

“But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me” (Gal 2:6)

Men that reject these critical Biblical tenets are man-centred and narcissistic, plain and simple, lords over the people, and that is vast majority of those who associate with SOTL. They rage against those who dare oppose them or expose them publicly, and many of them go through every measure to destroy the ministry and reputation of those who dare oppose and expose them.

SOTL man-centeredness is noted in how the IFB big-wigs respond to public criticism and how they coverup, concerning themselves or one of their fundamentalist buddies.

On Nov 30, 1990, Curtis Hutson, President and Editor of SOTL newspaper at the time, responded to a letter of inquiry from a pastor/friend regarding Jack Hyles and the adultery scandal surrounding Hyles at the time. The letter revealed that Hutson, knew of "financial improprieties" and "immorality" but refused to remove Jack Hyles from the "Sword Board.” He also explicitly stated he would not preach with those who spoke out against Jack or Dave Hyles, for fear of doing "damage to Fundamentalism.” The letter literally concludes with Hutson claiming he would deny everything stated in the letter if it became public. This is written proof of a massive cover-up within SOTL and leaders of the IFB. It was accompanied by an unsigned, handwritten note. The correspondence was considered genuine by people at that time (and to this day), and was circulated while both Hutson and Hyles were alive. The elements of the letter are consistent with all the facts and Hutson's public position regarding Hyles and one need only contrast Hutson's handling of the affair with that of Robert Sumner in the Biblical Evangelist article titled "The Saddest Story Ever Told" in which the Sumner laid out the details of the charges of adultery against Hyles.

Voyle Glover's (deacon in Hyles church) cover letter:

Dear Friend:

Recently this came to me. I felt it would be of interest to you and have therefore passed it along. It appears to be genuine. A pastor has apparently released this letter after Hutson, a long time friend, wrote this letter to him in response to a letter he’d written Hutson. The pastor agonized over it for two days before releasing it. He called Hutson and says in a note with the letter, that Hutson threatened to ruin him if he released the letter and then begged him not to release it. I don’t know who the pastor is. You’ll have to judge and evaluate the information, the validity and credibility of it all for yourself. I felt it was significant enough in terms of the entirety of it all to forward it along to you.

I’ve also enclosed a copy of one letter sent to me and one sent to Bob Sumner from a Canadian pastor regarding my book [Fundamental Seduction]. And because the writer raised an allegation that Voyle Glover had “hurt the cause of Christ,” I felt compelled to respond to this man and his charges. I’ve enclosed a copy of my response.

--Voyle Glover

The handwritten note reads:

Dear Preacher:

Just a note. I have been a very close friend of Dr. Curtis Hutson for many years. After waiting quite a few days and praying, I have decided to send this to these people Curtis mentions in the enclosed letter. I asked him point blank questions and this letter is his personal reply to me. Please read it. I called and told him I was going to send copies out and he said he would deny all of it and he would name me personally and it would ruin my church and ministry. He begged me to reconsider but I am doing what I think is right. I believe something should be done about Jack Hyles and now I believe something should be done about Curtis Hutson, too. I’m sick of the whole mess!

The third piece of correspondence is on Sword of the Lord stationery and is signed “Curtis Hutson.” It is addressed “Dear Bro ________“ with the name of the recipient redacted. The "typo's" have been faithfully reproduced in this transcription.

Dear Bro. ________:

Thank you for your letter; it was good to see you the other day and I am glad God is blessing your church. I am typing this letter myself so please excuse the mistakes.

Now let me briefly answer your questions:

1. Yes, I do believe Dr. Jack Hyles has done wrong, has sinned, and there has been a cover-up. I have recently been given some information that proves his wrong doing and sin. One of his own children has stated all of it is true. I have been told his wife has said it is true also. Financial improprieties? Yes. Immorality? Yes

2. No, I will not ask him to resign from the Sword Board. I believe it is a loc al church issue and evidently First Baptis[t] Church has decided not to didlipline [sic] Dr. Hyles. Dr. Hyles has told me he has confessed his sin and wrong doing, he is now right with God, and feels his resignation or public apology would do more harm than good for Fundamentalism, young preachers, and churches across America. We here at the Sword concur with him. Am I a part of the cover-up, you will have to answer that question.

3. Yes, I do believe that all the good Dr. Jack Hyles and Dave Hyles have done does indeed out-weigh their wrong. I believe they have many rewards waiting for them in Heaven.

4. My fellowship with Bill Rice, Voegtlin, Handford, Lee, Nelson, Van Impe, Kelly, and others has been strained and even broken. I believe they have done much more harm to Fundamentalism and this ministry than Hyles. They have sinned just a much, if not more, as Dr. Jack Hyles. No, I will not preach with them or for them and I will not have them preach for me. Yes, I will have Dr. Hyles preach for me.

5. Yes, Dr. Roberson knows of Hyles’ sin; I have talked to him about it.

6. Yes, I have been asked to resign. No, I will not.

7. I believe Bob Sumner to be of the devil himself. He is a bold faced liar. I dare him to prove or even attempt to prove any immorality on my part. If [it] were not for him, I would not be constantly badgered with all these questions concerning Jack Hyles and the Sword of the Lord would not be in the condition it is today. God will take care of Jack Hyles and I believe, at least I am praying, He will take care of Bob Sumner too. If Fundamentalism collapses it will be Sumners fault and a host of other preachers[‘].

8. Yes, John Stancil is the music director at my son Tony’s church here in Murfreesboro.

Now you know the impact and influence Jack Hyles has here on our ministry. So if you think I am hanging onto his coattails then so be it. My dear friend, I believe you are sincere and want to do right, but please do not write me again concerning any of this. You have been a very good friend to me through the years I don’t want to lose that friendship, but please keep this in the stricktest confidence. All of this will pass by soon and we can go on. By the way, you know I will deny all of this if it gets out.

Sincerely,

Curtis Hutson

Hutson's letter gives the reader an unfiltered look at how IFB (and other fundamentalists) preachers/ministers think and operate and how politics often trump truth and biblical principles, which is consistent with what we know. It is not anything unusual in the way most IFB big wigs operate — and it matters not whether they be associated with Hyles or someone else. Except for personal style, many emulate the Cretians to precision, including Hutson:

“One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” (Ti 1:12)

They wax fat and wink at and cover over the wickedness of their colleagues in order to maintain a squeaky clean public image and keep others quiet about their own pet sins and scams. Every born again believer is responsible to examine, test, judge, scrutinize the local church leaders, and subject them to biblical accountability. Many of these men act as gurus and above earthly accountability. And heavenly for that matter. They lack any real and true fear of God, and we know that absolutely no one can be saved without fear of the Lord, which leads to repentance and from there, true faith. This is maybe the biggest issue of all, and it once again points to their (mostly) unregeneracy. Lost careless sinners have no fear of God, judgment or hell (Rom 3:18). In Ps 19:9, God’s word is described by metonymy as “the fear of the LORD,” because the law of God promotes fear and reverence in those who hear it, and the law of God is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Pr 1:7) and “. . . wisdom” (Pr 9:10), and knowledge and wisdom is acquired at the moment of salvation, in the new birth, when the lost sinner receives Jesus Christ, “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col 2:3).

These IFB Big Camp Big Boys Club Professional Gurus not only lack fear of God but also consequently lack fear of exposure and fear of defrocking. The solution lies within the individual priesthood, the everyday born again Christian man or woman, who, like Paul, is not afraid to rebuke sinful men o' the cloth: "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." (1 Tim 5:20). "Exhort[ing] you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Ju 1:3b). A sinful, doctrinally corrupt, abusive preacher or gospel minister will quake in fear of exposure at the appearance of biblically obedient Christian men and women. They need to get the message that there are still a few obedient men who are not afraid to stand up and expose their heresy, wickedness and/or duplicity and hypocrisy.

Among many Hyles-induced FBC and Hyles-Anderson College scandals, we have the utterly ungodly Joe Combs, Hyles-Anderson's foremost Bible teacher who was sentenced to 106 years for assault, aggravated abuse, rape, and kidnapping of his daughter, along with his wife (source —very sad and heart wrenching). Curtis Hutson absolutely knew about this and aided the coverup by refusing to renounce it publicly, just like he knew about Hyles scandal, even mentioned in the pamphlet, “Unnecessary Division Among Fundamentalists” authored by Hutson and SOTL. Remember also what Hutson said in his letter, that these wicked men—Hyles and his son David in particular (who committed adultery and fornication with dozens of married women from his teen years and later while acting as a “pastor," and even murder though he was never charged with it)—will have great rewards waiting for them in heaven, and that their good works would outweigh their bad, which speaks volumes to the false religiosity of these wolves in sheep’s clothing.

SOTL and John Stancil

Stancil was 14 years of age when he "trusted Christ as his personal saviour" (a phrase foreign to Scripture and typically tied to easy believism, yet the cornerstone of IFB and Neo-evangelical easy believism “salvations,” and of course at the expense of repentance and most everything else that comes with true conversion). Stancil joined Hutson's church, Forest Hills Baptist Church near Decatur, GA, and would eventually work his way from janitor to director of the bus ministry, which brought in over 2,000 attendees on a given Sunday. Hutson had learned his lessons well through Hyles and Rice, and he could spot a winner to help him in that process. Stancil married Brenda Cannon, with whom he had three children. The couple wrote a booklet on bus ministry (Busing--the Real Bring) which was published by SOTL in 1975. After Hutson started working for SOTL in Murfreesboro, TN at the invite of Rice in 1978, because, again, Rice knew a fellow that could build big churches and get many professions when he saw one, Hutson would eventually tap his friend John Stancil to join him in Murfreesboro, where he became the SOTL’s conference director and circulation manager for several years.

It's been reported that in SOTL conferences and church meetings, Stancil and Hutson regularly and frequently pocketed the money from material and book sales. In 1988, John and Brenda Stancil divorced with nefarious cause and adultery occurring behind the scene. Brenda was also an employee of SOTL ministry, in charge of book keeping and apparently was aware of her husband and Hutson’s theft of the ministries revenues. She made a stink about it, directly confronted them, and firmly opposed their thievery, which was certainly not out of order, to which they complained and Hutson advising Stancil to get rid of his wife and get another one, one more submissive and subservient to her husband as her authority, which is likely why he zeroed in on an Oriental woman because they are culturally inclined to be subservient. The story goes that Hutson and Stancil asked Hyles for help, to which he readily agreed. Help in finding a replacement wife while the man was still married and his wife still alive (cf. Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39). Hyles arranged for somewhere between 6 and 8 young oriental women/students of the College to parade past Stancil and Hutson for their review and selection, to which Stancil picked one, moved her to TN and married her. (Source).

All of this further establishes the fake “faith” and blasphemous dog-like behaviour of these ungodly crooked hypocrites that bring the unsaved to blaspheme God’s name. A mere five months after the divorce was settled and the new plan in place, John remarried (yes, that is wicked ADULTERY and even further buttresses the unconverted estate of this "evil beast" Ti 1:12) to Yullie Chong, a Korean student at Hyles-Anderson College, officiated by none other than the wolf in sheep’s clothing, Jack Hyles ("with much pomp and circumstance"). Unbelievable! But yet, believable! Much of their romance and adultery was carried on while Stancil was still married to his covenantal wife (and his only wife according to God's Word). Considering the false gospel, massive truck loads of false “converts,” the man-centeredness, the wicked wresting of Scripture to force personal agendas and so forth, none of this is surprising. Whats a little divorce and remarriage on top of a perverted gospel and stealing ministry funds, for unconverted heathens playing church, eh? You can read about how this unfolded here (under point #12), Robert Sumner's massive expose of Jack Hyles (though Sumner gives way to much credibility to the men he is exposing: almost all of them are wolves in sheep's clothing, especially Hyles and his son David).

Yet in spite of all this wickedness and throughout all of it, Stancil's position with SOTL did not change and his pulpit ministry continued to be promoted in its pages! That is wicked and truly reflects the man-centeredness of SOTL, who really didn't care what Scripture said or their disobedience to it, only that men were protected like kings and treated above reproof, until however such a time where many or loud dissenting voices call for action. At some point, Stancil also became a board member of the ungodly and immoral heretic Bill Gothard’s organization Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). Eventually Stancil's career as a Baptist conference speaker was over, as was his position at SOTL, and he went on to establish a large busing company (Anchor Trailway -- since he knew all about busing the false "converts" that he proselytized to the mega-church run by Hutson) in Nashville, even with alcohol service onboard the tours, while preaching against it on Sunday mornings or in his Gothard/IBLP work, while also running his own IFB publishing/evangelism company--Anchor Bible Concepts (Source). In 2020 Stancil got in some hot water with the Trump campaign for selling counterfeit campaign merchandise and wrapping his buses with trademarks, logos, and slogans of Trump, making them appear as authentic Trump campaign buses, and this wasn't new either, he'd done it a few years prior (Source).

Men like Hutson, Stancil, Hyles, and so forth are a dime a dozen among SOTL IFB churches. There are many Independent Fundamental Baptist Wolves to Beware Of. The financial corruption is rampant, stealing from the ministries finances for their own wants. The sexual immorality, adultery, cultish behaviour, the wicked bullying and lording over the people and mistreatment of members, the ungodly egos, megalomaniacs, and the psychology-infused preaching that is far removed from the Bible, along with the perversion of the gospel, denial of critical doctrines of Scripture, the twisting and corruption and wresting of God's Word to fit their narratives and agenda, occurs on a weekly basis among these Big Camp Boys Club SOTL cliques and groupies and is as normal as breathing air to many of these churches, and we are striving to expose them, one report at a time.

Part 2 to Come