/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>829467

> Is Steven Anderson a Christian?

Probably not, but I still think he's hilarious.

>>829467

He is filled with hate, but I do think he loves Christ. He is the lost sheep Jesus spoke of

>>829467

There's a lot to criticize Anderson over but unrighteous hatred is not one of them. He is clearly a regenerate Christian and he does a lot of great work for the Lord.

I think Anderson loves Our Lord dearly, even if to my mind he's consistently wrong about lots of things. He's top entertainment though.

>>829480

What did Jesus do with the adulterous woman? Who were the people Jesus was angry with? He seems to be more in line with the pharisee in that he knows what do, having studied the scripture, but chooses to act against it.

FAGGGGGOT

he's one of those Protestants who believe that ONLY the King James Bible is the inspired word of God.

Seems strange… there was no Word of God before 1611 then. And only people who speak English can read God's word as intended.

I just don't understand how you can believe that the Christ One True Church sprang into existence in 1611.

>>829488

Literally a sodomite argument

>>829467

i don't think he's purposefully deviant, but he takes his 'reprobate' doctrine too far, although he said his flock can disagree with him on it, but to tell people to kill themselves, im not sure how ones conscience would allow that.

>>829467

The Bible also says that sodomites deserve death.

It was Steven Anderson's preaching that introduced me to Christianity. Before I started listening to his sermons I was still in that mindset that Christianity was a Jew D/C weapon against the West, but it was Steven Anderson that showed me that Christianity is explicitly anti-kike and anti-faggot.

He's a great man of God and I guarantee you he's done more for the Lord than literally anyone on this board who attacks him.

>>829467

He's a fringe lunatic that screams a lot, makes a mockery of preaching, and even from baptist theology POV, he's a huge heretic.

The faster he slips into anonimity, the better.

>>829507

>>829499

Leviticus says all fornicators/adulterers deserve stoning, even hetero ones.

It adds the adjective 'abomination' to the homo case, rightfully so.

Jesus stopped the stonings so no more death for adulterers.

Homos are to repent and be celibate.

Those who want death for degenerates instead of repentance can go be a jew or muslim.

>>829498

Yeah, he's wrong about that. The Bible says the word of the lord will be preserved from generation to generation. It's Psalms 12:7 I think. Anyways, if that's the case and if Steven is right, then the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is always right, then we've just established that Steven is wrong and if he's wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? Quite a lot.

>>829507

Sounds like you went from bad to worse. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He uses religion to justify hate. I won't condone sinful behavior, but he uses religion to attack anyone the same way the pharisee did. He knows the letter, not the heart.

>>829499

>citing the Gospel

>a sodomite argument

lmao

>>829503

He says it's to protect children, because he thinks a higher percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles, and that God already gave them over to a reprobate mind, so they're on a set course to Hell either way.

>>829510

Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman because the man wasn't present to be stoned as well.

>>829898

>so they're on a set course to Hell either way.

You know, history makes it abundantly clear stuff like "Trail of Blood" is bs, but neo-donatist doctrines of "if you do X, you can never be forgiven again. Ever" applied to an increasing list of sins(depending on how fringe you are) really shows that, to quote A canticle for Leibowitz, "Hell has a limited imagination down there".

>>829898

>he thinks a higher percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles

Actually he says the two groups are identical, even though that is plainly false in both directions.

>>829934

There are such a thing as reprobates. It's absolutely Biblical to teach this fact. The world hates the idea but it comes from God.

>>829939

The identity of the reprobate is known to God alone

>>829941

Pretty much.

Anderson is just doing half-assed amateur calvinism, so he's a sort of edgy wannabe reformed baptist(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists)

>>829944

Aside from use of the term “reprobate” Anderson’s theology has almost nothing in common with Calvinism

>>829944

>Anderson

>calvinism

Lol

>>829941

Found someone that agrees with me on my point. Exactly right. Nobody should be denying the concept of being reprobate, Except they be denying the word of God also.

>>830042

KJV-onlyism is retarded. And if you know anything about translating languages, you'd know this. When you translate from one language to another, you have to fudge it a bit. That it to say, you have to switch up words as grammar is different and common idioms and phrases in one language may have no equivalents in the other. This is even more true with languages that have little to nothing in common, like ya know, Ancient Greek to English or Hebrew to English.

Take for example going from Spanish to English (languages that are very similar):

>Como se llama?

A literal translation would be: "How yourself call?"

>What does it actually mean in English?

A contextual translation would be: "What is your name?"

The KJV takes the literal approach more often, the "how yourself call?" Whereas a translation like the New Living Translation (NLT) will take the contextual approach to translating the Bible, the "what is your name?". The NIV would somewhere in the middle keeping it literal but adding context, "how do you call yourself?" All mean the same thing. They're just different approaches to translation

Because the KJV is a more literal translation from the original Greek and Hebrew which is why, in part, it's tough to slug through, even if you know the Early Modern English it was written in. As a result, you've got strange grammar in the KJV that's awkward for English speakers. But not only that, what can be said in 10 words in Greek, needs 25 in English for a clunky literal translation. Other Bible translations like the NIV that take a more contextual approach to translation can translate those same 10 words with 10 words in English while maintaining the original meaning. This is how you end up with removed verses. It's not that information is being hidden from you. It's just that the newer translations say the same exact thing with less words. And because you have less words, that verse is "removed" because there's nothing to put there. The meaning that needed two verses to convey in the KJV was conveyed in the NIV in one verse.

And if we're being truthful, even the KJV isn't a 100% literal translation that's word-for-word with the original Greek and Hebrew. If it were, it's be incomprehensible and just outright unreadable.

But when it comes down to it, the major Bible translations out there in English, they all convey the same meaning from version to version. All the verse discrepancies between translations, missing, added, and so forth, accumulate to a half a page, and none of them threaten the Christian doctrine, the Word of God. It's just the result in taking different approach to translation, not the deliberate changing of the meaning of the original Word of God.

Are there bad translations? Yes.

The best approach is to have two or more translations and compare them. Personally, I have a KJV, NIV, and CEB translation.

I'd appreciate him more if not for the KJV-Onlyism, and his treatment of Christians who use different bibles. They're all in the fight for the Gospel and against degeneracy, but somehow, he gets distracted and equivocates fellow bible believers with queers. It's a problem of all independent/fundamentalist baptist types. They are men who are not alone as they think they are, and love destroying whatever few allies they actually have.

>>830603

>KJV-onlyism is retarded.

Did anyone actually espouse the straw man version of KJV-onlyism that you have in your head? Did anyone even claim to be a KJV-onlyist? I'm pretty sure the post you responded to said "in the English language" which implies there can be equivalent translations in other languages as well as the underlying language.

>When you translate from one language to another, you have to fudge it a bit. That it to say, you have to switch up words as grammar is different and common idioms and phrases in one language may have no equivalents in the other.

Accurate translation is not described as "fudging," that is not unless you think that the Bible should not be translated as in your mind accurate translation is not possible? But if accurate translation is not possible, why do we read that people heard the word of God in their language during the book of Acts when the apostles spoke in tongues? Serious question.

>phrases in one language may have no equivalents in the other.

The wonderful thing about the Bible is that it builds its own context. If you translate the same thing accurately in every place, you can go back to the earlier uses of a word to understand its meaning in a Biblical context. If you want to learn more about a word being used, try looking at all the places it occurs. And a common rule of thumb is that with many terms, you will find that the very first instance of that word in the Bible comes with a corresponding definition given for you. Example, the word sin first occurs in Genesis 4:7. Therefore the Bible as a whole helps to build its own context and define itself, the better you know it, even in any language the better you will understand the words. And all this is without losing sight of the underlying original languages which we still have.

>The KJV takes the literal approach more often, the "how yourself call?"

Example of the KJV using bad grammar? You have examples of this right? If you have any actual examples that are giving you trouble please post them here.

>Whereas a translation like the New Living Translation (NLT) will take the contextual approach to translating the Bible

No sorry, basically what the "dynamic equivalence" versions do is they try to interpret the words rather than being consistent in translating them accurately. An example of this is when the NIV version of Job 38:7 says "angels" instead of "sons of God" even though the underlying root word is for "sons of God." In the footnotes the NIV will say "the word here is angels." Well, why didn't they just put "sons of God" in the main text then? Because they are interpreting the words for you rather than faithfully witnessing what the original language actually said. And these translations do the same everywhere, while not always telling you what interpretations they made for you. I want an accurate translation, not someone's interpretation of what they think the words mean! I would like people to stop throwing cold water on the idea that it is possible to have an accurate translation.

>which is why, in part, it's tough to slug through, even if you know the Early Modern English it was written in.

It's probably like that because the Bible was written that way, and it's not being dumbed down like a Dr. Seuss children's book. I want the details, I want accuracy and precision in my Bible translation. Is it really a problem that this is not always in every place as easy to read as a Dr. Seuss book or something designed for preschoolers?

>As a result, you've got strange grammar in the KJV that's awkward for English speakers.

Is it really strange or is it just holding to a particularly stringent type of grammar in order to convey things precisely? For instance "thee/thou" are singular object and subject, and "ye/you" are plural versions of the second person pronoun. Maybe that detail is important somewhere? Is that added precision really a deal-breaker for you? Because the underlying Greek language also has very high precision in its word cases as well.

>what can be said in 10 words in Greek, needs 25 in English for a clunky literal translation. Other Bible translations like the NIV that take a more contextual approach to translation can translate those same 10 words with 10 words in English while maintaining the original meaning.

Do you have an example of the NIV doing this?

>It's just that the newer translations say the same exact thing with less words.

>This is how you end up with removed verses.

Wait, no it's not! Friend, the NIV and NLT are using a different source text with those verses removed. If you compare the two translations in those places you will see the entire sentence/phrase is just completely gone. There is no stand-in equivalent. And that chart only shows you the entire verses removed, there are other verses that are completely changed while only removing a few words. For instance, in Matthew 5:22 KJV Jesus says whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. But in the NIV and others, the words "without a cause" are removed, meaning if you are angry with your brother even with a cause you are in danger of the judgment. Yet Christ Jesus himself has had righteous wrath against moneychangers. Did the Lord just warn himself in the NIV version of Matthew 5:22?

>KJV - But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

<NIV - But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

This is just ONE example, there are hundreds. The NIV removes the entire verse of Matthew 18:22 leaving no trace, it removes the entire verse of Acts 8:37, etc.

>It's not that information is being hidden from you.

Yes it is friend! They literally removed words from their source text that they translated from. It's not even a translation of the same thing anymore. Only something that's just slightly close enough to fool people into thinking it's the same, which is the satanic danger. One of the very first things satan did was corrupt what God said "just a little bit" in Genesis chapter 3.

>The meaning that needed two verses to convey in the KJV was conveyed in the NIV in one verse.

Absolutely not true. Look at the removed verses for yourself.

>even the KJV isn't a 100% literal translation that's word-for-word with the original Greek and Hebrew.

Weren't you just saying that what you call a 100% literal word-for-word translation would be a bad thing? What we're asking for here is that we be allowed to use an accurate translation and not one that has corrupted all these things and made them say differently. I can give you example after example of this.

>But when it comes down to it, the major Bible translations out there in English, they all convey the same meaning from version to version.

Actually the modern ones are corrupted, they sound similar but they actually change key doctrines in the New Testament. We can get into actual real examples of this and I'd be glad to show you.

>All the verse discrepancies between translations, missing, added, and so forth, accumulate to a half a page, and none of them threaten the Christian doctrine, the Word of God.

I can show that they do. Not only that, I can also show that by accepting these changes, you are also saying that future unpredictable changes that they make are acceptable as well. These future changes are likely to further attack the key doctrines I was talking about. There's no way to prove they won't remove those other verses in a future version as well. The people who removed words once will have no reason not to do it again in the future.

>It's just the result in taking different approach to translation,

This is objectively not true. They claim to use a different source material that was discovered in the late 19th century. Such translations were first published in 1881 by Westcott and Hort. Before that, everyone included the verses that are now removed. That's why they have verse numbers assigned to them.

>not the deliberate changing of the meaning of the original Word of God.

How do you know that the original writers of the corrupt manuscripts weren't deliberately changing it? We have well-documented reason to believe for instance that the Arians widely removed 1 John 5:7 from their manuscripts in the fourth century.

>The best approach is to have two or more translations and compare them.

The best approach is to have (at least) one accurate and consistent translation, and also having the underlying text that it is based on doesn't hurt. There is no reason to mix in translations of a different source text that use entirely different textual-critical methodologies, that's just introducing confusion. That is following the "multiple version only" position of Scripture.

He takes the reprobate theory too far, there's a verse in Galatians that basically contradicts it…"and as such were some of you"….etc.

There definitely are "reprobates" that are given up on, (basically goats or the unelect) but you can't just identify them by virtue of their homosexuality, there could be straight reprobates and even celibate reprobates and it's not up to us to identify them. We have to preach and do good to all.

Anderson won't even preach to gays or let them in his church, which is unchristian, since there are gays who are fighting their sins and trying to know God.

His KJVO is a small stumbling block, not a big deal imo.

>>830656

>His KJVO is a small stumbling block, not a big deal imo.

I very much disagree. He commits an even worse sin here than anything: Because he slanders other Christians from it. It's one thing to cast doubt on reprobates, but he would malign everyone else in God's family too.

>>830658

Does he question their salvation/faith based on the translation they use?

>>830659

It seems that he gets close at least, and paints them in the worst light and projects bad faith intentions in all of their actions, as if all of their bibles stream from Satan.

And for the record, he isn't even the worse. All KJV Onlyists have a nasty proclivity to attack their own fellow Christians. The Ruckmanites are the most notorious (and he despises them in return). Ruckmanites are even more rabid KJV Onlyists that even Anderson can't live up to. lol

The whole mess is a downward spiral into madness.

>>829947

>>829950

Im not saying he's a calvinist, im saying he's a half-assing and playing by the ear within an baptist worldview calvinist terms and theology.

See, for example, his once saved, always saved meme, which more astute folks know as perseverance of the saints.

>But stuff like this is in the bible!

Lots of things are, doesn't detract from my point.

>>830666

>666

>thinks salvation can be lost

Checked.

>his once saved, always saved meme, which more astute folks know as perseverance of the saints.

What's funny is Anderson made a video contradicting perseverance of the saints, mostly because he totally misunderstood it thinking it meant you have to endure through the tribulation via determination and will-power, i.e to persevere through it, lol.

>>830666

>See, for example, his once saved, always saved meme, which more astute folks know as perseverance of the saints.

Eternal security is not the same thing as, and does not go together with, TULIP or Perseverance of the saints.

TULIP reformed theology holds that man is not accountable for his actions, and therefore ascribes their sins to God. Yet if you read Scripture, you will find otherwise. God is not the author of sin.

>calvinist terms and theology.

Many of the terms which are allegedly "calvinist" are simply terms you will find in the Bible, and which are not actually to be understood in Calvinist terms but in Biblically correct and consistent terms. For instance the Bible has something real to say about predestination, but it's not according to TULIP theology.

>>830672

>TULIP reformed theology holds that man is not accountable for his actions, and therefore ascribes their sins to God.

To my understanding it says man is accountable for his actions, thus he is fallen and on his way to perdition. He isn't accountable for his justification, he can take no credit for "saving himself", since it is a free gift by Grace, neither can he take 50% of the credit nor even 1% of the credit. There are plenty of verses that support sola gratia and predestination into election. While verses about good works refer to our sanctification and glorification, which are part of the process of salvation, but backsliding doesn't negate our justification if we are truly justified.

> Yet if you read Scripture, you will find otherwise. God is not the author of sin.

No Calvinist would argue that God is the author or first cause of sin. Although he preordains it's possibility, etc.

>>830676

>No Calvinist would argue that God is the author or first cause of sin.

You are probably right about that. However taking their premises in TULIP to their logical conclusions nonetheless leads to that, which does amount to a contradiction to clear Scripture. Thus we find that said premises are not really Scriptural and, at least, reject their logical conclusions that God is the author of sin. I would turn to Jeremiah 19:5, John 5:40 or 1 Timothy 2:4 to start off with on that conversation.

I think if someone wants to have a correct understanding of the conclusions regarding Biblical matters, they are better off starting with the same as their foundation for doing so, rather than saying for instance that we assume Perseverance of the saints is a given. I think Preservation of the Saints is more warranted in line with Jude v.1. While of course keeping in mind what we learn elsewhere in scripture regarding God working, as in Philippians 1:6, 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:10.

>>830672

Me

>But stuff like this is in the bible!

>Lots of things are, doesn't detract from my point.

You

>Many of the terms which are allegedly "calvinist" are simply terms you will find in the Bible

Me

>Im not saying he's a calvinist, im saying he's a half-assing and playing by the ear within an baptist worldview calvinist terms and theology.

You

>which are not actually to be understood in Calvinist terms but in Biblically correct and consistent terms

Seriously, Andersonites and their scripted responses is like talking to a wall something.

Im calling your boy some guy that makes a hodge-podge of theology(and ignorant of proper theological concepts, in general, as >>830670 shows), not a calvinist, get your head out of your ass.

>>830703

Are you ok? Seriously, Did you hit your head or something? Someone tries to say that a term taken straight out of the Bible is "using calvinist terms" and therefore proof that they are pseudo-calvinist; I object to that line of reasoning and then get accused of being a libertarian who makes videos about the US being Babylon?

>Im calling your boy

I've never met him and I don't agree with him on numerous important things– Thank you for giving me a chance to get that out there. You just don't have a point. Other than to accuse me of something I'm not, just as you accused others. That's all you can do. I simply reject "multiple version only" modernism that asserts God created multiple versions of his word. We've been around since long before 1611. Just because you now have a huge crowd of "multiple version only" bible readers with you means nothing. I'm not an Andersonite. And, when you take actual biblical terms and allege that using them is inherently calvinist and that it makes you some kind of pseudo-calvinist, that is ridiculous and a false accusation as well. I don't even care who you're accusing, it's a baseless accusation. Unlike some people (apparently you since you can't understand this) I object to bad arguments no matter who they are used against. You are also acting extremely uncharitable and obscene in your posts. And that undermines everything you say. You're definitely not acting Christlike or charitable or Biblical in any sense right now. So why are you even posting here? Desist immediately.

>>830703

>Seriously, Andersonites and their scripted responses is like talking to a wall something.

I think the word you're looking for is "cult".

>>830723

>Someone tries to say that a term taken straight out of the Bible is "using calvinist terms" and therefore proof that they are pseudo-calvinist

No, he built a half-assed theology on top of those terms, which, again, makes him clueless and overrated, not a calvinist.

>I simply reject "multiple version only" modernism that asserts God created multiple versions of his word. We've been around since long before 1611. Just because you now have a huge crowd of "multiple version only" bible readers with you means nothing.

Dude, i'm not even from the Anglosphere.

I don't even care about your translation autism, or you larping as berbers.

>>830729

Sounds like you just got confused by the high level conversations we were having then. No worries, all is forgiven.

>>830730

Cope more.

Also, observing you from multiple threads, i observe you have scripted responses in any discussion, regardless of the one you are talking to, including your obsession with Wikipedia, and your "not understanding our high level discussion" arrogance.

I have no interest in continuing this discussion, on these terms.

Watch the first 10minutes of this vid. How a Christian ministers to sinners, including a dying homosexual…

I really hope Anderson lets go of his reprobate theory, because the scripture is clear. The church in Corinth was full of degenerates, homos, adulterers…. "and such were some of you"…but they were made clean and saved.

>>830751

>our high level discussion

Actually I said high level conversation, meaning using upper level technical English terminology. I shouldn't place expectations on you to follow that if you aren't a primary English speaker, so my apologies.

>>830755

Nah, you used the same wording even with other people that you didn't suspect as speaking it as a second language, so that lie doesn't impress me.

Goodbye.

>>829467

He doesn't believe in repentance

>he Bible says not to hate one another

Try reading the Bible sometime dude

19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

>>830833

Love thy enemy.

>>829936

Cope, faggot

>>829467

In the context, "one another" means other Christians, not everyone. Steven Anderson as far as I know does love his Christian brothers. We should hate who God hates.

>>829899

what about throwing someone from a cliff to a bunch of stones below, how that affects the out coming?

>>829899

Wow. to think you can read the mind of God without your head exploding is … mind blowing.

I'd never presume to read the mind of God, as I am just a dog.

I just obey.

>>829899

Then why did he forgive her sins afterwards?

What's funny about Anderson also is his salvation by faith requires YOU to turn and "put your faith on Christ", it's prescriptive, you must do X to get Y — meaning you have to turn away from whatever you believe, and put your faith on Christ, well this is mental work that depends on the person and his power/strength/will/effort/mental computations. So he believes in works-based salvation, a gospel we must reject.

“You will know them by the fruits”

And, in 2020, one would be hard pressed to find a more fruitless “Christian” than this man fully devoid of love, humility, compassion, and peace.

>>831200

>believing in the gospel is works

wat

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=FsZ-FHHDNos

Salvation is a gift and you can only receive this gift if you repent and forsake your wicked ways.

>Isaiah 55:7

>Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

>Matthew 3:8

>Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

It's not based on works, but following God's Law isn't works, it's obedience. If you still want to sin and think "OSAS" or that Jesus gave you a "license to sin" then you're not truly saved.

>>831237

Examples? I don't watch Anderson so I don't know what you're talking about.

Telling sinners they're going to hell is love. Hate would be letting sinners go to hell or worse, telling them they're going to heaven when they're dead in their sin. If my ID's the same, you'll see my thoughts on Anderson, but otherwise he doesn't believe in repentance and forsaking your wicked ways for salvation, for God's pardon, for the atonement.

God hates sin AND sinners.

>Psalms 7:11

>God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

>Psalms 5:5

>“The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”

>>831238

Anderson thinks repenting of a sin is works, and anyone who says they need to 'repent to be saved' is unsaved.

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=WxuB06l3ylQ

So if repentance is a work then putting your faith on Jesus is a work, since it's something you have to do to get saved, it's conditional based on your effort.

>>831276

It depends on what is meant by repent in that sentence. It is possible to repent from things other than sins, we know this because the Bible several times mentions that God himself repented of things he was going to do. It is antithetical to suppose that God was repenting of sins.

The best example I know of non-works repentance is found in Acts 26 where it says:

>To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

>But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

- Acts 26:18-20

So here we see that the repentance itself involves turning away from the power of satan unto God, and that by repenting they also turn toward God (that is, repent and turn to God). We also see in this passage that doing works meet for (or fit for) repentance proves that the works themselves are not the repentance, but rather they come after it and they are appropriate for the repentance undergone.

>>831413

Repentance is always turning away from Satan. No need to jump through hoops about it.