KJV Defense of Romans 8:1: Rebuttal to “Baptist Deception”

Some Bible agnostic who maintains an anti-Baptist website  wrote an article about Romans 8:1 being deceptive in the KJV.Even though a Baptist didn’t translate it, somehow the Baptists deliberately deceive the masses by its usage.  It is clear that the man has no clear understanding of what the text means even without the overwhelming manuscript evidence to support its inclusion into the KJV (including several Bibles that included it BEFORE the KJV). But that’s no surprise from the Alexandrian Cult. They spend so much time trying to debunk the Bible that they never really learn the Bible in ANY version let alone the KJV.

Mr Bible Agnostic quotes:

“So let’s spell this out in a little different way that may make things a little more clear. According the [sic]the KJV (and the NKJV) Romans 8:1-2 lists the requirements for having “no condemnation” as “being in Christ” AND “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. According to the NLT (and every other translation except the KJV and NKJV – Hmmmmmm) Roman’s 8:1-2 lists the requirements for having “no condemnation” as “belonging to Christ Jesus.” (Notice the little period at the end? That means there’s nothing else.)”

First of all, Romans 8:1 does not say this is a “requirement” for being in Christ. This is the typical straw man tactics used by Bible critics. The entire 3 chapters section of Romans 6-8 are describing the life of the believer over the flesh and without the law. Walking in the Spirit is a trademark of being a Christian. 1 John 5:2 says “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments”.

Paul is not saying that those who are in Christ were placed in Christ by not walking in the flesh. Paul is using this phrase to identify a professing Christian. A person who is truly in Christ does not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Galations 5:16. The very first half of the verse shows that the persons who are not under condemnation are those who are in Christ, the second half of the verse identifies what that Christian looks like. Paul is describing the believer who does not rely on his flesh to save him, and then continues that life by not walking in the flesh but by the Spirit of God.

Secondly, in verse 13, Paul says “For if ye live after the flesh YE SHALL DIE”. So it is clear in verse 13 that the context is showing that the term “condemnation” means the death of a person who believes they can be a Christian or even become a Christian by doing so according to their flesh (WORKS).  The old axiom “when the Bible says ‘therefore’ find out what it’s there for” applies. Romans 8:1 “therefore” ties in to Romans 7:24-25

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin”

Ironically, the exact same phrase in Romans 8:1 is repeated in verse 4 WHICH  IS INCLUDED IN THE NLT that the Baptist Deception Agnostic claims to be erroneous in 8:1:

“He did this so that the just requirement of the law would be fully satisfied for us, who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit.  New Living Translation (NLT)”  Ditto the NIV, The Good News Translation, the ESV (“in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”)

So the very same argument that Mr Bible Agnostic uses to refute the KJV appears in his own favored translation *just 3 verses later, and also appears in numerous other versions that don’t follow their own rules from Romans 8:1 to Romans 8:4. (*Mr Bible agnostic quotes from the ESV often on his website so perhaps that is his favored version. He uses so many it’s hard to tell! But even the ESV uses the same phrase in 8:4).

Mr Bible Agnostic also states, ” Notice the little period at the end? That means there’s nothing else.” Really? What hermeneutics class did you take in gradeschool?

So much for “Baptist Deception”. Who’s really doing the deceiving here! ~Dr James Ach

 

____________________________

By Keith Dotzler

                    Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jesus Christ has given us the most valuable gift in the world dear readers…and it cost us nothing! He died on the Cross of Calvary, taking upon Himself the sins of us all. He suffered through scourging, spitting, slapping, a crown of thorns, a spear in the side, the nails through his feet and hands, and His Father forsaking Him…all that we might live! Can you comprehend the shear magnitude of what Jesus Christ endured for us? He paid the highest price possible…to save them that were lost! Because of that great and awesome sacrifice, we now have access to the Throne of Grace, and Heaven itself! As Christians, we are no longer condemned to hell. We have been plucked out of the fire. But my friends, do we as Christians face condemnation in ANY way, for things we may do that displease the Lord? I believe we do, but the new bibles on the market, by omitting the last 10 words of Romans 8:1, give an entirely different doctrine! The new bibles would have us believe Christians will NEVER face condemnation of any kind…no matter what we do in the flesh! This is simply unbiblical, and borderline heresy! This article is written for one purpose friend…to show that the new bibles have gone against the 3 commands in Scripture, regarding tampering with God’s words:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Notice, there is a warning at the beginning, middle, and end of the Bible! Some say the warning in Revelation is for that book alone…alright, I suppose the warnings in Deuteronomy and Proverbs are only for those respective books as well? All bibles aren’t saying the same thing folks, so either the KJV has added to the word of God, or the new bibles have taken away from it. By the time we have concluded, you will know who is guilty of going against the Scriptures! With that said, let’s proceed–

First, I will again give the text of our study:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Of the 30+ translations I have, both before the KJV and after, only 13 read as the KJV. They are: Tyndale’s(1534), Cranmer(1539), Geneva(1557), NKJV, YLT, Spanish Riena Valera, WEB, Luther’s, Webster’s, MKJV, KJ21, Green’s Literal, and the Revised Websters. All others, including the popular NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc OMIT “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Why do you suppose they would do such a thing? Why have the vast majority of modern bibles aligned themselves against the KJV, by the removal of those 10 words…ten words that were believed on, trusted, and loved by the saints of old? I will answer that with some remarks by a few of the more popular commentators:

“This last clause is wanting in the principal MSS., versions, and fathers. Griesbach has excluded it from the text;” (Adam Clarke)“The evidence of manuscripts seems to show that this clause formed no part of the original text of this verse,” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown)

“”Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” does not really belong in this verse.” (J. Vernon McGee)

Are these commentators correct? Has our Authorized Version been wrong all this time? Have the “scholars” truly found evidence that points to a gross blunder on the part of the scribes, and by extension the KJV translators? Or is this all just a big fat lie, propagated by the “scholars,” who repeat it to the modern version publishers, who repeat it to the commentators, who repeat it to us? We shall answer those questions in due course.

~The Manuscript Evidence~
Before we begin with the manuscripts, I want to be clear about one thing. The last 10 words of Romans 8:1 are said to be wanting in the principal MSS., versions, and fathers. If this is true, why do they appear in the Authorized Version? Thomas Holland explains the “status quo” line of thinking, on the part of the Alexandrian “scholars,” regarding these precious 10 words of Scripture:

“The phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” appears in verses one and four. Most scholars consider this a special type of scribal error called dittography, which is the repetition of a letter, syllable, word, or phrase. The thought is that a scribe accidentally copied the phrase from verse four in verse one, and that the textual error repeated itself in later manuscripts.”(Holland, Crowned With Glory, ch 8–as found in the SwordSearcher Bible program)

My, my! Sounds like a reasonable mistake, doesn’t it? Ahh…, but remember friends…we are dealing with the words of God! God promised He would preserve His words FOREVER(Psa 12:6,7; cf. Matt 4:4)! So either He did, or He failed! The “scholars” are quick to shame and humiliate those of us who believe our King James Bible is perfect…yet in the past 400 years since the KJV came out — time these “scholars” have spent inspecting all the “oldest and best,” as well as newly discovered manuscripts — they have yet to give us the perfect and inerrant words of God in one volume!!! Year after year, new version after new version hits the market…and the scholars don’t claim ANY OF THEM to be the perfect and inerrant words of God!!! Surely if they know where all the “errors” are in the KJV, they could finally give us God’s words, without error, in ONE volume…don’t you think? Why haven’t they? Too much $$$ in bible publishing?

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

On to the actual evidence…

The MAJORITY of Byzantine manuscripts contain the last 10 words in question! Among the cursives: 33, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, 2495 all have the phrase. What’s interesting, is Nestles Greek Text apparatus of 1978 says the ONLY reason they omitted the last 10 words was because “Westcott and Hort reject the reading!” Can you believe that? Their recent edition no longer says that, but ADMITS that the Majority of mss contain the phrase! They would admit that…yet STILL remove the last 10 words!!! What’s going on here? Are the “scholars” not interested in the evidence, or are they instead basing their “findings” on the antiquity of 2 manuscripts from the 4th century? All will be revealed dear reader…and I have a big surprise for you, regarding one of those infamous 2 manuscripts! Let’s continue…

Some Latin manuscripts in support of the phrase are “ar,” “o,” and “a,” the latter being from the 4th century, thus putting the reading AT LEAST as early as the two “oldest and best” manuscripts…Aleph and B! The majority of lectionaries(thousands of them) also contain the last 10 words. Among the ancient versions, the Peshitta(150 a.d.) contains the phrase, as well as the Latin Vulgate, the Speculum(5th century), Harclean Syriac and Georgian versions.

Early church fathers who cite the phrase are Chrysostom(4th century), Theodoret(5th century), ps Oecumenius(10th century), and Theophylact(11th century). Taking into account that Chrysostom quotes the entire verse, in the 4th century, WORD FOR WORD as it appears in the Authorized Version…along with the Peshitta of the 2nd century containing the phrase, it is CLEAR to those with eyes to see that the reading was genuine from the beginning, then was removed by the corrupt manuscripts, from whence all the modern bibles originate!

CHRYSOSTOM (4th century) – “And as to our having received more abundant help, hear thou Paul, when he saith,” There is therefore no condemnation now to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: for the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Homilies, #16, pg 242 as found in The Master Christian Library, Ver 7, Disk 1)

The fact that Chrysostom quotes the verse, verbatim, speaks louder than those fathers who don’t cite it! As a dear brother recently reminded me, “an argument from silence is no argument at all…and would never stand up in a court of law!”

Ok…now let’s look at the evidence against the reading “who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.” Nestles 27th edition Greek text apparatus gives the following “evidence” against the KJV:

• Aleph*
• B
• D*
• F
• G
• 6
• 1506
• 1739
• 1881
• and a “few” othersAnd according to the Expositor’s Greek New Testament:
• the Egyptian and Ethiopic versions
• Origen
• Athanasius(There is some question though, as to whether he even cites the VERSE, let alone omits the phrase!)THAT’S IT! That’s the ONLY evidence against the last 10 words of Romans 8:1, as found in our Authorized Version! I’ll bet you are wondering why Aleph and D have astericks next to them, aren’t you? Here’s where the surprise comes in…Aleph and D have been corrected to read as the Traditional Text! In other words, they support the KJV reading, depending on which corrector you trust(Aleph was altered at least 10 times)!!! Ultimately, this means the testimony of those 2 manuscripts is unsure, thus the short list of evidence against the reading of the KJV is now even shorter! But that’s not all friends! I have another surprise for you, from the mouth of F.J.A. Hort himself! He was one of the men behind the entirely “new” Greek text, that became the foundation of the ERV of 1881(along with Traditional Text readings where the ERV didn’t follow the Westcott/Hort text), and all modern bibles since! Ready?
  

  “The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century.” (Hort,The Factor of Geneology, pg 92—as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257)

  Did you catch that astounding admission folks?!? Many today, who oppose the Authorized Version’s accuracy, often claim that the manuscripts that underlie it are from the 10th to 12th centuries(depending on who you talk to), yet Hort himself has just told us they are IDENTICAL to manuscripts of the 4th century!!! So much for Aleph and B being the “oldest and best” huh?Having shown all the evidence, both for and against the last 10 words of Romans 8:1, I’m sure it is clear to those with eyes to see that the modern bibles have been corrupted! Not only are organizations like Nestles/Aland, United Bible Societies, etc using corrupt texts, taken from corrupt manuscripts, as the basis of each and every new bible that hits the market almost bi-yearly…but when the evidence is, by far, in favor of the reading in the Authorized Version, they willfully CHOOSE to rely on the minority of evidence! Aleph and B are their gods…period. Hort admitted that his goal in producing the “new” Greek text for the ERV of 1881 was to overthrow that “vile Textus Receptus.” He and Westcott, with the help of Origen, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others, have succeeded. The “scholars” of today, just like Westcott and Hort did in the 1800’s, revere 2 manuscripts above all others…even when the other 5000+ manuscripts disagree with them! And let it be known to you dear reader, Aleph and B disagree among themselves over 3000 times in the Gospels alone! Oldest doesn’t always mean best…unless you are out to make money on the ever-increasing cry for “easier to read” bibles! The Body of Christ has been seduced away from the truth. “Yea, hath God said is still being whispered in the itching ears of God’s people. And, like Eve, they are falling for the lies of the adversary! Wake up Christian! All Bibles are not saying the same thing! They are saying things contrary not only to the King James Bible, but to themselves…and within their own two covers!!!

  When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses the second time, were all 10 commandments included in the second copy, or were some missing? Oh, I know what you are thinking…some of the omissions in the new bibles, such as the last 10 words of our text, were “accidentally” inserted, as a result of the same phraseology appearing in another verse a few lines down, right? Let me ask you this: the book of Deuteronomy deals with the second giving of the Law. In fact, in Greek, Deuteronomy comes from “deuteros” and “nomas.” The former meaning “second,” the latter meaning “Law.” The Law wasn’t replaced, but was repeated! So here’s the question, if Deuteronomy repeats the Law, as given in Exodus, should it be considered a gloss…and be removed? Was the Law accidentally copied a second time? If the Law can be repeated in the Bible, and not be considered a scribal blunder, why is it that everywhere else where phrases occur more than once, such as Mark 9:44, 46, and 48, they are considered as such…and removed in the next “up-to-date” bible? Don’t be fooled by our adversary friends! The wiles of the devil are so subtle, that not even Peter himself was immune!

  We will now move on to the doctrinal aspects of this gross corruption in the new bibles…

  ~Effects on Biblical Doctrine~I asked at the beginning of this article if Christians suffer any condemnation whatsoever, when they disobey or rebel against the Lord. The modern bibles, by removing the phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” give the Christian the idea that no matter what they do as Christians, they won’t be condemned. Part of the problem is that they equate the word “condemned” to being cast into hell. This simply isn’t the case!

  The following is from Barnes’ commentary, where he puts it rather succinctly:

  No condemnation. “This does not mean that sin in believers is not to be condemned as much as anywhere, for the contrary is everywhere taught in the Scriptures; but it means,(1.) that the gospel does not pronounce condemnation like the law. Its office is to pardon; the office of the law, to condemn. The one never affords deliverance, but always condemns; the object of the other is to free from condemnation, and to set the soul at liberty.

  (2.) There is no final condemnation under the gospel. The office, design, and tendency of the gospel is to free from the condemning sentence of law. This is its first and its glorious announcement, that it frees lost and ruined men from a most fearful and terrible condemnation.”

  Being a believer does not make one immune from condemnation when he sins. We are not condemned to hell as Christians, but we are chastened by our Lord when we follow the flesh, and live in sin. Look at Acts 5:1-10.

  Acts 5:1-10

  1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
  2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
  3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
  4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
  5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
  6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
  7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
  8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
  9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
  10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

  Ananias and Sapphira were KILLED by the Lord Himself for lying! And they were Christians! We would all do well to remember this event recorded in the word of our Lord! Next, look at Moses. Granted, he wasn’t a member of the Church, but he was a child of God. How was he condemned? He was told he would not enter the promised land, as a result of striking the rock with his staff a second time, when he wasn’t instructed by the Lord to do so! The first time was a command from the Lord. The second time was because he lacked faith that God would provide, and so struck the rock for water, lest they die of thirst. So here is an example of a child of God being condemned for his lack of faith! Compare that to Romans 14:22,23.

  Romans 14:22-23 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

  The condemnation spoken of in Romans 8:1 is not hell, but putting one’s self back under the Law. As brother Ron Powell puts it:

  “The condemnation of Romans 8:1 is not the condemnation of John 5:24, but the condemnation of Romans 8:13, where a Christian puts himself back under the law. Because of this, God condemns him in the flesh, destroys the body, as in the Lord’s supper [not judging one’s self when eating – I Corinthians 11], with the destruction of the flesh following, that the spirit may be saved, etc. [I Corinthians 5].”

  Amen. Our final example of believers falling under condemnation will be in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. In these chapters, the Lord Jesus Christ instructed John to write unto the seven churches of Asia Minor. Unto Ephesus he writes:

  Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

  Unto Pergamos he writes:

  Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

  Unto Thyatira he writes:

  Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

  Unto Laodicea he writes:

  Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

  For each thing the Lord had against those 4 churches, He told them what the punishment would be, except they repent! They wouldn’t be cast into hell, but would suffer nonetheless! Believers WILL suffer condemnation for walking after the flesh dear friends! When we stand before the Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ, certain of our works will be burned up, but we will be saved, so as by fire! We will suffer loss for each reward we lose! IS that not a form of condemnation? The modern bibles have obscured this truth, by removing the last 10 words of our text. Sure, the passages I used for my examples can be found in a new bible, but the very verse that SPECIFICALLY states the condition, upon which we as Christians will not face condemnation, has been wiped out!

  “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

  In closing, doubtless some will ask: “Does the change in my bible affect someone’s salvation? Can a person get saved by reading a new bible?”

  Of course they can, just like they can by reading a tract. BUT…if your father gave you a solid gold pocket watch, and some adversary of yours came along and put 200 gold-plated digital watches, which are easier to read, along side of it, would you be able to tell time with them, just as you could with your father‘s pocket watch? Did your father give you the digital watches? Are ALL of the watches considered those of your father? The Bible is NOT a book that flows with the ever-changing denigration of the English language! The Bible was given to us from God the Father! He only gave ONE version of His word! 200 conflicting bibles cannot all be the words of God! Sadly, some will fight to the death over the genuine pocket watch given to them by their earthly father, yet the words of God, their Heavenly Father, are treated like trash…all in the name of “faith!” Faith that says“God gave us all these translations to make it easier for us to understand His word in this ever-changing world.” NONSENSE!!! A million times, NONSENSE!!! The Bible is a closed book to unbelievers! Unbelievers are “spiritually discerned” when it comes to understanding the truths of Scripture! If you don’t believe that, take it up with your Maker, for He is the One who said it! An unbeliever can understand only so much in his unregenerate state. Once saved, it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth! It is the Holy Spirit who helps us to understand the Scriptures! Dumbing down the language of the bible, to make it easier for the heathen, as well as for the carnal Christians to understand, is abominable! You are tampering with the very words of our Creator and Saviour!!! And if you can’t understand the “archaic” English of the KJV, then,

  1) You aren’t saved

  2) You aren’t READING it enough!

  I hope this article has been as much a blessing for you to read, as it was for me to write. Praise the Lord for His perfect and inerrant word, found in the Authorized King James Bible! I would die defending the words of my King James Bible, against any and all attacks by our adversary…would you do the same for your NIV, NASB, or other modern “up-to-date” English bible?

  Your brother in Christ Jesus,

  Keith Dotzler

• avdefense.webs.com

Anti Fundamentalist Blame Game

A contributor on the SFL site made the following comment:

This whole conversation seems to support something I have noticed for a while since leaving fundamentalism: many former Fundies brought the attitude and spirit of fundamentalism with them when they left, i.e, hatred, anger, arrogance and believing if you don’t agree 100% with them, then you are an enemy.

It is an attitude that is held throughout all of the antifundamentalist groups: that the IFB made them who they are. The IFB forced them to become bitter, full of “hatred, anger, arrogance” because the “spirit of fundamentalist” overpowered their will.

Something that I have noticed within fundamentalism is that a person that was an angry person while they were a fundamentalist, continues to be an angry person when they leave fundamentalism. It is ironic how often they accuse Baptists of “blaming victims” and then they blame everyone but themselves for how they act.

It is not the “spirit of fundamentalist” that causes an ex-fundamentalist to be “arrogant”. You are an arrogant person BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ARROGANT PERSON.

Yet this is nothing new to history. When Eve at the fruit, she blamed the serpent. When God confronted Adam, he blamed Eve.

“And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Genesis 3:12

Notice how the subject went from Adam to “the man said”. Sin was now a problem that would affect all of his posterity. And with the infection of sin, came with it the denial of culpability for ones actions.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? Gen 4:9

Those who left fundamentalism carried with them their own self righteousness, and continue to act out of their own self righteousness. They are by far, better than any “fundy” they will ever meet again, and will relentlessly assassinate the character of all fundamentalists to prove it.

Sure there are a small handful of Baptist leaders who have executed their own self righteousness and pleasured themselves at the expense of others, but when I hear someone who makes such broad brush accusations against Baptists on how self righteous, angry, resentful, hateful and arrogant they are, I can’t help but think “Those people are not in the church anymore. You can find them all at the Stuff Fundies Like and Do Right websites”!

We all have an innate desire to be right, recognized, and revered(pride). This is why you see such personal attacks offered by the “Do Right” and SFL crowds and those like Darrell Dow who disguise their vitriol as satire. They have a desire to be right about their accusations without any regard for what the truth is or simply admitting they don’t know. Arguments like this on forms are common, where the commenter is defending a position that he/she claims to be right about, and rather than risk the embarrassment of being wrong,  begins ad hominem attacks against their opponent. That strong desire to be right fears exposure, flees truth, and blames others, and avoids discussions about the Bible because there’s a chance that the sword (Heb 4:12) may lay their motives wide open.

The Jews used to have a saying, “The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge”. Ezekiel 18:2. Psychology still uses this today. Because your parents ate sour grapes, you became a rebel and anything you do is not sin because it’s really your parents fault. Because Mrs Doe didn’t shake your hand at church, she hates you and is avoiding you on purpose because your shoes don’t match. The preacher was bad so it’s his fault that I act like a heathen.

To this God replies:

As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

If I mistreat my wife and say something unkind, it’s MY fault, not hers. If I lose my temper and yell at my children, it’s MY fault, not theirs. If I had an argument in church and am still upset about it, and take it out on a co-worker, it’s MY fault, I sinned. There are times when I get into heated debates with my own brothers and say things I should not say. Is it their fault for provoking me? Doesn’t matter, I am responsible for my reaction, AND SO ARE YOU.

The “spirit of fundamentalism” did not cause you to be angry, hateful and arrogant: YOU DID. If you never set foot again in another Baptist church, you will still have the same problem: YOU.

Although this article is directed at a particular audience, don’t think that any of the rest are exempt from this. I have been equally guilty of blaming someone or something else for something I did and I’m sure many readers have as well. But if you are a Christian, then you know the misery of living in denial of your responsibility for your own actions. It is a cancer that causes the emotional responses we see from the antifundamentalists, and a response that will destroy your marriage, your family, and your friendships, and your fellowship with God.

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

J/A

Jeri Massi’s “Destroyer of the Faith”

[*Note: Since this article was published, Jeri has republished the article on her website under the title, “Loss of Faith” or rather that “Destroyer of the Faith was a rehash of Loss of Faith]

On May 9, 2013, Jeri Massi wrote a blog entitled “Destroyer of the Faith” in that after the first few paragraphs of ranting about experiences in her earlier years as a fundamentalist, attempts to define the cause of departure of those who have abdicated from either fundamentalism or evangelicalism. She does offer a few good points, but then true to form, inserts her personal bias that causes the avid Bible student to take what she says with a grain of salt.

In her first attack against fundamentalists, Jeri opines that:

Fundamentalists believe in an inert, dead, random cosmos. In essence, while maintaining that they believe in Creationism, they use the evidences of atheism and an atheistic view of the universe to support their argument.

And then argues after this bullet that:

Science. This is pretty close to the first item, but I think the distinction is that Fundamentalism forces its adherents to ignore new discoveries in genetics and physics that support evolutionary theory

While Jeri does not explain how she arrives at the conclusion that fundamentalists believe in an inert, dead, random cosmos, it is laughable that she compares a fundamentalists defense of creationism to the same model used by atheists.

Atheism begins with the premise that there is no God. That fact alone is enough to discredit Jeri’s caricature of fundamentalists arguments for creation. If a fundamentalist believes that God created the universe, then it’s pretty simple to conclude that the model of debates are not synonymous among the two. Jeri may attempt to assume that arguing for creation ex nihilo is a similar model since atheistic evolution applies that same standard to gases and it’s chaos theory, but that does not mean that the egg came before the chicken anymore than fundamentalists who have always maintained this position borrowed it from atheists. I’m pretty sure Moses and Job would agree.

Nevertheless, what is stifling about Jeri’s argument is that she often cites the Bible as an authority in the majority of her writings, which would be commendable if her methods and conclusions were accurate. Yet, in this argument, she demonstrates that there are some arguments where external evidences take precedent over the Bible. So is science Jeri’s final authority? or the Bible?

It is hypocritical and inconsistent that Jeri claims to hold the Bible as the authority on spiritual matters, but then demand that fundamentalists be required to remain apprised of all the new discoveries of science that attempt to discredit creationism.

If a Christian claims to believe the Bible, and that the Bible is sufficient to explain the origins of the universe and all creation, why would it be necessary to respond to any “new” discoveries that science claims as a rebuttal to any Christian model of creationism?

The Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” in the very opening statement of the scriptures. The Bible further states that God created something from nothing or the ex nihilo position (which is not only clear from the first chapter of Genesis, but also a logical deduction made from Romans 4:17). Romans 1:20 states,

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:

Not only does the Bible explain that the world was created, but that it was God that created it, and this fact is emphasized so much by Paul that he holds it as evidence that those who reject it are without excuse.

Moreover, the Bible says that the fool says there is no God. Psalm 14:1.

Furthermore, the Bible explicitly admonishes the believer to reject falsely so-called science. 1 Timothy 6:20.

And what is science but a man-made system of rules that define its observances. The rules of science in the humanistic sense do not permit for the existence of God to be a logical conclusion. For example, the six-step scientific method (and some argue for additional steps) can not place a miracle into a controlled environment, and then repeat the results, and therefore miracles are beyond the realm of what science can verify by its own rules. Since creation would be considered a miracle, yet can not meet the criteria for scientific observance and experimentation, it is thus rejected by the majority of the scientific community because the standard of evidence required to “prove” creation is different from say the standard of evidence required for proof in a court room.

Although science argues against faith, ultimately, the scientist must believe that his assumptions and theories are correct, which does not do much to separate it from a religion, and often serves to prove its bias.

The atheistic model of creation has at least 2 popular premises: that there was a cosmic explosion, and that there were gases and other chemicals that existed from which all life derived given billions of years to culminate.

No matter what new discovery is published, scientists of such ilk can not explain how order came from chaos, or where the chaos came from. If there was a “big bang”, where did the bang come from? If there were gases, where did the gases come from? The model of atheist evolution ultimately requires an infinite series of existing gases and bangs, none of which could ever independently exist by themselves and without any previous evidence of intelligence, somehow developed intelligence from non-intelligence and injected that into humans, animals, and then it created trees, complex DNA structures, gravity, and weather conditions conducive to creating additional life forms and sustaining all matters of life.

The atheistic model argues against an Infinite Intelligent Designer that existed for eternity, but argues for an infinite series of explosions and gases. The premises and conclusions of atheistic evolution are so illogical that it is not necessary for one who believes the Biblical explanation of creation to “keep up” with science. Following Jeri’s logic to its least common denominator, Jeri would argue for the possibility that even though she believes in the Biblical model of creation, that eventually science could refute it with some new discovery. This would demonstrate that Jeri does not have a clear conviction about the origin of the universe, which would in essence, make her an agnostic. She certainly can not claim to reprove fundamentalism according to the Bible, and then reject the Biblical explanation of creation and still claim to believe that Bible she uses to reprove fundamentalists.

Hypocrisy

Now this is where Jeri actually DOES have a valid point. It has been said by many that “I would have become a Christian had it not been for Christians”. I had a grandmother that used to say, “You may be the only Bible somebody ever reads”, and that reflects a passage that Paul mentions in  2 Corinthians 3:2:

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men

What is ironic though is that Jeri recently wrote an article condemning “standards” within fundamentalism, and then states:

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals live in a religion where the only way to cope with it is to go through it with one eye closed against what its own ministers and leaders are doing in direct disobedience to what Christ commanded. [Emphasis added]

Um…Jeri…could those things in which fundamentalists and evangelicals are in direct disobedience to be called STANDARDS! Perhaps the reason that fundamentalists nor evangelicals demonstrate the love of Christ nor a reflection of holiness is because they are repeatedly told by many other preachers and bloggers that Christianity has no “do’s and don’ts” in it, and when arguing so vehemently against standards, it leaves people wondering if there is any objective standard in which to evaluate the life of a believer from knowing what is sin, and what type of behaviors to avoid. If there are none, then everything is permissible, and if everything is permissible, then is it really the fault of the person who acts no different from the rest of the world for doing what nothing prohibits him/her from doing?

You can argue that “well, Jesus is our example, just ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ'”. As true as that statement is, it neglects the pragmatic and practical applications of how that is implemented throughout the Bible. Those applications are often found on what fundamentalists call “standards”.

Granted, there is room for justified criticism of fundamentalists that invent man-made rules (Mark 7:13) based upon adiaphora, but over all the standards preached within fundamentalism are legitimate, and hypocrisy is a result of rebelling against those standards. Paul said that God foreordained us unto good works (Eph 2:10). Although works are not a requirement to be saved, you can not confuse justification with sanctification. Works are a compliment to faith and demonstrate its validity (James 2:10-23), they are not an enemy of living by faith unless a person relies on them to be justified before God.

Thus, I can not criticize Jeri for rightly pointing out that far too often the biggest obstacle to Christianity are Christians.

However, in this analysis, even though hypocrisy can be listed as a REASON for abdicating ones faith, it is not a legitimate EXCUSE for rejecting it. Jesus Christ is not responsible for the actions of hypocrites, and ultimately, He will judge their hypocrisy whether here in this life or the other side of heaven. 1 Timothy 5:24. Should Christians demonstrate good works so that men may see the difference and glorify God? Yes. Matthew 5:16, but every man shall give an account of themselves to God (Romans 14:12) and whether at the judgment seat of Christ, or the Great White Throne judgment, no Christian or unbeliever will be excused for their actions based upon the hypocrisy of another person.

God has revealed enough of Himself and offered enough evidence for what Jesus Christ did through the cross, and how to live as a Christian, that one can live a victorious Christian life pleasing to God regardless of what actions others take that are contrary to scripture.

When I was a teenager, I worked part-time in a  restaurant. There were standards and rules for preparing the food, and there were many that for the sake of production concerns, “cut corners”. This often resulted in many complaints and even though it was a reflection of the franchise, that did not mean that I had to compromise my ability to prepare the food the way it should be done because others cut corners. I had the choice of either cutting corners myself, or following the codes that were in effect to make sure that the customer had a healthy and pleasant dining experience.

Eventually, the management were able to determine who was cutting corners and terminated them (a lesson that fundamentalists could practice), and the customers often requested that I prepare their meals. I was able to keep customers coming back to the restaurant, because even though there were some that gave the franchise a bad name, there were a few that refused to cut corners.

Those who did not like the corner cutters could make the choice of blaming them and never coming back, or they could realize that there were employees that did not cut corners and strived to provide a good product and continue their patronage.

That’s not a perfect analogy, but there are Christians in fundamentalism that continue to strive to present Christ in a Biblical manner, and fundamentalism as a whole should not be boycotted and vilified because of the few corner cutters.

While I do not consider Jeri Massi to be of the same ilk as many of those I criticize on here or as egregious in her methods as many other so-called advocates, there remains many fatal flaws in her hermeneutics and in her caricatures of fundamentalism, and the article at issue here is just one small example of that.

Jocelyn Zichterman’s Group Promoting Bible Burning

Just when I thought the rantings at Jocelyn Zichterman’s rampantly atheistic group “Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Cult Survivors” couldn’t get any worse, someone sent us a link to this post which begins:

Kevin Bowden

Finally made it through the new testament.The rice paper in the bible makes great rollin paper.

And of course, this Bible burning in using the Bible for rolling either cigarettes or marijuana gets tacit approval from the sister of Jocelyn Zichterman, and group administrator, Melissa Fletcher, who replies:

I always had “don’t destroy the Bible” guilt. Like the KJV, thrashed out book of my childhood would somehow make me wrong with God if I tossed it.

One poster who made it clear that he was not IFB, simply asked “what’s wrong with believing the Bible” and because of that statement, was called a “Bible thumper” to which Melissa replied, “Bible thumpers are not welcomed here”.

The group began as an attack against the IFB and it’s followers based on experiences that Jocelyn Zichterman had with her own father, Bart Janz, a Baptist preacher, and her brother Jason Janz, also a preacher. Jocelyn’s husband, Joseph Zichterman, was also once a highly recognized fundamentalist preacher and together along with his wife, had a website that encouraged belief in the scriptures when Joseph made an unexpected and abrupt change and left his Baptist pulpit.

Their flight away from the IFB also appears to have occurred after Jocelyn’z brother, Jeremy, passed away after spending 14 years in a coma caused by an automobile accident [1](although it appears from other articles I have seen that Jeremy, too, was included in the allegations of sexual abuse against Jocelyn although I am not aware to what extent. I have read where the allegations against Jason Janz involved him being on top of her fully clothed when they were in their early teens [2], but have not been advised or informed if there were allegations that exceeded those details, and considering the source of the above link #2, without separate corroboration can not rely solely on a single comment from a person who claims to know Jason).

Nevertheless, the group has evolved into an all-out attack against Christianity as a whole. The allegations against Bart, Jason, Jeremy, if true would certainly give Jocelyn validation for her anger, but why blame God? Unfortunately, many who suffer abuse at the hands of professing Christians throw the Bible out altogether (or burn it, as is the matter at issue in this article). It’s as though if God is all-powerful, and COULD have stopped abuse, then the conclusion is that He SHOULD have stopped it, and because it was permitted per se, according to the abused it is ultimately God’s fault.

This is a classic argument against Christianity in the problem of the existence of evil. If God is a loving God, why does He permit chaos? The short answer to that (and I say short because there have been entire volumes written on this subject) is that God gave man dominion over the earth, and man chose to use his choice to acquire knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God which produced a domino effect that has cursed all of humanity with sin. Although God provided a remedy from the penalty of sin in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the deliverance from the presence of sin and judgment upon unbelievers is yet future. God has not forced man to comply with His standards, and since He is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance, in His patience He has allowed man the opportunity to come to Christ even during a time where it appears that evil has been the victor in world events.

The fact remains is that God HAS done something about evil, but man in his lust for vengeance seeks his own brand of justice, and wants that justice right now, and if God doesn’t judge immediately and prevent evil from occurring, He must not be a loving God. Yet those who are unsaved are already under judgment and are awaiting their sentence if they have not received the free pardon that is offered through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These are all facts that were once known to Jocelyn, and she has allowed the crisis she has faced to shape her views against God, and is now encouraging and permitting an assault against the Bible, Christians, and God altogether.

What is also sad are the amount of members who at one time, professed to be Christians, now siding with Jocelyn. Two of the most noteworthy are Cynthia McClaskey and Nancy Bicknell. We’ve written a few words about Cynthia on here, but Nancy Bicknell has been the moderator in Jocelyn’s group for about six months according to Jocelyn. Nancy Bicknell poses as a Christian in groups like Profaned Pulpit (an anti-IFB group but with at least some emphasis on the Bible in that the group encourages belief in God and the Bible, but maintains many of the attitudes of the other anti-fundamentalist groups) and yet sings the praises of Jocelyn Zichterman in the following comment:

So proud of your accomplishment…what a great book and timing to open the eyes of the public to the IFB abuse.

Nancy Bicknell places humanism and psychiatry above God and the Bible, and if she is or ever was a Christian, it amazes me how any professing Christian deems it wise or appropriate to stand in agreement with those who attack God and the Bible. It is like the Pharisees and Sadducees who even though having fundamentally different views of Old Testament doctrine, came to agreement on the “problem” of Jesus Christ and ultimately set aside their differences for a common cause and conspired to crucify Him.

But God will not be mocked. The sad thing is that the Bible they are burning will be their judge one day. And the retributions that they accused God of neglecting will be a reality against them for their rejection of and mocking of Jesus Christ. Nobody will get away with their abuse or sin when this world eventually draws to a close.

Jocelyn Zichterman Going Green or Going Crazy!

In a rare appearance on her own group page (she has a habit of starting groups and then not paying attention to them), Jocelyn Zichterman, the woman who “fired God”, wrote the following for a topic discussion:

Another topic: Do we die and go to the “kingdom of heaven”? Or are we living ON the kingdom of heaven? If you conclude we die and GO TO the kingdom of heaven, you would surmise (potentially) that we shouldn’t give a F*** about this earth we live on. But if you understand we’ve been given this planet by God/s, then you surmise that we must CARE FOR this planet (yes?). What were you taught and how has it altered your view of “Going Green” and what that means to the human race? [profanity edited by us]

At first I thought she may have simply switched religions and went from her old Baptist roots to Catholicism and was attempting to start a discussion on Dominion Theology, but then I noticed that “God/s” was plural, so considering the degree of which atheism has been promoted in her group, and the amount of Christians being banned from the group, perhaps maybe Wiccan? [1][2]

I thought, Joc just wants to have a pow-wow about tree hugging, she doesn’t really mean let’s all go green. But then just when I thought she could have accused the Baptists of everything from cereal that gets too soggy too soon, to stores that can’t sell helium for balloons anymore, she made this grandiose claim:

I understand what both of you are saying. That’s why I brought this up. We have to rally together as a nation/world and enable everyone to “go green” or it will never happen. Just thoughts to chew on — but it’s a new day — and if we all talk about our childhoods and how they indoctrinated us to HATE this earth, well, we can be the ones to inform the masses — so LASTING change can finally be made. If we don’t understand how to take care of the place we live on — then how in the Gods name can we be entrusted to care for anything else? [emphasis added]

Now I must admit, THAT’S a new one! So now to add that Baptists subjugate and objectify women, teach members to abuse children, we can add “indoctrinating us to hate this earth” to the list.

I get that spending quality time with abortion proponent and Democratic National Committee spokeswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, may have went to her head (the Dems have a time of it promoting Al Gores Green Agenda), but to go full Shirley Maclaine on the Baptists with the absurd notion that our children were taught to hate the earth?

I’ve listened to a lot of preachers in my life, read hundreds of books written by Baptists, and spent countless hours watching videos of sermons and lectures by Baptist preachers, and I don’t remember in my childhood or church experience ever being taught that my enemy was the earth, the flesh and the devil.

Shame on the Baptists for not taking the earth’s feelings seriously and for minimizing and covering up abuse of the trees. Perhaps she can get “shoot Baptists on site” added to the Biodiversity Treaty (signed by Clinton in ’99) if their children are found in a tree house made from endangered wood.

DISCLAIMER

No trees, grass, or leaves were harmed in the publishing of this article, it was completely electronically produced from a computer made with recycled plastic.

________________________________

See also “The Fruit of Jocelyn Zichterman’s “I Fired God”=Atheism