Are we called to be Sinless? Is this even Possible?

Check this guy out:



Yow! I thought Steve Anderson was crazy!

Openairpreacher, or Michael Markley, is to Steve Anderson what Steve Anderson is to any preacher with a brain in his head.

Is he right? Does the Bible teach that we are to be sinless before God will accept us into Heaven? Well, let's take a look at some of the verses Mike likes.

1 John 3:6: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him."

Now, here's where I'm probably going to be attacked by rabid fundamentalists. I'm gonna come right out and say it. I don't believe the Bible is to be taken entirely literally at all times.

"I knew it!" the fundies are screaming. "This guy only believes the Bible when he wants to! Heretic! We're not listening to another word you say. You either believe the whole Bible or you believe none of it!"

Calm down, fundies. I believe the whole Bible. But let me ask you: how many of you have cut off your right hand or plucked out your left eye when you realized they were causing you to sin? (Matthew 18: 8-9). How many of you refuse to bury your departed relatives? (Matthew 8:22). Or how many of you hate your parents, your wife, your children, your brothers, sisters, friends and your own life? (Luke 14:26)

Do ANY of you take those verses 100% literally? I don't think so, because I haven't seen a large assortment of one-eyed, one-handed fundamentalists who refuse to bury their dead relatives and hate literally everybody. (Well, that last part is possible, I suppose. Many fundies love to hate.)

Often the Bible states things in a very extreme sense, so that we will know how important the issue at hand is. It's very important not to cast blame on someone or something else, such as our own hand or eye, as if they acted of their own accord, when faced with our own sin. It's also important that we not allow ourselves any excuses as to why we're not following Christ in everything we do, such as having to take care of family arrangements, burials, etc. And nothing should come before Christ: not our parents, our brothers and sisters, our spouses, our children or ourselves.

So what is John 3:6 saying? If you read it in context, it's obvious that John is talking about those who PRACTICE sin, that is, live in it with no repentence. And I agree; I've met many "Christians" who seem to care far more about doing whatever they want to do and not at all concerned with what Christ wants for them. I don't like to question salvation, but I can't believe a new creation in Christ would ever WANT to sin as much as these people clearly do. Mike is right about one thing: Christians have no desire to sin. That's Biblical.

But let me put it another way: I consider myself a law-abiding citizen. I have no desire in me to break the law. But every now and then, I look down at my speedometer and realize I've been speeding. This is clearly breaking the law, but I did not set out to break the speed limit. For that matter, if a cop were to pull me over (and some have), I don't immediately get sentenced to death, or even to life without parole, for something like speeding. According to Mike Markley, God punishes us for speeding with a death sentence.

1 John 3:9: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Boy, Mike seems to like 1 John 3. Of course, he likes to focus on JUST THAT PART OF IT, which seems to back him up. He fails again to grasp the spirit of what is being said. How just like a legalist.

Verse 2 of that chapter says "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

Am I the only one who sees that this very chapter, which Mike likes so much, is saying that we are not yet what we shall be in Heaven? That we are not yet like God? That we won't be until He appears?

1 John 3:9 says to me that a Christian is without sin because Jesus has seperated the Christian from sin through His sacrifice at Calvary. As I've said before, God looks at one who is covered with the blood of Christ, and He doesn't see our sin anymore. He sees Jesus.

1 John 1:7: "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

Mike is waaaaay off in his interpretation of this one. Note that it says "the blood of Jesus Christ...CLEANSETH us from all sin." ALL SIN. Sin of the past, the present and the future. This verse isn't even TRYING to say that we'll never sin again if we truly love Christ. I'm not sure how you can twist a message of Christ's sacrifice cleansing us from sin and make it say that anyone who loves Christ will stop sinning or God will send him to Hell.

John 8:11: "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Of course He told her to "sin no more." But...did Mike not read this passage? Jesus had just been told of the sin she had been caught in: adultery. When He told her "sin no more", he was clearly telling her to turn away the sin of marital infidelity.

For that matter, her accusers were apparently much wiser, or at least honest with themselves, than Mike Markley is. Jesus didn't join in and stone her, as Mike would probably do. He said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." And that shut them up. Jesus didn't immediately condemn the entire crowd to Hell, but He knew that sin is in all of us. Apparently the crowd did, too.

Jesus does not wish for us to live in sin. All sin saddens God, and I'll never pretend otherwise. But did Jesus tell her "go and sin no more, or you will go to Hell?" No. He was telling her "I've delivered you from this sin." Delivering one from one's sin does not mean that God will not deliver you from any further sin committed, and nothing in the Bible suggests that this is true.

In his picking and choosing, Mike carefully avoids the following passages:

Romans 7:25: "I myself in my mind am a slave to Gods law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Woah! Here's Paul, one of Christ's most dedicated apostles, one of the most oft-quoted biblical scribes, admitting he's still a sinner! This should end all argument right now, unless those who preach sinlessness believe that Paul wasn't really saved. By their logic, Paul is going to Hell.

James 3:2: "We all stumble in many ways."

James, a disciple of Christ. One of the twelve. He never betrayed Christ. Never denied Him. And yet, here he is, admitting he stumbles, and saying that we ALL do. In fact, scripture is RIDDLED with good men who did bad things. Moses committed murder, Noah was a drunk, Lot offered his daughters to rapists, Abraham laughed at God, Peter denied Christ, and David committed adultery and then conspired to have his lover's husband killed! I guess they're all in Hell today.

1 John 1: 8-10: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Hey, alright! We're back in Mike's favorite chapter. And here it is, in black and white: If we claim sinlessness, we make God a liar. While it may be possible to twist verse 10 to say that it's only talking about sins we committed before becoming saved, verse 8 clearly says that we still have sin, and that trying to claim we don't is self-deception.

Ecclesiastes 7:20: 20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Psalm 142: 2: 2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Last I checked, I'm still alive. So is Mike. So is ANYONE who is still walking around trying to claim sinlessness. NONE OF US are justified. Not ONE.

Besides, like I've said before, you can't just pick five or six verses and say "look, here's what the Bible says about that." It reminds me of the suicidal man who turned to the Bible, hoping to find something in there that would stop him from killing himself.

He flipped through the Bible, his eyes landing on Matthew 27:5: "...Then he went away and hanged himself."

Thinking he must have done something wrong, he flipped through it again, until he saw Judges 9:48: "...What you have seen me do, hurry and do likewise."

Picking and choosing can be used to effectively back up ANY position you wish. God does not want us to pick this verse and that verse. He wants us to accept ALL scripture as a whole.

When you look at what the Bible teaches us about the character of God, as exemplified through the character of Christ, this is not a God who would deny us Heaven because we are not good enough to be allowed in. Believing in sinlessness for salvation leads to the following unbiblical ideas:

-It can lead us to believe that we can earn our salvation, when the Bible says over and over that salvation is by grace, not of works.

-It causes us to believe that we are justified while others around us are not, while in the Bible it says that NO ONE is justified.

-It can cause us to live in fear that we'll lose our salvation several times per day.

-It can cause us to live in the sin of pride and vanity, not even noticing the sin we're living in and committing the entire time, because it's not the same sin that we see others falling into.

-It basically negates Calvary, and turns Christ's sacrifice into a big joke. We're telling God, "Hey, thanks for dying for my sin and all, but it wasn't really necessary. I have no sin." What is the point of Christ covering us in His blood so that the Father sees Jesus in us if that blood gets wiped right off again any time we sin? Did God only send Jesus to pay for the sins that had already been committed? Will Jesus have to die again to cover the sins of the following generations? Was it only to save sins committed prior to our salvation? How can that be when Jesus said "It is finished", meaning all sin is now paid for?

Those who preach sinlessness do so mainly because they believe that the gospel of grace will cause people to believe they can sin all they want. Mike Markley clearly believes this as he told me that Calvinists just want to keep sinning like the Devil. Folks, the Bible teaches us that a new creation in Christ no longer has the desire to sin. I believe that as surely as Mike does. We are to repent, to turn from sin, to live a life pleasing to God. No, those aren't requirements for salvation, but all of it is evidence for salvation. Without that evidence showing itself, is the person really saved? Are you really saved if the fruit of your salvation doesn't exist?

No, we don't preach that you can sin all you want because God has taken away your sin. But we're not blind to the passages of scripture that teach us that the sin nature has never left us, and won't until God appears at the end of time. We remain vigilant against the sin nature tempting us to be drawn into sin again.

The REAL Truth about Sodomites

Wow. Just....wow. I knew there were some hateful people in the world but I had no idea they were intelligent enough to start their own church and figure out how to post their hate on the internet.

In this video, Steve almost makes me want to put on a rainbow headdress and march in the next Gay Pride parade that goes through my town. Okay, not really, but seriously: It is very hard to preach against homosexuality with guys like Steve Anderson (and Fred Phelps) taking it to this kind of extremism. In all seriousness, it's enough to make me want to stop saying anything against homosexuality, but unfortunately if I want to keep preaching the Bible, I have to.

Homosexuality is a sin. There's no getting around that. I've seen some people try to "correct" our false interpretation of the Bible and show us that it isn't actually against homosexuality, but that we have instead read the verses wrong, or read our own biases into the verses to corrupt them and make them say what they don't say.

I've read the arguments on both sides in great detail, and let me say that the only way you could come away from those verses thinking they said ANYTHING other than that homosexuality is a sin is to read your own pro-homosexuality biases into the verses. It takes some massive leaps of logic, and pathetically poor exegesis, to make these verses into something else. Plus, this still leaves the problem of the fact that the Bible is full of positive examples of heterosexual relationships (there's even an entire book dedicated to celebrating married heterosexual love), but not a single example of a positive homosexual relationship. Also, Jesus may not have said anything about homosexuality directly, but that was because He didn't have to. It was already written down as law. Not only that, but in the Jewish community He preached to, homosexuality was unheard of. Finally we have his description of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh...What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder..."

Jesus may not have spoken against homosexuality, but he defined "marriage", and it wasn't between two men or two women, nor did he leave it open to interpretation. The Bible is against homosexuality.

But the Bible is also against drunkeness (Eph. 5:18), sloth (Prov. 6:6), envy, murder, fornication, etc. But it doesn't EVER say that those who commit those sins are forever damned. So why does Steve insist that when it comes to homosexuals, they are? Let's look at the passage he examines and see what's actually there:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Ouch. That's pretty harsh. There's a lot of sin being committed by these people. You're free to read the entire passage, but I've bolded the parts that Steve focuses on, and the parts that seem to go against what it is he's saying this passage says. Let's examine it together.

First of all, Paul is talking about a specific group of people: those who have seen and known God, and yet don't worship Him as God, and instead "change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." They knew God, but decided they were smarter, wiser, better than God, and changed their image of who God was to suit themselves.

Steve's right: This passage says God gave them up to their own sinful desires: "vile affection", or homosexuality, but also fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, etc. Not only are homosexuals on the list of those "given up" by God, but so are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful people, proud people, boasters, inventors of evil things, those who are disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable and unmerciful.

By Steve's logic, every single one of those people are headed for Hell with no chance of redemption. If you've ever lied, disrespected your parents, boasted, been despiteful, debated anyone, been envious, etc. you are damned with no hope of salvation. Steve says that God has "given up" these people and will never accept them.

Or, rather, he stops at verse 27, the parts that specifically talk about homosexuality, and fails to read the rest of the passage which says that the people who hated God and tried to put themselves above Him not only became homosexual, but these other things as well.

Since scripture tells us that all have the hope of salvation, why is this verse telling us that apparently, none of us do? It's simple: this passage isn't saying they have no hope of salvation.

Steve chooses to interpret "their foolish hearts were darkened" as if it's written in stone that some outside force, that is, God, was darkening their hearts. This is pure speculation on Steve's part. Elsewhere in the Bible it says "their hearts were hardened", etc. and it's clearly not supposed to be God hardening their hearts. God never takes action and then doesn't take credit for it. If that was God darkening their hearts, it would say "God darkened their foolish hearts." Their hearts actually WERE darkened by something else: their sin.

He then says that the phrase "God gave them up" means that he damned them forever. Folks, God is not in the practice of saving people who don't want to be saved. These people had already rejected God, so of course, God said to them "Okay, whatever. You think you're wiser than Me who created you? Go on with your lives and see where it gets you." My parents said the same thing to me when I turned away from God in High School and told my parents I hated them. Did they mean they would never speak to me again; that I was no longer their son? No. And while God may give us free will to turn against Him and sin all we want, if we truly accept His salvation, we're totally within His grace now. No matter WHAT we've done.

Does the Bible say "For God so loved the World (except the fags)" or "He who comes unto Me I will in no wise cast out, unless he's a fag"? Of course it doesn't.

Steve is also totally wrong when he describes certain sins, such as lying or lust after the opposite sex as "natural", but homosexuality as "unnatural." First of all, no sin is natural. We brought sin into the world, but it wasn't mean to be. Second of all, when Paul talks about unnatural relations, he doesn't mean that homosexual sex is unnatural, but heterosexual promiscuity is to be expected. He means that these people started using their sexual organs in ways nature didn't intend. The anus is a waste facility. There is nothing in the anus, or excreted by the anus, that is used in reproduction. That is not true of the penis or the vagina. Anal sex is unnatural. But this isn't the same as saying it's impossible for a normal human being to be tempted into homosexuality.

Steve's example of billboards is inherently flawed. He says that he, or a man in his congregation, might be tempted to look at a billboard of a scantily-clad woman, but would not at all be tempted to look at a scantily-clad man. This supposedly "proves" that homosexuality is not just a sin but an unnatural state of mind that only utter reprobates with no hope of salvation would ever fall into. Actually, all that proves is that the person doing the looking isn't gay.

What Steve doesn't understand is that Satan tempts certain people certain ways, and because we're a fallen people, some of us may be born with pre-dispositions toward various types of sin. Some of us are weaker when it comes to resisting gluttony. Others may be less able to resist the temptation of alcoholism. Others may have violent tempers. These are all proven inborn traits. They are also sins. Does this mean that God expects us to sin? No, it just means that we are sinners, and our salvation is only through grace. To say that another person's sin is unforgivable because it's not the same sin you fall into is to look at the speck in their eye and ignore the log in your own eye. I'm surprised Steve can even see his congregation around that log.

Some of us may be born with an innate temptation toward homosexuality. Again, that doesn't mean "God made them gay" or that he wants them to "accept who they are." It's still a sin, whether it's inborn or learned (and quite frankly I don't know which it is. It could be either, or both, but that's immaterial. Either way, it's wrong. By the way, "inborn" doesn't mean "genetic").

Steve has probably never met a homosexual, or if he has, it's been very brief. He likely has an image of homosexuals as grown-up sissies with flamingo hair and tight spandex clothing who play their Barbra Streisand music while on the hunt for the next young boy to violate.

What he doesn't realize is that most homosexual men start feeling unwanted same-sex attraction almost as soon as they become sexually aware. Chad Thompson, author of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would, describes in the opening chapter his own struggle with same-sex attraction when he was a young boy, and how desperate he was to find a way to escape it. Does this mean that God had already damned him, that even though he is now a heterosexual involved in a committed marriage with a woman? Not at all. For that matter there are many young men who struggle with same-sex attraction who don't ever give into their feelings. Are those feelings by themselves indications that they are damned? Does Steve not understand that there are thousands of young men with feelings of same-sex attraction that they do not want, and never did anything to ask for? What does Steve have to say about the numerous young men who grew up professing Christ as their savior and doing their best to live for Him, yet were struggling with same-sex attraction the entire time? Would Steve have us believe that God damns his followers to Hell as early as age 14 for sins they're not fully aware of?

Apparently so, and for that matter he fails to liken their struggle with the struggle of Christian men who can't pass a bar without wanting to go inside and drink until they can't stand up, or a person who is tempted to fly into a blind rage every time something makes them angry, or a person who can't eat a meal without wanting three or four more helpings. The feelings aren't the sin. Acting on them is.

And just because we commit sins, that doesn't keep us out of Heaven. If it did, none of us would go to Heaven because all of us are sinners.

Personally, I think we in North America blew it with homosexuals. We wanted to pretend they didn't exist at first, but we opened our church doors to alcoholics, drug addicts, ex-cons, single mothers, etc. We didn't want anything to do with homosexuals. Society told them they were foul things, and they had nowhere to run because we agreed with society.

So after decades of denial and living in the closet, hearing nothing but condemnation on all sides, the homosexuals took action. They marched on Washington. They ran for, and got elected to, public office. They became writers, actors, directors, screenwriters, singers, etc. and used the forum of the media, the true opinion-maker in America, to rally others to their cause. And what did we do? We kept right on condemning them left and right, proving their point that we're a bunch of hateful people who just want to see them hurt.

And after all those years, we've still got men like Steve Anderson hurting OUR cause by still preaching total damnation for all Sodomites. We failed to understand that God's love, mercy and grace covers ALL sins, and we created men like Steve Anderson who really believes that God's grace doesn't cover all sin, and we stood idly by while militant homosexuals normalized homosexuality in our country.

The REAL truth about "sodomites" is that sodomy is a sin, but the grace of God can cover that sin, too, if they'll let Him. And Steve Anderson, congratulations on continuing to twist God's word to be the weapon of choice for you. I fear for any closeted homosexuals under your influence who commit suicide thanks to your message of hate.

Why I am NOT a KJV Only Advocate

Someone said on a message board I visited that the debate between KJV Only Advocates and those who believe that the KJV is not the only inspired scripture basically boils down to "You present the scholars you studied and I'll present the scholars I studied. You will call my scholars liars and I'll call your scholars liars."

That's not entirely true. In every discussion I've ever seen, the KJV only side gives you "proof" after "proof" that scholars who advocate anything other than the KJV were homosexual, occultic, Gnostic and part of a mass conspiracy to undermine God's word by creating other translations. They say that other translations deny that Jesus was God or that His death was a sacrifice for our sin and that it was required for our salvation. What's funny is, I have and read New King James and New International versions in my home, and I've been reading them almost since I could read...and I don't deny that Christ was the Son of God, nor do I think His sacrifice was unnecessary for salvation.

Then, after the KJV Only-ists have presented their "proofs", the other side presents documentation to supply that most of the "proof" offered against men like Oregin or Wescott & Hort, etc., are in fact lies concocted by people who felt that any translation other than the KJV was heresy and were determined to slander anyone who tried to make another translation.

And then the KJVO'ists simply ignore the presented documentation.

Folks, I've seen the "contradictions" and "differences" between the KJV and the other translations, and they are meaningless. The main differences amount to this kind of example: If I say "I believe in God and I'm going to Heaven when I die" is that really any different than if someone else says "I believe in the Father and I will be with Him in Glory?" Other than aesthetically, no.

I should also point out that most KJVO'ists use circular reasoning. Boiled down, their logic is that they believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God because God promised us that He would preserve His word. We know this, because it is in the Bible. But the other translations are not the Bible because they are not the preserved Word of the Lord. They are not the preserved Word of the Lord because they are not the KJV.

I'm no scholar, and I won't pretend I've devoted a lifetime of study to the subject of biblical translations. I also sincerely believe that this is the case for most KJVO'ists, only they will never admit it. Those who have "studied", I'm fairly certain took the evolutionists' method of "study", which is, study only scholars you know agree with your position, and if you accidentally come across anything that refutes your position, pretend it doesn't exist.

But I think delving into the "which scholar is right" argument dilutes and confuses the issue. It isn't about scholars. Scholar faith is legalism. I love the mock song that goes as follows:

My hope is built
On nothing less
Than Schofield's notes
And Moody Press

I dare not trust
The NIV
The RSV
Is heresy

That song kinda nails it for me. KJVO'ists may put their faith in God, but they don't put their faith in God ALONE. Mostly, their faith is on the KJV.

Now, what's funny is, even in my non-scholarly life, I've understood that the 1611 KJV is not the KJV we use today. The original 1611 KJV, which plenty of KJV'ists believe to be the only true KJV, contained the Apocrypha, which is ancient doctrine still used by the Roman Catholic church that has been proven non-canonical. If you run into a 1611 KJVO'ist, ask him if his Bible has books like I Esdras, II Esdras, the book of Tobit, the book of Judith, the book of Wisdom, or I and II Maccabees. Most likely it doesn't, and if that's true, then his KJV most likely came from 1739, not 1611.

Another problem with KJVO'ism is one of logic: they preach that the reason they are KJV only is that other translations add to or take away from the Bible. Again, circular reasoning. Perhaps there are words, or passages, present or not present in the KJV that are in other translations. But this starts out with the assumption that any difference between the KJV and another text automatically makes the other text wrong! Where is the proof there that it isn't the KJV that's wrong?

Besides, in preaching that only one translation is the true word of God and the others are corrupt, they are adding to the Bible (there is no passage that says the 1611 KJV is the only true Bible, so to say that it is adds to the Bible) and also taking away from it by refuting II Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Paul doesn't qualify his statement. He doesn't say "all scripture that is in the KJV" or "all scripture based on the Textus Receptus" or ANYTHING that could lead one to say that Paul was advocating one translation and one translation only. Oh, and for those of you who think that the only reason the Bible doesn't say anything about the KJV is that it hadn't been commissioned or published yet, let me remind you how often the Bible predicts the future, and how eerily accurate the predictions that have already come true are, and how accurate the ones fulfilled in the New Testament were. If God wanted us to follow the KJV only, believe me, there would be a verse or passage saying "Those who will come after this generation shall speak a different language, and they shall hold only to the scripture authorized by their King, and their King's name shall be James." But God doesn't say that. He never says in His Word which version we should cling to. In fact, Paul says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. ALL of it. That means all translations as well. God can work through it, even if a few verses here and there might sound different if taken out of context.

And that is my main problem with KJVO'ism. It seeks to limit scripture, and by extension, limit God. One could take from their argument that God is weak and pathetic enough that He was able to preserve just the one true scripture, but completely unable to stop it being perverted by hundreds of other translations, each of which is totally corrupt and misleading. He left us the Bible, but couldn't stop all those fake Bibles from worming their way into churches. He allowed thousands, even millions, to be misled by corrupt, evil translations of man. When you think about it, that very thing means that God DIDN'T preserve His word. By saying that these hundreds of other translations are evil and leading people astray, translations which have found their way into MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of churches, that means God's Word wasn't preserved. If it was, He would find a way to destroy all other translations, or find a way to make it obvious that they are wrong. He hasn't done that, so either He lied when He said he would preserve His Word, or the other translations are also the preserved Word of God.

Here's another problem with KJVO'ism. They talk a good game about how corrupting other translations are, but cannot point to one example of a person who shows any unquestionable corruption, spiritual weakness, etc., that is a direct result of their use of other translations. Oh, they launch accusation after accusation of heresy, false doctrine, spiritual weakness or lack of salvation at any pastor or church who uses a different translation, but their only motive for attack on those pastors and churches IS their use of other translations. They cannot point to direct evidence of true corruption OTHER THAN they use the "wrong" translation.

Now, here's where the 1611 KJVO'ist is going to remind me of all those "false" churches who allow rock music in the church, who have cooperative programs and other ecumenical outreaches, let their women wear pants, etc.

It's clear that most 1611 KJVO'ists are all about restriction in ALL aspects of their lives.

But unfortunately for them, you can't use those as examples because there are thousands if not millions of churches who DON'T use KJV only and who also do not allow rock music, etc. in their churches. Not to mention that neither the KJV nor any other translation speak out either in favor or against rock music.

When I say "corruption" or "perversion", I mean walk into a church that uses another translation and point to examples where these people are openly leading their followers into occultic or Satanic activity. Or find the church using a different translation that teaches that Christ was not the Son of God, or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was concieved. After all, your primary arguments against the other translations were: 1) The scholars involved in those translations were atheistic, homosexual, occultic, gnostic, etc. and 2) That these other translations make it out that Jesus wasn't God's Son, that Mary was not a virgin, etc.

(BTW, that last one kills me. The argument is that other translations use the word "maiden" instead of "virgin", implying that she wasn't a virgin. What do they think the word "maiden" means? If they don't know, I'll tell them. It means "virgin." That's why the hymen was referred to in ancient times by the archaic term "maidenhead".)

I mean, if we are corrupted because of the NIV, NASV, RSV, etc., then show us our corruption! Point to one thing that conclusively shows that we have been led astray by those other translations.

I saw a message board post once that says it succinctly, and briefly:

It is quite unbelievable to me that there are people alive today who think God is so inept that He can only speak through the KJV.

Those of you who are KJVO's, could you answer something for me please? What grand claim of truth is there that only you have access to because you read the only "infallable" Word of God that myself and millions of other Christians are missing out on because they read other translations? And by this, I am not talking about one verse here or there that differs in translation. I am talking about the path to salvation and living lives changed by the Spirit of God. If your position holds ANY credibility whatsoever, one should expect to see a dynamic and unquestionable difference in discipleship and character since you claim to have the Word of God and all others are simply floundering with vain attempts to piece together half-truths.

Blessings,
Chad

This guy hits the nail on the head. Just what is it that we who use other translations are missing out on? Don't start talking about all the false scholarhood that went into those other translations, or the motivations behind guys like Oregin or Wescott & Hort, etc. Tell how it is that God is working through your KJV that he ISN'T working through my NKJV, NASV or NIV! I've never gotten an answer to this question.

BTW, in regard to the entirety of arguments against the scholars...well. God spoke through a donkey, a bush, a murderer, a drunk, a thief, etc. Just who are you to say he can't speak through those other scholars?

I should state for the record here that we non-KJVO'ists do not reject the KJV. We do not feel that the other translations are replacements for it. Many, and I would even say most of us love the KJV and hold it to be a beautiful scripture. Many even prefer it. You will find almost nobody (and those you do find certainly do not speak for the majority) who thinks the KJV is not scripture. I say that to combat the perception by KJVO'ists that we who say it's not the only scripture are in fact trying to claim that it isn't scripture at all, and that we want to attack it. Nothing could be further from the truth. KJV is very much the Word of God. It just isn't the ONLY format that the Word of God is acceptable in.

In my final statement against the whole "your scholars are wrong and mine are right" argument, let me refer you to another quote by the same man on the message board (this guy should write books!):

I also find it interesting that adherents to KJVO, like yourself and others on this thread, continually debunk scholarship and yet appeal to scholarship to "prove" their own position.

Notice that I have not appealed to scholarship at all in my post - I readily admit that I have not read extensively on either side of this debate. What I do know, however, is that God's Word is more than just words on a page that KJVO'ers seem to idolize. God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.

What the KJVO'ists do is they make their translation of the Bible more important to them than God Himself. They make it their idol, placing more emphasis on the validity of the KJV than on Christ. In so doing, they completely discount the wonders God has worked in the lives of countless men and women who have never even cracked open a KJV. They would have you believe that none of these people are saved, even going to the point of trying to prove that the very blessings of God on their ministry (ei: the number of souls being saved) is direct proof that they can't be saved because they're "loved by the world."

(Somehow, this argument becomes null and void when you turn it back around on them. I know a minister who boasts on his website that he has seen hundreds if souls saved at his church, but he also speaks against a popular minister who has saved THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS through his ministry. This other pastor saving so many souls is evidence that he's loved by the world, but the hundreds of souls being saved by this guy are proof of how Godly he is. Right.)

I believe in an almighty, powerful God who can work through anything and anyone, even the numerous translations of His Word, each of which may differ slightly but succeed greatly in getting across the main point: Christ's love for us, His sacrifice in our place, the need for salvation, and God's plan of salvation.

Praise God for all those translations!

EDIT:
In another message board debate, I had a man try to answer my question of what ways I've been corrupted or not shown the true gospel. Well, first he tried to side-step the question as follows:

That is not the issue in this debate.

The issue is whether the modern bible versions are based upon textual corruptions and are therefore corrupted forms of the Word of God. And there is overwhelming evidence that this is indeed the case.

Okay...so...the issue is the corrupt text that the new translations are based on. The issue apparently is NOT how those "corrupt" texts ACTUALLY CORRUPT US. How are they corrupt? What ways do those texts corrupt us? He does TRY to answer later on, but all he really does is accuse:

The fact that the true Gospel is rarely preached in evangelical churches which use modern versions is one indication. The Emergent Church Movement is another indication.

Okay. So apparently ALL churches who use other translations "rarely" preach the gospel and are each and every one involved with the Energent Church movement. Does he have research to back this up? I'm curious.

Then he points fingers at me, a man he's never met:

The way that your thinking has been corrupted (along with many others) is that you probably do not accept the last twelve verses of Mark as genuine Scripture, and you probably believe that John 7:53-8:11 is spurious. If that is the case, your thoughts about God's Word have been corrupted. And these are only two of scores of glaring examples.

Hmm. I had no idea that I didn't think the Great Commission was true scripture. I also didn't realize that I thought the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery that Jesus refused to stone was "spurious." This guy started trying to tell me I was corrupted because I discounted those passages, and I DON'T. This is again based on the false idea that non-KJVO'ists reject the KJV. It's apparently all or nothing with these people. I'm either King James Version only, or I reject King James Version utterly.

The Gospel of Hate

Earlier I posted a short audio clip of Steve Anderson preaching against gospel recording artist Bill Gaither. What I said about him there was just the tip of the iceberg. Steve (I can't muster enough respect to call him Mr. Anderson, and he is certainly no pastor, so I will not call him Pastor Anderson, either) is a perfect example of a leader in the gospel of hate.

For those of you who have never heard of Steve, you can find out more about him and his "church" at this website. That is, if you can stomach it. Steve is, among other things, a King James Version Only advocate, an opponent of such "false" doctrines as Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, Predestination, etc., a firm believer in "manliness", and a man who truly believes that all gay people are destined for Hell, regardless of whether or not they repent.

I'll respond to a few of his points in seperate posts, but this post is mainly about Steve himself. I honestly didn't think that men like Steve existed, or if they did, they were old and set in their ways. Not so. Steve was born in 1981. He's never been to seminary, in fact believes seminary to be evil, but does have most of the Bible memorized. Somehow he thinks this qualifies him to be a pastor. I'm gonna memorize Grey's Anatomy and then demand to be made Surgeon General.

Steve is a modern-day Pharisee whose chief accomplishment is arming himself with a large-enough shield of false interpretation that he'll never listen to what anyone has to say that differs from his opinion.

First of all, he starts off with the assumption that the 1611 KJV is the only true word of God. He will except no argument on the matter, and will automatically reject anyone who teaches from any other translation as evil and corrupt. Secondly, he states that no one can teach you to understand the Bible except the Holy Spirit. This means that even if you use the 1611 KJV, if your opinion differs from his, then you are not truly listening to the Holy Spirit and are leading people astray. Then he reads from the Bible, makes a huge leap in translation from what's actually being said to what Steve would like it to say, and then says that if you want to get mad at him for saying it, you should instead get mad at God because "it's in the Bible".

Finally, he loves 1 John 3:13, which says "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." He believes that this is a commandment of God that being "loved by the World" is in itself proof that you aren't really saved. "Loved by the World", as interpreted by Steve, means "appreciated by any large group of people." So, if you attack him, then by Steve's logic, he's all that more blessed of God, because the World hates him. If he ever reads this blog, it will roll right off his back. The fact that I'm against him just makes me worldly.

Now, the logic of that is a real doozy of a circular argument. So...Steve is right because everyone's against him. What does that say about his congregation? Is the fact that some people obviously DO agree with him not an indication that Steve's doing something wrong? Or are they just not worldly? By what definition are they not worldly, while I and others like me are? I don't look that different from men in Steve's church. My hair is short, my clothes are conservative, I sing and appreciate many of the hymns that Steve's church does. I even own, and read, a King James Bible. But I also listen to modern-sounding music and am not afraid to watch movies or television, so therefore I'm worldly. Bet you anything others in Steve's congregation also own and watch a television. If they love Steve, Steve must not be saved.

Plus, what about people who don't love Steve, but he later leads them to Christ? How does he know that these people didn't just lead him astray by loving him? For that matter, what about all those churches he's linked to who all agree with his teaching? That's...what, over 1000 people? Clearly Steve isn't saved, then.

Steve, that verse you love so much isn't trying to say that being hated by the World is proof you're saved, nor is it proof that you're not if you do have large numbers of people who agree with you. That verse is a warning that those who hate God will hate you for preaching Him. It's a preparation for those who are going into ministry. Steve has twisted it into a ruling by God that if too many people like what you have to say, then by definition you're saying the wrong thing. It's a defense, because Steve knows he's being "persecuted" by a LOT of people. As long as he believes this, he'll never be persuaded to listen to someone else.

Let's talk for a minute about Steve's idea that his memorization of scripture is all that's necessary. First of all, memorization is not the same as exegesis, and secondly, learning the words doesn't at all mean you understand the spirit. When Steve twists a Bible passage around and then says "don't get mad at me, it's in the Bible", he's misleading people into believing the Bible actually says what he twists it to say, or takes verses out of context to try and make them say.

For example, in one of Steve's more infamous "sermons", he takes the passage in 1 Kings 14:10, which says "Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall..." Now, one who has studied this verse, rather than just being aware of it thanks to memorization, will understand that God is saying he's going to DESTROY "he that pisseth against the wall", which is a degrading term for men. Yes, other translations do translate this as "all the men" or "all the sons" of Jeroboam, which does sort of dampen the impact of just how little regard God had for the men of the house of Jeroboam, but Steve misses the point entirely.

In Steve's little world, this is a call by God for men to pee standing up. At no point are they allowed to sit down, or they're not really men. He rips on the New American Standard version for changing this to "male persons", because he sees the word "male" as somehow less masculine than "man". He says "I'm a man, I'm not just a 'male'", and says that what is wrong with a majority of the world is that men aren't allowed to pee standing up.

What's strange is, Steve himself reads the part that says God's going to DESTROY these men, cut them off from their house. This is not an encouragement to "piss against the wall", this is an INSULT from God to the men of the house of Jeroboam. He reads this, loud and strong like he likes to do...and then he ignores it. He ignores EVERYTHING about the verse except "he that pisseth against the wall."

What further proof do we need that mere memorization does not make one an authority on a given subject? One should particularly not treat a subject like the Bible so lightly as to believe that mere memorization can provide understanding.

Going on, Steve is obsessed with manliness, to the point of calling anyone he feels isn't manly enough a "wuss, "sissy" or "pansy." This includes a fictional character, the pastor on Little House on the Prairie. In his sermon against Little House, Steve does not elaborate on why that pastor is a pansy, nor does he provide scripture reference as to why the pastor is a pansy, or why Steve is able to call him one, he just simply says "That pansy of a pastor is the worst thing on TV". His version of "manliness" apparently means showing no kindness or gentleness. He criticizes TV pastors as being "not manly" because they're always so nice. I fear for his wife and children.

I could go on and on about Steve's lack of true Biblical preaching, and in some future posts I will expound on some of his more egregious statements, but the main thing I want to point out in this post is total absense in Steve's "ministry" of the love of Christ. Steve's gospel is the gospel of hate. In his hands, the Bible becomes a weapon with which he can attack those he hates, which include, basically, everybody. All his sermons are preaching "against" something, and reminding us of what we need to get rid of in our daily lives. He preaches against nearly every other pastor or Christian speaker, author, songwriter, etc., that exists, or once existed. He has a whole webpage dedicated to attacking any pastor who believes in Lordship Salvation, which seems to include nearly every pastor in the world that isn't him. I have never once seen him preach about God's love, what God's calling us to do, what wonders God can work in our lives. I never hear him talk about grace, mercy, compassion or forgiveness. In Steve's world, the Fruit of the Spirit is apparently hate, anger, war, impatience, judgement, condemnation, arrogance, pitilessness, and rowdy behaviour. He is a picture of these things. There is no love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self control about him.

He is the total opposite of everything this blog is promoting. He places himself before God, his own goodness before grace, and claims sinlessness. He is a picture of everything this blog was created to fight against: The gospel of hate.

Eternal Security? Or a once-for-all salvation?

One doctrine that comes up often in theological discussions is that of "eternal security", or the doctrine that once you are saved, you are saved from now until the end of time.

I was raised to believe this, and didn't realize until I was in my teens that other churches preached a different doctrine. I thought eternal security was totally biblical, and unquestionable. But is it? Is it in the Bible at all?

Well, first of all, the term "eternal security" never appears in the Bible. Just like the word "legalist" never appears. But using modern terminology to describe the same thing is not wrong. I get really irritated at people who nitpick between biblical translations and pick apart little words and phrases that are phrased differently, but ultimately mean the same thing. The Bible may not use the phrase "eternal security", but it does say "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) It also says "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. The Father and I are one." (John 10: 28-29)

But that's just in picking and choosing. An opponent of eternal security can pick and choose verses that would seem to refute eternal security just as easily as I found those verses. What we should be doing is not picking and choosing, but seeing what scripture as a whole tells us about the character of God. Scripture repeatedly hammers home the loving nature of God. 1 Peter 3:9 says He doesn't want anybody to perish. That doesn't mean they won't, but it does mean God doesn't WANT them to, and is saddened whenever a soul turns away from Him. And nothing shows us the character of God more than the character of Jesus. As Jesus said above, He and God the Father were one. Jesus was as much God as Jehovah is. One reason the Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah was that Jesus didn't come into the world condemning left and right and pronouncing judgement and declaring the Pharisees to be the only true followers of His word. Anybody that loving and kind and patient couldn't be God! But He was God, and God is kind, loving and patient. It was the Pharisees, and those church leaders of today who carry on the Pharisees' legacy, that wants to turn God into a hateful, spiteful being full of condemnation.

Could such a loving God offer salvation, and then revoke it if you're not good enough?

Well, on that score, I can assure you that the answer is no. The Bible repeatedly states that salvation is not earned. Look at the passage from Ephesians quoted above. Isaiah says that our righteousness is as filthy rags to God. It is legalistic to suggest that salvation depends on what you do to earn it, because you can't earn salvation. It's a gift. It's not a trade, or a sale.

Why was Christ crucified? Was it because God wanted to see Him die? Was it because we sinful humans wanted Him silenced? No. See, so much sin had entered the world that God had two choices: destroy us all, or accept a sacrifice on our behalf, just as He had always done. But by that point our sin was so great that there simply was no sacrifice big enough to wipe away sin for all of us. So what did God do? He sacrificed Himself. His own Son, God in the flesh, the only sacrifice big enough that it could cover all sin, past, present and future. Why did He do that? Well, according to John 3:16, it is because He loved us. Does it strike you as within the character of a being who could commit that kind of sacrifice on our behalf, that he would revoke this as soon as He realized we aren't worthy of it?

Again, no. It is legalistic to the extreme to say that we can do anything bad enough to have our salvation revoked. That's because we're already horrible in God's eyes. We are the antithesis of what he created us to be. We chose to sin, and we let sin into the world; gave Satan a foothold. Our own righteousness is as filthy rags. Without the blood of Jesus, God sees us for what we really are; completely, totally unworthy of His love, or His salvation. If He made a practice of revoking the salvation of anyone He saw as unworthy, it would be curtains for us all. As it is, the sacrifice of Jesus covers us. We're saved not because we earned it, but because Jesus took our place and died for us. That was grace. That was mercy. That's a loving God. God looks at us now, covered in the blood of His Son, and He sees Jesus. Before Jesus died for us, he saw filthy rags. Now we have been crucified with Christ, therefore we no longer live. It is Jesus Christ who lives within us.

Now, here's where people are going to start believing that I think we're all saved. I'm not saying that. See, Christ offered Himself as a once-for-all sacrifice, and it was a gift, but we have to accept that gift. If it's a gift, it can be refused, and Jesus isn't gonna force it on us. That's also the character of Christ. See, a lot of people want to challenge us Christians by saying "Well, on the one hand you say God is love, and on the other you say we're all going to Hell. How is that loving?" It's loving because God gave us the free will to accept or refuse Him. Deciding to save everybody, even those who don't want to be saved, isn't love, it's just stupidity. God says "Look, I did all I could for you. I sent my own Son to be killed in your place. You don't want that? Okay, then. If you change your mind, I'll still be here."

Since salvation is a gift, let's compare it to another gift. Let's say I give you a Bible. I don't put any strings on it; I just say "This Bible is yours", then at that point, if I later try to come and take it back, that makes me a thief. It's not considered good form in any culture to give a gift and then demand it back if we get upset at the person. Now, if you take the Bible, and put it on your shelf and pretty much forget you have it, it's questionable whether or not you've really received the gift, but if you appreciate it and really want it, then there can be no question that you have, even if you really don't read it that often.

See, Jesus didn't put any strings on salvation. There is a way God wants us to live, but it's not living that way that saves us, because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. The Bible does say that we should not "go on sinning so that grace may increase", but it never says we have to be sinless before God will save us, or that we will immediately stop sinning once we are saved. It DOES say that one who is "crucified with Christ" is a "new creation" and that the old has passed away. This implies that one who is truly saved no longer WANTS to sin, no longer DESIRES anything but Christ. It doesn't mean we'll never be tempted by worldly desires again, but it means that we'll have someone to guide us and teach us to know right from wrong.

But while a "new creation" may no longer desire sin, it is not at all a prerequisite. While I'm something of a proponent of "Lordship Salvation", I think the main argument against it misses the point of why people like me are for it. No, I don't think that salvation is through works. I've made that clear. But I also believe that faith without works is dead, and I believe that a person who claims to have received salvation, and yet the old does not pass away and nothing about this person changes, I question whether or not salvation has actually been received. This person's gift is likely at the back of his closet somewhere, still in its wrapping paper, not truly received. Becoming a new creation isn't required for salvation, but it IS evidence of our salvation. If we become a "new creation", then we follow what God said in 1 Peter 3:9, and we repent. We turn away from what we once were. We're not perfect, and never will be, but we strive toward the goal. A person who is still pursuing something other than God, and yet calling himself saved...well, is he?

Some who oppose eternal security believe that people like me would call anyone saved, no matter what they do, if at any time in their lives they gave their life to Christ. They think that I believe that a man can profess faith in Christ, and then cheat on his wife, steal funds from his company, lie, commit murder, etc. and never show repentance but that doesn't matter, because he's saved, and once saved, always saved. Nope. That's not what I believe at all. I believe that a man born again in Christ might do one or several of these things, but will understand that it is sin, and will repent of it. Any who live like that unrepentant, I question whether or not they were ever saved.

Their main reason for preaching against eternal security is mainly that they want Christians to "act like Christians", and don't like the idea that anyone could feel assured that they are going to Heaven. The Bible clearly says they are, and it is legalistic to assume that salvation is earned.

So that brings me to the argument most eternal security opponents like to use: Okay, salvation may be a gift, and God may never take it away from you, but you can give it back! Is that true? What does the Bible say about it?

The answer is: not much. To be honest, I don't know if God will take back your salvation if you really don't want it anymore. I suppose there's a chance that He would, but on this subject, let me share a personal story.

In High School, I got really angry at God. The reasons were stupid and theatric, but I didn't want to be a Christian anymore. I denied God, and said "If there is a God, I hate Him." I began to live a sinful life. To any who saw me on the outside, I wasn't saved. But here's the funny thing: God didn't give up on me. I heard Him speak to me MANY times over the years that I spent away from Him. He kept telling me "You're still mine. I haven't given you up. And when you're ready, I'll accept you back." Now, I had basically told God that I wasn't His anymore; that I was refusing His gift. But He didn't let me give it back! He knew that I was being an angry, sullen, immature teenager and on a level I didn't even know I had, I had not really given back my salvation. He kept reminding me of that all through my time away from Him.

So, in all honesty I don't believe that a new creation in Christ would ever truly want to give back their salvation. If one has had eternal life and willingly gives it up, in my opinion this means one of two things: either they're letting their anger control them, like I was, or they never really had it in the first place.

So, in closing, yes, I believe that Christ's sacrifice was once for all, and I believe any who receive it will never lose it, nor will they give it up. I sincerely believe that most who believe otherwise are mainly doing so out of fear, because they don't want saved people to start acting in ways they think are "ungodly". For some, they may just simply hate the idea that anyone could think God is a God of love who would dare save someone who wasn't "as good" as they are. The website www.eternalsecurity.us, which is all about refuting it, is so full of hate toward eternal security and anyone who believes in it that I believe those behind the site mainly just want to be able to hate and lift themselves above others. As for me, I'll take God's grace, and thank Him that He saved me when I could never have done it myself.

What do I mean, "God first, God only?"

I started this blog primarily due to the number of people I have run into over the years who have this really twisted, skewed view of Christ, Christianity, salvation and what it really means to be a Christian. The bigger problem was...they were Christians.

This blog mainly isn't to attack guys like Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. There are enough of those. There are whole ministries whose sole purpose is to attack men like them.

Rather, it's to challenge, and combat, the perception of Christianity that I have increasingly encountered over the years. You see, in the Bible, Jesus was the anti-establishment rebel, the guy who shook things up and challenged long-held beliefs and perspectives. And who were His principle adversaries? Not murderers, thieves and hookers. No, those were His dinner buddies. His adversaries were church leaders.

What was his problem with them? Several things, actually. They twisted scripture to mean what they wanted it to. They held closely to, and exclusively preached, the letter of God's law, but totally missed the spirit. They prayed loudly in public, primarily in order to draw attention to themselves. They placed themselves at the head of the church body, so that rather than leading their followers to God, they instead just made their followers believe that they themselves were Holy and righteous, and their wisdom and judgement unquestionable. And of course, they believed that they were perfect, or at least far better than those filthy people at their feet.

Since the Bible teaches us to follow Jesus (and was in fact written by Him), and the Pharisees, the title church leaders of the time took, were portrayed as villians, you'd think modern-day Christians would want to be as unlike them as possible, but unfortunately, I run into more modern-day Pharisees, and people who have a Pharisaical attitude about their daily lives, than I ever imagined I would. I have gone to church with these people and worshipped right alongside them. I have chatted with them on the internet. Several of them have their own pulpit to preach from.

I firmly believe that these people fall into two camps: those who do as they do because they are fervently trying to earn God's favor, and those who do so because they are hate-filled people who seek to hurt, and think they've found the perfect weapon in the Bible.

What neither kind of Pharisee, or "legalist" if you prefer, seems to realize is, it's not about you. It's not about me. It's not about them. They want to take the focus away from God, away from Jesus, and make it all about you and me and who's better than whom and which religious leader we should follow.

Have you ever seen a minister, deacon, elder or even just a Christian who holds no leadership position, who get really hung up about the following topics?:

-which denomination you belong to
-which translation of the Bible you use
-whether you believe in or reject Calvinism
-whether you believe in predestination
-whether you ascribe to "Lordship salvation" or not
-whether you believe in eternal security (that is, once saved, always saved)
-how ecumenical the church you belong to is
-the amount of souls you have personally won for Christ
-how much you tithe
-what styles of music you listen to, books you read or movies/tv you watch
-the way you wear your hair
-the kind of clothing you wear
-whether or not you consume alcohol

These are hot-button issues in some Christian circles. There are thousands if not millions of Christians who will judge your salvation based on the critera above. The problem is...Where is God in all of that!?

Does Romans 10:9 say "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and use the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, and attend an Independant Baptist Church, and reject doctrines like Calvinism, Lordship salvation, eternal security, predestination, etc., refuse to associate with any denomination but your own, be diligent in winning other souls, tithe regularly, throw out your rock music, get a haircut and put on a suit and tie and of course, abstain from alcohol, you will be saved."?

No, of course it doesn't, so why are we acting as though it does? Why do we keep qualifying it like that? Why can't we remember what Samuel was told in 1 Samuel 16:7: "But the Lord said to Samuel, Do not take note of his face or how tall he is, because I will not have him: for the Lord's view is not man's; man takes note of the outer form, but the Lord sees the heart."?

That last part sort of says it all. Man looks at what's outside. They see the teenager with the hoody and the running shoes with the hat turned backward and says "He isn't saved." God looks at the heart. He isn't concerned with our outer form. That verse could just as easily say "Do not take note of his leather jacket and earring, or her tank top, or his long hair, or her capris, or the rock music they're listening to, or the church they attend, or the Bible translation they use, or anything on the outside, because it is man that takes note of the outer form, not God. God sees the heart.

A lot of the people out there who ascribe to the legalistic worldview of caring primarily about how they look or what they're doing would probably be driven to despair, almost to the point of suicide if they could look at their own hearts the way God does.

Remember that rich young ruler in Luke 18:22 who wanted to know what was necessary to receive eternal life, but wasn't interested if it wasn't what he wanted to hear? He held to the commandments and was a good person, and he figured he was good enough. His pride was his fall: as soon as he understood that he needed to part with the way of life he'd become used to, he turned and walked off. Jesus didn't mean that it's against His will that anyone be rich, but this man had come to care more about being rich than about being saved. What he expected was for Jesus to say "My good and faithful servant, you're already doing what you need to do to earn eternal life. Keep up the good work."

And that's the position of the legalist. They care more about what they do, and how much they've done to earn salvation. They don't drink, they don't smoke, they tithe, they go door-to-door witnessing, etc. They think that stuff will save them, the same way the rich young ruler thought his good behavior would save him.

The purpose of this blog is both to call out those who would seek to use the word of God to hurt people, and to warn those trapped in legalism who think they're just doing God's will of how easy it is to start trusting in their own goodness to save them. The focus in the lives of these people is not on God anymore. God should be first in our hearts, and the only one in whom we put our trust, and yet these people still think it's all about them.

By the way, I may as well say it here: This blog is not for the purpose of discussing the existence of God or the validity of the Bible in its entirety. This is entirely for believers who have already accepted Christ and believed in the Bible. I've already decided God is real and the Bible is true, and there are innumerable apologetics blogs out there, so if your purpose in posting on my blog is to challenge my stance on God's existence or the Bible, don't bother, because I won't respond and will remove the post. No, I'm not afraid of you, I don't worry that you'll be able to argue me into atheism with logic. I've debated many people countless times on the existence of God, and none of their arguments sway me, so please do yourself a favor and don't bother.

However, if you have comments or questions related to doctrinal interpretations about God's will for our lives or commandments to his followers, and the like, I'm all ears and no matter how strongly you disagree with me, I will let the comment stand. I do ask that you refrain from personal attacks. Saying stuff like "You and your pansy liberal church needs to get right with God" (that exact thing has been said to me) or questioning my salvation will not be appreciated and depending on how venomous the attack is, I may remove the post.

He drew a Circle that Shut Me Out

Edwin Markham had this to say about men like Pastor Stephen L. Anderson:

He drew a circle
That shut me out
Heretic, rebel
A thing to flout

But Love and I
Had the wit to win
We drew a circle
That took him in

Yeah, God loves Steve Anderson. I'm gonna do a lot of talking about him on this blog. Steve epitomizes everything I detest about Bible abusers who use God's word to hurt and fuel their own hate. The above video is just one of many I'll be referencing in posts to come. This man truly has no love in his heart, and it's clear from this video that he loves drawing circles to shut people out.