For those of you following along please see the IFB Commonalities and KJV Deception pages to get background on how this discussion started.

Unfortunately, this concept of losing fellowship with Christ when the Believer sins is pervasive among the teachings of most modern Christian denominations. The teaching goes something like this: When a Believer sins he/she loses fellowship with Christ. If a Believer wants to restore that lost fellowship, he/she needs to repent of his/her sin and be forgiven.

In my personal experience with the IFB I was taught this and the idea that we lose fellowship with Christ when we sin has always troubled me. I remember as a child and teen feeling extremely conscientious about my behavior and thoughts because I was terrified of “losing fellowship with Christ.” In my mind the only way to have fellowship with Christ was to be in a constant state of prayer for forgiveness. I remember trying so hard to be in a constant state of prayer so that I restored fellowship with God as quickly as possible. It became exhausting, but because of the fear of “breaking fellowship with God” I kept on confessing every single thing I did that was sinful. I was even careful enough to confess things which I thought may be sins so that I didn’t lose fellowship with God. I remember that my prayers consumed me because there was always something I had to ask forgiveness for such as having an impure thought, a poor attitude, delayed obedience, not doing my best in school, being lazy, and the list went on forever. It was exhausting and I never felt that I had the time or capacity for anything other than asking for forgiveness.

I remember thinking that it would be more practical to wait till a certain time of the day to ask forgiveness, but as I went throughout my day I couldn’t help but focus on all the wrong things I was doing. I didn’t want to wait until that time of day when I confessed my sins up until that point because I didn’t want to be ‘out of fellowship’ with God for that length of time. Freedom came when I realized how wrong this idea of “losing fellowship with God when we sin” is.

Someone once scolded me, when discussing this issue, that I was sacrificing the truth for the convenience of not having to pray constantly and that I needed to work on my behavior rather than try to change what the scripture teaches (that we lose fellowship with God when we sin).

As I contemplated what this person was saying I came up with only 4 available options:

Option 1 was to continue living my life consumed by all the wrong I was doing and remain in a constant state of prayer so as to maintain as much fellowship with God as possible. This option wasn’t working for me and was becoming so burdensome that trying to maintain fellowship itself because a road block to maintaining fellowship.

Option 2 was to just give up all together and forget about fellowship with God since it was impossible for me to do what was necessary to maintain fellowship with God. This option wasn’t a good one for me since I value my relationship with God.

Option 3 was to not worry about constantly trying to maintain fellowship with God and just go through my day and if I sinned then so be it, I would confess it later. This option didn’t appeal to me because, like I said earlier, I didn’t want to be out of fellowship with God for the day. After all what good is it to be out of fellowship with God during the day and then in fellowship with God during the night while I was sleeping?

Option 4 and the only other option I can think of was to delve into scripture and figure out for myself why this was so burdensome to me and perhaps I would see a better alternative to what I was being taught. I ended up seeing a very different picture of who God is and what He expects of us. As a result I chose this option and I’ve never looked back.

Now that I’m free from this manipulative line of thought, I can clearly see that trying to maintain fellowship with God by my efforts is an impossible task. We are constantly sinning or in a state of sin. We are imperfect human beings. It is impossible for us to not sin. We often sin and don’t even realize it. God does not refuse fellowship with us just because we sin. In fact, the opposite is true. Everything I read about God in the Bible is about a God that pursues us and especially pursues us in times of sin and unrighteousness.

Michael Youssef writes about this very topic in his book “The God Who Pursues Us”. He writes on his website:

At the beginning of Luke 15, we see the religious leaders murmuring against Jesus: “But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (v. 2). The Pharisees considered anyone who admitted his need for God’s forgiveness as ignorant and weak. Though they studied the Scriptures, they were far from knowing and comprehending the heart of God.

Jesus was not intimidated by their intellectual arrogance or elitist attitude toward faith. He responded to their muttering by telling the parable of the lost sheep. “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them,” Jesus said. “Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep’” (Luke 15:4-6).

As I read that excerpt, I remember being taught that the ‘lost sheep’ represented the unsaved person or unbeliever. As I grew in my knowledge of the Bible, however, I found out that the exact opposite is true. Christ being referenced as the Shepard and Believers as sheep is pervasive in the Bible, especially the New Testament. This parable represents a Believer who as ‘gone astray’. Lost here, by the way, doesn’t refer to being lost or unsaved as we think of it today. The idea is a sheep that has gone astray or been separated from the flock in some way. Christ pursues that ‘lost sheep’ until found and returned to the fold.

I realize and believe that blatant and chronic sin hurts God and there is something to the idea that our blatant sin causes stress in our relationship with God, just like doing something wrong can strain a relationship we have with a family member or friend. But God isn’t human and I reallly think that the IFB has taken this way out of context. This idea of sin breaking fellowship with God is often used to coerce people into a legalistic righteousness. I see it being used by the IFB to make people feel guilty for not living perfect lives or at least for not striving for perfection. Some leaders of the IFB will even go as far as to say that if you aren’t repentant from your sin you probably aren’t saved. I find this rather arrogant and judgmental. Just because a Believer has a chronic sin or is living a sinful lifestyle doesn’t mean that God has turned His back on him/her. He will continue to pursue that person until that person either returns to a relationship with Him or dies.

Our relationship with God is not dependent on our behavior. We do not have to do anything to have fellowship with God. Jesus took care of what was needed to have fellowship with God when He died on the cross. When God looks at me He sees the Blood of Christ, NOT my sin. It’s freeing to know that my fellowship with God is not dependent on my behavior.

When the IFB teaches this they often use Old Testament scriptures to support their belief. What they fail to realize, however, is that the Old Testament was governed by the ceremonial laws of cleanness which no longer apply to us NT Christians. The purpose of breaking fellowship in the OT was to avoid that which was unclean. NT Christians are purified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ’s work on the Cross and no longer need to worry about ceremonial cleanliness.

Paul tells the church at Corinth in I Corinthians 1:8-10 that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful to that person. It doesn’t say that God has called the believer into fellowship with Christ and is faithful unless that person sins! How ridiculous.

The IFB also uses passage like 1 John 1:5-7 to teach that Christians lose fellowship with Christ when they sin. This is simply an unfortunate misinterpretation of scripture. This passage is talking about salvation not sinning. The “walking in darkness” mentioned in this passage is referring to the darkness of those who are not believers. It has nothing to do with a Believer who sins. Believers who sin are not walking in darkness because they are Believers. They may be walking in sin, but not darkness since darkness is a reference to being a non-Believer. If you notice, as the passage continues, verse 9 is the famous I John 1:9 “But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It’s interesting to note that the verse stops with the thought of cleansing rather than restoring fellowship. The verse doesn’t say “…and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and restore lost fellowship.” It ends with a cleansing from unrighteousness nothing more because nothing more is needed.

There are many more passages that the IFB uses to support this idea such as Acts 8:13-24, 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1. The purpose of this post is not to address each instance of scriptural manipulation in this area, but to inform and help people see that it is a mistake to think that fellowship with God is broken when a Believer sins.

Some churches use this concept to teach that a person can lose his/her salvation as a result of sin. I hope we all know that that is incorrect. I think the IFB does a good job, in my experience, of not taking this idea that far, however, I would imagine, given the diversity of IFB churches, that there are those that do take it too far.

This concept is also used in a manipulative way to justify disassociating with people who are hard to get along with or who have some type of addiction or chronic/habitual sin they are struggling with. It’s easier for a church to teach that we should break fellowship with that person rather then try and help him/her which I think is a shame. I’ve been to some IFB churches that teach the congregation to ‘dis fellowship’ or permanently cut off the relationship from people they deem are sinning “too much”.

This leads people to believe that they need to somehow play the role of Holy Spirit to try and convict others of what they feel is a need to restore fellowship. Many relationships have been broken as a result of this teaching. Wouldn’t it be nice if we helped each other rather than turn our back on someone because we are being taught that God turns His back on people who sin? How sad it is to think of all the people who are so confused and tormented by this teaching that they simply reject the faith because they feel that they can’t measure up! I can’t stress enough how freeing it is to know that I don’t have to be sin free in order for God to like me and want to have fellowship with me.

Summary: Christianity is about developing a relationship with Christ, not following a set of rules and standards

Would love to hear your thoughts about it.

Enjoy

I think it’s fair to say that most of us know how silly the notion is that the KJV is THE original Word of God so for the purposes of this site I would like to share a little insight into the KJV, why it is a dangerous version to use and how it relates to the IFB.

The IFB churches I experienced fell on the more conservative side of the above mentioned continuum. They taught that the KJV is the only acceptable version for the Christian to use, it was the closest translation to the original manuscripts, all other versions of the Bible presented mistakes at best and heresy at worst, it was a sin to read versions of the Bible other than the KJV and because of the aforementioned one couldn’t truly be saved unless he/she got the gospel message from the KJV.

I don’t really know where the IFB gets this information to be honest. It would be interesting to do a study of how the IFB came to the conclusion that the KJV is the closest translation to the original. I never could get a good answer other than the message then “the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world.” The belief was never validated for me, at least not that I can remember. I simply took it upon faith like every other teaching that came from the IFB.

Like other IFB teachings, I was always troubled by the fact that I had a difficult time reading and understanding the KJV. When I brought this up to my pastors, teachers, parents, leaders, etc. I would get the answer that it is for this reason that I should be in a good IFB church so that the Pastor could explain what the words in the KJV meant. It was weird to me that they would accept the Pastor’s explanation, but refuse to use a different version of the Bible for an explanation. It also made me suspicious. I often wondered if the Pastors really knew what the meanings were or if they were simply repeating what they had learned thus perpetuating the lie.

I was also told that understanding the KJV would come with spiritual maturity. This was strange to me also and I wondered why the Lord would have us use a Bible that was difficult to understand and that understanding the Bible would only come with spiritual maturity. That just seemed backwards to me. I often wondered if it would have been better had the Lord made a Bible that was easier for new Christians to understand and have the more mature Christians use the KJV. As a good little IFB follower, however, I suppressed my curiosity and took them at their word.

When I left the IFB around age 25 I found out some valuable information that flies in the face of the IFB and their KJV only stance. Personal experience became the fuel that burned the fire within me. I started reading the New International Version (henceforth NIV) and after I got over my initial guilt which was highly unfounded, I actually understood the Bible for the first time in my life. Things were jumping off the pages at me and I was like a sponge, absorbing all the information I could. I read the NIV from cover to cover and then went on to read a New Living Translation (henceforth NLT). The NLT became my favorite and is the version I use at present.

The messages contained in the Bible are so clear to me now as I finally have the freedom to read a version of the Bible that I can comprehend. It’s amazing what a difference it makes. If this were my only evidence that the KJV is not a good Bible to read it would be enough for me. I often wonder how many people in our world have their spiritual maturity stunted because of this legalistic philosophy about the KJV Bible. It makes me sad to think that people are trapped like I was so many years ago.

Well, I don’t have to rely solely on personal experience to draw my conclusions from. As I researched this topic, I began to see increasing evidence about just how inaccurate the KJV actually is. I learned that the KJV is nothing more than a translation in a long line of translations. You see, I was taught growing up that the KJV is a translation of the original text and all other translations are just translations of the KJV making them less accurate and reliable. What a lie that turned out to be.

A Brief History of the KJV

It’s well known that we only have fragments of the original manuscripts. All current versions of the Bible are simply English translations of first translations. The KJV is actually nothing more than a translation in a long line of translations. The KJV New Testament (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (AD 500 – 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text). Modern translations such as the NIV are compiled primarily from the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts which are believed to be closer to the original than the Textus Receptus manuscripts, which is why they have been chosen by the translators of the modern versions. In the early and mid 14th century John Wycliffe attempted many translations of the Greek and Latin Vulgate text and in 1388 The Wycliffe bible was completed in the German language.

William Tyndale later translated The Wycliffe Bible which also had many revisions and corrections. In 1534 The Tyndale’s Revised and Corrected Bible was completed. Unsatisfied with this work, an exiled group of scholars driven out of England with the help of the Church of Geneva produced an English Bible without the need for the approval of either England or Rome and formed the Geneva Bible in 1553. The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale’s revised and corrected edition of 1534. Three years later another revised Bible was published and translated in accordance with the Hebrew and Greek text. This was during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth was determined to move England towards Protestantism. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Geneva Bible was translated into what scholars refer to as the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 which became the official Bible for use in Church services at that time.

King James I succeeded Queen Elizabeth I in 1603 and almost immediately began to translate the Bible into a newer version based on his ideals of what he thought were a political threat to his reign. He made many changes to his version of the Bible to reflect his beliefs and reduce the political message for the purpose of security in his reign. In 1611 the first King James Version of the Bible was published and the Geneva Bible was officially replaced by the King James Version.

This version of the Bible in 1611, which became known as The Authorized Version, went through several editions and revisions itself. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. The years 1881-1885 brought many revisions and changes beginning with the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. [1]

Brooke Westcott served on the committee that produced the Revised Version and obtained the services of editor Fenton Hort. Wescott and Hort eventually brought us our modern day KJV translation which is based on the Westcott-Hort translation of The Revised Version and is actually the 4th revision of the original Authorized 1611 King James version. It is interesting to note that the original Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, which is commonly believed by Protestants to be extraneous material not inspired by God. Many scholars believe that the Apocrypha was actually left out of the KJV 1611 version simply because King James I was more interested in publishing this version for his political career. He forced his translators to rush through the translation. This caused many omissions, additions and other errors in the KJV 1611. In the original preface to the KJV the translators themselves admitted there were many Hebrew and Greek words and even whole sentences they did not understand, but were were forced to make guesses at there meanings in order to produce the KJV more quickly.

This brief overview of the history of the KJV is not meant to be all inclusive. There are many details of the succession of translations, editions and revisions that should be read and understood in order to get a full understanding of the issue. For the purposes of this site, however, I simply wanted to share the basics to give the reader adequate understanding of the origins of the KJV and to make the point that the KJV is certainly NOT a perfect Bible, is nothing more that a translation of other translations and is by no means the original Word of God.

I would even argue that the KJV has become an idol for some in that it is elevated to the status of a god and worshiped rather than read and used to develop spiritual maturity. I remember feeling so much better than other “Christians” – if they were Christians at all – because I used the KJV rather than those other versions. It became a source of pride for me and I imagine that many others in my church felt the same way. There was a strong message that if you wanted to be a good Christian you had to use the KJV. I was even told that the KJV was a sacred text and that my Bible was to be kept in pristine condition or I was defacing the Word of God. I remember feeling so guilty one evening after having spilled some water on my KJV Bible. I prayed and prayed for forgiveness. It was really pretty silly in hind sight. Like I said before, everything changed for me the day I finally got up enough courage to pick up a NIV and read it.

General Information about Translations

During the formation of the KJV, the translators ran into several major problems. Scholars of the day had to rely on manuscripts or copies of the original documents because no one had access to the original documents. Some of these copies were even copies of copies and copies of translations. If you’ve ever played the game of “whisper down the lane”, you can understand that copies of copies can end up being quite different from the original document. The responsibility to decide what to include in the KJV and what not to include rested solely on the shoulders of the translators. This process of “textual criticism” can be very difficult.

Much of the work in translating the KJV was done in England. It is generally believed that England didn’t have any ancient Greek manuscripts until about 1628. Therefore, the translators were at a definite disadvantage when trying to decide which passages were in the texts originally, and which were added later by someone who was copying or translating another copy or translation.

Today, there are many documents that we can use to compare and to find out what belongs and what was added making modern translations much more reliable and accurate. The translators of the KJV didn’t have such information for comparison. For example, the committee for the formation of the NIV consisted of over a hundred scholars from five different countries who had much older manuscripts that are more true to the originals and have a much better grasp on ancient Hebrew.

Some in the IFB, when comparing the KJV with other modern versions, will find some differences and automatically assume that the new versions are adding to or subtracting from the Word of God. They will often make several references to verses that have been seemingly “left out”. It’s important to remember that these verses are not being left out, nor is the Bible being changed. We have access to better information now and the newer translations are just trying to correct some mistakes that have been made in the older translations.

There is also the need to consider the problem of capturing the idea of the message and not just the message itself. It’s a problem of how to make the new version read as closely to the original as possible, but still get the author’s idea across. We have to remember that we live is a much different culture than the people of Jesus’ era. Even so, that culture had their own idioms that need to be understood in order to capture the flavor of the message.

For example, it would be difficult for me to translate the phrase “I made it by the skin of my teeth” into another language because that phrase is unique to the US culture. That is a phrase that is only used in this region of the world. If I were to translate that word-for-word or literally into lets say French, it wouldn’t make much sense to the French speaking culture. They would wonder how I got skin on my teeth and how I managed to use it to assist me in whatever I was doing. This phrase would have to be translated using the idea of the sentence such as “I just barely made it”.

Sentence structure and syntax varies across cultures as well. Translating a work from Greek to English would require many adjustments to the structure of the sentences. Words, phrases and concepts which meant one thing to a 17th Century reader often mean something totally different to a 20th Century reader. It would be important for the translator to substitute the correct English phraseology for something that doesn’t make sense when translated word-for-word.

The IFB promotes the KJV as the only, or at least one of the few, versions of the bible that is a literal or word-for-word translation. It’s important to remember that no translation can be exactly word for word because it just wouldn’t be understood. Even the KJV has some text translated using the idea of the text rather than the actual words.

The translators of the KJV, along with the New American Standard and some others tried to keep the word order as close as they could. In contrast, the translators of the NIV wanted to develop a Bible that is easy to read and understand so they made a thought by thought translation which conveys the essence and meanings of the original documents, but becomes much more natural and conversational to the modern reader since our sentence structure and syntax is vastly different from ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

An emotional response

Looking back on my experiences in the IFB churches I can remember strong emotions surrounding the KJV controversy. Preachers and teachers often presented a one sided argument for the authority of the KJV. The unsubstantiated claims were shrouded in sarcasm and illogic and never was even one piece of evidence or proof given. Their appeals are based largely on emotion rather than evidence. We were expected to take their word for it and accept it on faith. I would often repeat these empty arguments with others who used versions of the Bible other than the KJV.

I have a feeling that those who give me the message of KJV onlyism and try to discredit the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have never really investigated the data. They simply repeat the manipulative message that they themselves learned. For whatever reason, be it a need for control, indoctrination, manipulation, etc. followers of the IFB aren’t allowed to question anything and this issue of the KJV is no exception.

A Keen Observation

During my early post IFB years I secretly took my NIV with me to the IFB church when I would return to visit with my family hoping that no one would notice. Later I secretly wished someone would notice. I really wanted to explain why I was using the NIV rather than the KJV (and at that time all I knew was that I actually understood what the Bible was saying for the first time) and how proud I was to be free from the legalism of having to use the KJV.

Anyway, during the messages I sat listening to with my NIV Bible I noticed a peculiar pattern emerge. I found that in almost every circumstance the preacher would explain a difficult to understand passage in the KJV using very similar if not the exact words from the NIV. I don’t think they did it on purpose because they didn’t know what the contents of the NIV were. But I got to thinking, if a pastor is explaining the KJV with words that the NIV already uses, why not just use the NIV?

The Conspiracy Theorist in Me

As I ponder the dilemma mentioned above, I can’t help but wonder if all this manipulation surrounding the KJV isn’t on purpose. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it isn’t the intention of the IFB leaders to purposefully want to keep people in the dark with a difficult to understand version of the Bible because they know that if people read the NIV or other easier to understand version they will discover the truth and an end will come to the IFB. I also wonder if the IFB leaders use our naivety to spread the IFB message. It’s just a thought and I don’t really believe it, but I often wonder. I don’t think I will ever have an answer to this, but it peaks my curiosity to say the least.

KJV Myths

Myth 1. The KJV is not copyrighted.

Actually this is partially true, but not completely. Technically in the US anything prior to 1922 is free of copyrights. This is simply because of the lack of copyright laws at that time. If that were the only issue then the KJV would not have a copyright. The problem, however, is that the KJV is not a work produced by an American citizen. The KJV is actually copyrighted under the Crown Copyright of England therefore the copyright of the KJV falls under the jurisdiction of England. Since the Crown Copyright is a perpetual copyright it will never end. The US has agreed to honor copyright laws of other countries. As a result the KJV is actually copyrighted here in the US as well. It is rarely enforced simply because of logistical issues – its just not practical. But the KJV is under copyright here in the US.

Myth 2. The KJV is not copyrighted therefore there is no sinister motivation and thus more reliable than other translations that are copyrighted.

First of all, even if the KJV weren’t copyrighted, which we established above that it indeed is, that doesn’t mean that there is no malicious intent for producing the KJV. As stated above, the KJV was actually rushed through production for political reasons rather than religious reasons. Secondly, not having a copyright doesn’t mean that it is more accurate or reliable. A copyright is nothing more than a legal issue that prevents the copying of a work. It is not an endorsement of perfection.

Myth 3. The KJV is based on the textus receptus or the Received Text which is the most accurate original manuscripts.

As noted above, the textus receptus is a family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine Family and were nothing more than a collection of copies of the original. It is a succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale and eventually the King James Version.

The Byzantine manuscripts are far from the most accurate. Scholars generally agree that the Alexandrian manuscripts are much more accurate and reliable.

Myth 4. The KJV is the Preserved Word of God for the English speaking world – Matthew 5:18

The IFB use Matthew 5:18 to teach that the KJV is the “Preserved Word of God” because verse 18 reads: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (KJV). I was taught growing up that this verse means that the Lord will preserve His Word in the form of the KJV. The message was that other versions of the Bible added or subtracted or changed things in the Word of God and since the Lord tells us that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” then the KJV MUST be the only version we are to use.

This is completely false and nothing more than the twisting of scripture. First of all this verse is talking about the law, NOT versions of the Bible. Secondly, it isn’t our responsibility to preserve God’s Word. The Lord said that He would take care of that. Finally, as noted above, we know that the KJV has gone through many changes because of poor translations. Even if Matthew 5:18 did apply to Bible versions the KJV wouldn’t be the preserved version since it has errors.

Myth 5. All versions of the Bible other than the KJV are “perversions”

The IFB is infamous for using this silly little play on words. It’s nothing more than a straw man fallacy, however, and is little more than an attempt at manipulation. IFB leaders want you to think that you are reading a “perverted” form of God’s Word if you read from any version of the Bible than the KJV. Perverting the Word of God by translating it into forms other than the KJV is false and is not founded on Scripture. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for calling other translations “perversions”.

Myth 6. Versions of the Bible other than the KJV are just translations of the KJV and thus not as accurate.

The KJV New Testament (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (AD 500 – 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus. Modern translations such as the NIV are compiled primarily from the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts which are believed to be closer to the original than the Textus Receptus manuscripts, which is why they have been chosen by the translators of the modern versions. As a result the exact opposite of this Myth is true. Some of the more modern translations are actually more accurate and reliable.

Myth 7. The KJV is a literal translation and all other versions are figurative translations.

The IFB taught me that since the KJV is a word-for-word or literal translation it is most accurate. The IFB believes that all other versions are just figurative translations or translations that capture the message/thought of the author rather than the actual words. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The KJV is not completely a literal translation. It is next to impossible to completely translate the Bible into English using only literal or word-for-word translation. We simply wouldn’t be able to understand it. The culture then had idioms just like we do today that would make it impossible to translate the text word-for-word. Also, there are several modern translations that are based on a literal or word-for-word methodology such as the NAS, RSV and the YLT. The KJV is not the only version that makes an attempt at literal translation.

Myth 8. Because the KJV is a literal translation it is more accurate.

This is simply false. As I’ve already explained, it is impossible to capture cultural idioms with a literal translation. Some of the text in other version that rely on thought-for-thought translation are more accurate than the KJV.

Myth 9. The earliest manuscripts (the Alexandrian manuscripts) were produced by heretics.

The only evidence that KJV advocates use to support this is that the Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with the Byzantine manuscripts and their view. It’s just a biased view based on their beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence to support this myth.

Myth 10. Modern version delete verses and phrases from their translations.

Actually the opposite is true. Scholars generally agree that the translators actually added passages and verses to earlier versions of the Bible including the KJV. Dr. Charles Taylor in Bible with Wholes reminds us that when translating and copying the Scriptures, the translators and copyists tended to add explanations rather than remove words. “This is because the words are considered Holy and therefore must never be removed (cf Rev 22:19), though adding words of explanation was often considered acceptable.” [4] Careful inspection of the verses claimed to be “missing” from modern translations will yield the conclusion that the missing verses were actually additions made by earlier translators to explain the previous verse. As a result we can rest assured that those “missing” verses were added earlier and later dropped when new, more accurate manuscripts became available.

Bibliography

1. A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.
2. Based on an article found at: http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo025.asp
3. Smith, Wilbur M. The English Bible and its Development The Open Bible Thomas Nelson Pub. Nashville 1979 p.1251
4. Why I Quote The NIV Bible by Graham Pockett
5. A Response to the King James Only Debate by Eric Pement
6. “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism”, by D. A. Carson (Baker Book House, 1979)
7. “Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible,” I.B.R.I. Research Report No. 3, by Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman (Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA, 1979);
8. “The Truth About the King James Version Controversy”, by Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University Press, 1981).
9. Charles V Taylor “Bibles With Holes?”
10. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 99
11. Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration”, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 152
12. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1925, pp. 107-108
13. D. Whitby, Examen variantium Lectionum Johannis Milli, London 1709
14. J. J. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graece, (London 1809)
15. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin (London, 1815), ch. 1. The sequel mentioned in the text is Nolan’s Supplement to an Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; containing the Vindication of the Principles employed in its Defence (London, 1830)
16. ibid., ch. 5
17. Daniel Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text”, Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276

Related articles for download in .doc format:

A response to the King James Only Debate
Why so many Bible Translations

A reader posted a comment with a link to Bible Baptist Church in Sharon, TN in which the author poses questions to Critics of the KJV. I would like to answer those questions in this post. They are below.

Before I begin, I think it’s important to bring to the reader’s attention that Pastor Melton is coming from the point of view that the KJV is a perfect translation which taints his entire perspective. The KJV is no more perfect then the other translations. One need not much more than common sense to understand that the KJV is a translation and was translation by imperfect human beings making it impossible for it to be a perfect translation. The idea that the KJV was inspired is ridiculous at best and heretical at worst.

Despite this obvious flaw in the thinking of KJV onlyists, I will try my best to answer the questions posed by Pastor Melton.

Enjoy!

1. Since you’re smart enough to find “mistakes” in the KJV, why don’t you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

First, only KJV advocated claim that there is a perfect Bible. Those who use other versions recognize that there is no such thing as a “perfect Bible”. This alone voids your assertion since critics of the KJV realize that a “perfect Bible” is impossible. Second, even if someone corrected all the mistakes in the KJV, a “perfect Bible” would still be impossible since we don’t have all the original documents. Third, being smart enough to find mistakes doesn’t necessarily constitute the knowledge to make a “perfect Bible”. Finally, this is essentially what the translators of the modern versions have done. They have corrected mistakes found in the KJV. Although they aren’t perfect they are certainly more accurate then the KJV.

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

No. See answer to question 1

3. Since you do believe “the Bible” is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology (“the Greek text says…the Hebrew text says….the originals say…a better rendering would be….older manuscripts read….” etc.)?

New Testament writers, especially Jesus and Paul frequently quoted from Old Testiment texts, especially from the prophets like Isaiah and Daniel. These text were written in Hebrew. Jesus quoted the original Hebrew text as many as 24 times during his ministry. See Luke 24:24 for an example.

This is really laughable. I will throw the same question back at you. Can you please show me in the Bible where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John ever practice YOUR terminology? Can you please show me in the Bible where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John ever quoted from the KJV? English wasn’t the language that Jesus, Peter, James, Paul or John spoke so that alone negates the idea that they quoted from the 1611 KJV.

I’ve sat under many KJV Only advocates who refer to the original language of the scriptures. This isn’t something that only advocates of modern versions do.

Anyway, logic dictates that Jesus, Peter, James, Paul and John made minimal reference to the original manuscripts because they weren’t available yet. There was nothing to refer to except the Old Testament so they couldn’t use terminology like “the Greek text says… older manuscripts read…” etc.

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as “God’s word”?

For the same reason we refer to the KJV as “God’s Word” and at the same time declare it to be imperfect. It is God’s Word, the Bible. The true Word of God is the original documents. All others are translations, but we still refer to them as God’s Word.

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

I could ask you the same question. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible IS infallible, the Holy Spirit or man? I think that we would have the same answer.

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow “evolved” and that men are more qualified to translate God’s word today than in 1611?

It’s not about being more qualified and it has nothing to do with education. It’s about having more accurate original manuscripts and having better ways to study and translate those original manuscripts. Can you share what the difference is between the education/qualification of the translators of the 1611 KJV and the modern translations?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it’s so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false “bibles”?

I don’t think it is wrong to teach that there is one true Bible. I just think it is wrong to teach that the KJV is that one true Bible since it isn’t. There are many false Bibles. I don’t deny that.

8. Isn’t it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the “originals,” but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

This is partially true. I don’t believe that the original manuscripts are “lost” since we do have parts of the original text, but we don’t have all the original texts so yes, it is true that no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn’t it true that when you use the term “the Greek text” you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

No this isn’t lying or deceitful. There is only ONE original Greek text. But just like today’s Bible is broken down into verses and chapters the original Greek Text is broken down into many different parts. We use the term Bible (singular) and Books of the Bible (plural). It’s really not that difficult to figure out.

This is a classic straw man fallacy. You are arguing semantics here and it really has nothing to do with translating the Bible.

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Your use of the word “perversion” shows your bias, but I will ignore that for now and ask, how do you know that very few are being saved? What a bold statement. I find it very hard to believe that you have the ability to know who is and who isn’t saved.

It’s a bit short sighted and closed minded to hand wave the many good things that have happened because of the newer, more modern translations and focus on the negative. Just because the great revivals are over (and I’m not sure they are) doesn’t mean that the modern translations are the cause.

Now let me ask you… if the KJV is the reason for the great revivals, why aren’t there still great revivals going on in churches that still use the KJV? Seems kind of strange to me that you would blame the lack of revivals on modern translations anyway. What a silly argument.

Lets say for argument’s sake that you are correct and revivals began to decline at the same time as the modern translations came on the scene. A first year philosophy student knows that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Ultimately, I could, again, ask you the same question. Given the damage that dogmatic and inflexible proponents of the KJV have done to Christians and non-believers, who has gained the most from the KJV, Satan or God?

I hope my answers to those questions are satisfactory, although I doubt they will be. I would love for Pastor Melton to read this and let me know if he is satisfied with my answers. It would be great to have a debate. I’m not getting my hopes up though.

On the same page Pastor Melton has written 10 “Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God’s Preserved Word” not of which hold water as I will show below with my responses to each reason.

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God’s pure words somewhere. If it isn’t the KJV, then what is it?

It’s important to make the distinction about what is meant by God’s “words”. This essentially has two meanings. In today’s Christian circles, “God’s Word” is typically taken to mean what we know of as the Bible or the “Word of God”. But God’s words can also mean his promises. I’m working under the assumption that Pastor Melton is making the argument that God’s words represent the Word of God or the Bible since that is the context in which he writes these things.

As such, this is a good example of where the KJV is wrong. When the Bible talks about God’s word – especially in the two passages that are mentioned in number 1 above – it is talking about literally God’s word or God’s promises, NOT the Bible as we know of it today. It’s similar to our phrase “you have my word on that”. It means God’s promises NOT the “Word of God” or the Bible. The bible wasn’t assembled, as it is for Christians today, during the times that those verses were written. We refer to the Bible as the “Word of God” but when those verses were written that phraseology wasn’t used so to interpret “God’s words” at the Bible or the Word of God is incorrect translation. (by the way the NLT among others properly translate those verses as God’s promises).

But lets say for argument’s sake that God did promised to preserve the “Word of God” (the Bible). God may have promised to preserve his Word, but he never told us how he would accomplish that promise. One thing is for sure, he did not promise to preserve his words by using only the KJV (if this is in the Bible somewhere I have yet to see it). To think that the KJV is the preserved Word of God simply because God promised to preserve his Word is nothing more than mere speculation and hearsay.

Psalm 12:6-7 is about God keeping his promises, it has nothing to do with the preservation of the Bible. Matthew 24:35 says that God’s words will never pass away not that God will preserve his word through the use of the KJV. You are taking those verses and twisting them so that they fit your agenda. You use of those verses to support your argument is manipulative at best and heretical at worst.

I will offer a challenge to anyone who want’s to accept it. If you can prove by using the Bible that God promised to preserve either the “Word of God”/the Bible or even God’s words/promises, by way of the KJV I will take this site offline and put up a site promoting KJV onlyism in it’s place.

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it’s duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

This is simply a lie. The KJV does have a copyright. See Myth 1 above.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t.

Using this logic one would have to conclude that the Latin Vulgate translation should be the version to use since it was in wider use and for more than twice as long as the KJV. You use the KJV, no doubt, because you don’t understand the Latin Vulgate just as many use more modern translations because they don’t understand archaic English.

This is an “Appeal to Tradition” fallacy. Just because something is older or been in use for a longer duration doesn’t automatically make it more correct. That’s like saying President Bush has done more good in office then President Obama. Well of course that’s going to be true since President Bush was in office for 8 years and Obama has only been in office for 9 months (at the time of this writing). The KJV has been around longer then any other modern translation, therefore, yes, it would produce more “good fruit”, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better or more reliable.

Also, “good fruit” is a pretty subjective term. How do you define “good fruit”? One could just a easily say that God has used the preaching and teaching of modern translations including the Spanish KJV, French KJV, and others to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. See, it works both ways.

Also, how do YOU know what fruit the translations have produced? You aren’t omniscient so you can’t make that claim. Only God knows the “good fruit” of the different versions of the Bible. It is very possible that the versions of the Bible other then the KJV have produced much more “good fruit”. It isn’t our responsibility to keep track of the fruit anyway. That’s God’s business.

Finally, I’m wondering how you KNOW that the Holy Spirit doesn’t favor the new versions? That’s a pretty bold and, I must say, arrogant claim to knowledge that you don’t nor ever could possess.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that “kept” God’s word (Rev. 3:8).

Any first year philosophy student can tell you that correlation does not equal causation. Just because there is a correlation between the lukewarm Laodicean period and modern translations coming on the scene doesn’t mean that the cause is the modern translations. The same is true for the revivals. Just because there is a correlation between the time of the revivals and the KJV coming on the scene doesn’t mean that the KJV is responsible for the revivals.

Revelation 3:7-13 does not tell us that “the KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period.” I don’t know why you referenced that passage. Your history is a bit off. Philadelphia was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 17, almost 1600 years before the translation of the KJV.

Also, Revelation 3:14-22 doesn’t tell us that “the modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway.” I’m not sure why you referenced that passage either. The modern versions arrived on the scene about 1500 years after the Laodicean period started. Are you making this stuff up or are you really that confused about the history?

Finally your gross misinterpretation of that passage in Revelation is your error and is extremely laughable. God was praising the Church in Philadelphia because they were obedient, not because they used the KJV. The correct interpretation is obedience NOT “kept”. The use of the word “kept” is confusing you. “Kept” does not mean that they refused to use translations other than the KJV.

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we’d know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.

This just a silly argument. You don’t KNOW that the KJV translators were completely honest in their work. This is an unfair argument because the KJV is a literal or word for word translation. Other translations are thought for thought translations. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Just because some modern translations don’t use the exact same distinctions as the KJV doesn’t mean they are less reliable.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn’t it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book–the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

Where do you get the idea that “all new translations compare themselves to the KJV”? I’ve never heard that before and I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have proof of this?

Lets say for the sake of argument, though, that that statement is true. There are many explanations for this. One could surmise that the reason is because people are deceived into thinking that the KJV is perfect and errorless by con artists like yourself and in order to promote the new translations the translators use the KJV as a basis for helping people understand that the KJV only arguments don’t hold water. It could also be simply because the KJV is so popular that the translators simply wish to show people that the new translations are just as good if not better then the KJV. It could also be so that when people make the transition from the KJV to another version the transition is easier and goes more smoothly. So no, it’s not strange at all that the new versions compare themselves to the KJV (if that’s even true).

Also, I’m not sure what Matthew 12:26 has to do with this argument. How do you get the idea that new versions of the Bible are bad because of Matthew 12:26? Jesus was answering the Pharisee’s accusations that he was getting his power to heal from Satan. He was explaining that Satan can’t cast out demons because it would hurt his cause. I would absolutely love to hear how you get an argument for using the KJV from that verse.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

This makes no sense to me. You’re saying that because the preface is better in the KJV it is more reliable and trustworthy? Weird. I’ve never heard anyone use that argument before. Couldn’t it be that the preface for the KJV sounds better because of the language used and the era in which it was written? This feels like you are grasping at straws.

Also, I’m not sure what 1Thessalonians 2:13 has to do with your argument. That verse does not say, or even hint to the idea, that “The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God”. Yet, another gross misinterpretation/manipulation of scripture. You should be ashamed.

8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil’s line from Alexandria, and the Lord’s line from Antioch. We’ll deal with this later.)

This is simply a lie. I’m not sure where you are getting these facts from. Care to share your source or are you just making that up?

There are several things wrong this this argument. First, the original manuscripts aren’t based on the KJV. You’ve got is backwards. The KJV is based on the original manuscripts. This is another error based on your presumption that the KJV is the perfect, original Word of God.

Second, the Alexandrian family of manuscripts don’t represent “the remaining five percent” of the manuscripts that weren’t used by the translators of the KJV. The Alexandrian family of manuscripts are a completely different set of manuscripts then those used to translate the KJV.

Third, most scholars agree that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are more complete and reliable (see article above).

Finally, calling The Alexandrian family of manuscripts “the Devil’s line” is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. It does nothing to prove your point except to attack the opposing view – unless of course you can provide evidence that the Devil was involved in this line of manuscripts. I would love to hear you explain this further.

This is laughable. What a crock.

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God’s word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

There are several things wrong with this argument as well. First of all, if we must admit that no one has ever proven that the KJV is NOT God’s Word then you must also admit that no one has ever proven that the KJV IS God’s Word.

Secondly, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply here. We are searching for truth not justice.

Third, this is an “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy. Lack of evidence or proof is not a good reason to conclude that the opposite is true. The KJV should be considered a fallible translation simply because it is a translation done by fallible humans not because no one has ever proven that it isn’t God’s Word.

Fourth, you are asking the impossible. No one could ever PROVE that the KJV isn’t God’s Word. Your standards are too high. Which leads me to see your bias. You are unwilling to consider the opposite side of the argument until the impossible happens, which of course never will.

Finally, there is evidence to indicate that the KJV is not THE perfect, infallible, original Word of God. To ignore the evidence for the sake of unattainable proof is nothing more than hand waving and bais.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

Where is your evidence of this? I have never read a translation that attacks the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, or the second coming. This is pure deception about modern translations. You are lying! There may be some minor differences in the various translations, but none of them make changes around core doctrine or absolutes of the faith.

If you would like to have a discussion or debate with me please contact me using the contact form on this site rather than posting a comment.

Debate With Bill

Discussion With Ike

Discussion with ‘Me’

Below is Ike’s original message. In the comment section below that will by our exchange. Other comments are welcome.

I was a Southern Baptist who is now an Independent Baptist. What you describe as “Phariseeism”, I call it choice. I choose to attend a church that honors God in music, version of Bible (KJV is the only “non-profit” Bible), dress, and worship. Is it for everyone? No, but it is for some of us. I resist the contemporary crowd for my PERSONAL beliefs.

My question would be: Who forced you to attend this church? We make choices based on our values and convictions, if yours and mine differ, then we are different. Nothing wrong with that, it is what makes us different. Rather a simple thought, but this tends to fire the liberals and our opposition into anger. It appears it has angered you as well. I will apologize if my beliefs anger you, but please choose how you vent your anger. I hope a lost person does not read this and responds by thinking all churches are full of legalistic crazies!

If you would study all denominations, you would realize that all churches upheld the same standards sixty years ago. The message has not changed, why should the messenger? We see people saved almost every week, so the message still works. I was attending a church where the new preacher relaxed on the “values-based” parts of the ministry. Come as you are is a spiritual idea, not a physical. The girls wore next to nothing and he “preached” from a newer version of the bible. He taught on love and forgiveness, but never on the consequences of sin or separation. Both are in the Bible. We had two young ladies end up pregnant and drop out of high school. In three years, the attendance went from 160 on average to less than 75. Why? I felt we were no longer honoring God in our worship.

All of this to say if you have found a better way, great! I hope you stick with it. Otherwise, I would recommend you refresh yourself with Matthew 7:5.

Many have offered objections to my site and I always respond with an explanation or defense, however, non have chosen to continue the discussion… until now.

Bill is a concerned advocate of the IFB movement and has responded to my defense of his critique. This was originally in the comments section of the “About This Site” page but has been moved here to facilitate our discussion and segregate it for your convenience.

This will be a discussion between Bill and I so other comments will be welcome, however, they will be reserved till the debate is over. Thanks for your interest and I encourage you to follow along.

Below is Bill’s original message. Following in the comments section will be our debate.

Thank you for allowing those of us who take umbrage with your viewpoint to have an opportunity to respond. One could spend every day from here to the Lord returns, debating each individual point that you raise on your website. You obviously feel very strongly about the negative experience that you have had with the IFB church that you grew up in. I have attended IFB churches all over the country and in Europe as well. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some very bad IFB churches out there. The church that Jesus Christ built has been allowed to apostatize in many areas, and in fact, the churches that contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, have become a remnant in a world that has turned its’ back on what Christ demands that His church be.

My remarks are not meant to be specific to any particular area of doctrine, but rather are intended to draw attention to the errors that you make through generalization of the IFB church. Let me first address the catalyst for your crusade against IFB churches, your own personal experience. I realize that it was real, traumatic, and life shaping in its effect on your spiritual life. No one would go to such lengths to “expose” purported errors unless they were keenly felt. Let me add that this is the proper way to respond to perceived error which is allegedly being perpetrated under the name of Biblical Christianity. That said, you must remember that your experience was with one IFB church and as such gives you no legitimate right to use the qualifier “they” when referring to experiences that you had at one church. You know as well as I do that IFB is not a denomination in the truest definition of the term. IFB has no hierarchal structure, no headquarters, no committee on doctrinal purity, or virtually any other oversight organizations that so define today’s denominational institutions. This is however a two edged sword. The autonomy of the local IFB church frees the congregation from forced doctrinal stands, allows them to finance their own ministries, and gives each church the liberty of choosing their own Pastor and many other advantages. The other side of the sword is that it engenders a situation where the sins of one local congregation, Pastor, deacon, etc. invites every local IFB church to be painted with the same broad brush as is the case with real denominations. You cannot truthfully say that your individual experiences, or those of your fellow malcontents, can be said of any other IFB church. You seem to recognize this truth, but fail to correct it when you state that not all IFB churches are equally as bad. You are at best being disingenuous and at worst utterly deceitful. The only way to correctly portray your experiences would be to change the qualifier “they” to “the church that I attended”. If you were to do that, it would be much clearer to the casual reader. I liken the situation to an individual who decides to purchase a new car. He asks a friend for advice and the friend says with all earnestness, “Whatever you do don’t buy an Oldsmobile. I had one and they are terrible cars.” His error is making the assumption that ALL Oldsmobiles are terrible, based simply on his personal and very narrow experience. That same potential buyer could eliminate every single model of car that is produced and sold on today’s market if he talked to enough friends. If you have attended every IFB church in America today it may give you the credibility to make such generalized pronouncements.

As I stated above I have been a member of an IFB church for 12 years and have attended scores of them. I teach an adult Bible class, am the head of several IFB ministries, and have attended IFB schools. I am a teacher at an IFB High School and have preached and taught all over the country and in Europe. I have never been told what to wear or how to wear my hair. I have never heard it said that you cannot be saved unless you use the KJV only. I have taken numerous courses on Bibliology and the history of the Bible and have taught some as well. I am convinced that the KJV is as close as we have to the original autographs in the English language. It is not inspired, neither were the translators inspired. God has nonetheless promised to preserve His word for all generations. (Psalm 12:6,7)

My Pastor has absolutely no idea how much each member gives to the church and that is by design. I have one IFB Pastor Friend who was approached by a member who told him that if he didn’t do what this member wanted that he would discontinue his generous giving. The Pastor told him in no uncertain terms that he no longer wanted that member to donate any money to the church. This seems to be quite a difference from the conduct that your website accuses IFB Pastors of engaging in. I have never been told what type of music I must listen to nor have I ever told anyone the same. One of the Baptist distinctives that you failed to mention is “Individual Soul Liberty”. That is simply a restatement of Romans 14 that we all must give account for ourselves to God someday.

Are my experiences not as valid as yours or those of your readers? One area of great concern to me in the IFB church is in the area of soul winning. The New Evangelical practice of 1-2-3 pray after me has indeed permeated the IFB churches. Saying a prayer never saved anybody. A soul winner has never saved any body. The Holy Spirit does the convicting of the sinner through the word of God (whatever version a soul winner chooses to use.) It is not the enticing words of men that saves, but the word of God. I have been in services where the Pastor gave an emotion filled, dynamic message then tells people to raise their hand if they want to go to Heaven when they die. The raised hands are of course counted and entered as statistics or “souls saved”. I have also been in IFB churches, including where I currently attend, where this is frowned upon. My former statement that the “instant prayerism” methodology is beginning to permeate the IFB churches is as close to a generalization that I can legitimately make.
This letter is by no means comprehensive, nor could it ever be. I am simply trying to point out to you that you are doing a disservice to your readers by presenting your personal experience as being indicative of the whole. And may I add a whole that doesn’t even exist. Thank you for reading my letter. Should you answer it on the website, I am hoping to have an opportunity to respond.

William G. Radvansky
Pittsburgh, PA

• Independent – do not associate with any religious conventions – very little accountability
• Separation – teach be separate from the world and any appearance of worldliness
• Fundamental – strict focus on only the fundamentals of the faith (salvation and evangelism) almost to the exclusion of all else.
• Strict and inflexible literal interpretation of the Bible
• Rejection of emotional responses to music and sermons
• Baptism – teach that a Believer is living in disobedience until baptized by immersion
• Membership in the “local church”
• Tithing
• Exclusive use of the King James Version of the Bible. All other Bible versions are considered “perversions”, wrong and sinful to use. Some IFB churches will only use the Authorized 1611 King James Version.
• Strict music standards. The refusal to listen to, or participate in the performance of music that is not approved by the IFB. This is a complex issue but usually music is restricted to Hymns and productions from IFB type music ministers such as Ron Hamilton, Frank Garlock, Bill Gothard, etc. The mantra is “If it sounds ungodly it is ungodly.”
• Clapping – After a musical performance by an individual or choir, the IFB teaches that it is not right to clap since clapping brings glory to the performer rather than to God.
• Authoritarian leadership style
• Patriarchal society – Advocate traditional patriarchal lifestyle and excludes other alternative lifestyles
• Women are to be quiet, submissive and obedient to men. Women are not allowed to preach and are only allowed to teach if it is only to other women or girls. Women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in the church.
• Strict education standards – usually home school or attend an IFB school
• Corporal punishment for the discipline of children – “Break the will”, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, etc.
• Strict standards regarding dress and clothing style
• Striving for purity and holiness through human effort – perfectionism/legalistic righteousness.
• Strict standards for living. Not allowed to (or at least strongly discouraged) participate in “worldly” activities, such as dancing, drinking, smoking, going to the movies, gambling, eating at certain restaurants, etc.
• Delayed obedience is disobedience. If you fail to obey authority immediately then you are still disobeying since it is delayed obedience.
• Paranoia about modern science, health care and psychology
• Unacceptability of missing church if not sick. Strong encouragement to attend church every time the doors are open

This list is by no means all inclusive and I will be updating this list as more come to my mind and attention.

Jim writes: Last Sunday 2/28/2010 my wife to be effective 06/05/2010 attended this Church Potomac Highland Baptist Church after the services we ask the Minister if he would marry us in June and allow us to have the wedding there at the church. He Dr Lloyd E Heatwole. Ask if either of us was divorced I admitted that i was. He said in a nasty tone of Voice “NO” to both questions then proceeded to try to expalin why. he said it was his understanding that it was against Gods Law for divorced people to remarry. He did say we were welcome to attend the Church but we had to marry elsewhere. He did also say that we could attend and become members after we were married. So is he right or is he wrong. It is a IFB Church that you talk about.

Beverly writes: I am wondering if you have an specific information about the Independent Baptist Church in Cassville, MO. Am very concerned for my sister and her children. I am sincerely worried for her health and well-being. She no longer seems to have a “self” … I have felt for some time that her “church” was really a cult. How might I be able to assist her… she is unreachable and does not care for her physical or emotional health

John writes: Dear Sir, I just wanted to thank you for your site. It has been a help to me today. My wife and I recently left a very abusive IFB church in Atlanta, GA. I can identify with much of what has been entered on this site. If I could be so bold I would like to suggest something that I believe needs to be addressed in IFB churches more. That is the issue of sexual abuse of minors. We condemn the Catholics for shunting priests across the country to escape charges and then do the exact same thing. It seems that the lack of any hierarchy in the IFB movement is partially responsible for this. Each church is the individual pastor’s little fiefdom. I only suggest this since you have experience dealing with mental health issues. I am sure you have had to deal with people suffering because of sexual abuse. This was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for us in leaving the IFB. My wife finally got up the courage to go to our pastor about the man who molested her repeatedly. The man was a prominent church member there. He was a missionary “sent out” by the church. Needless to say, we were the ones in the wrong, “questioning authority” “ignoring Godly counsel” etc. The man had to get up in front of the church and “apologize” for unspecified acts that “God had already forgiven him for”. Many people in the church were horrified to find out what had happened and that they had been lied to by their pastor. I am not sorry to say that I am happy that the man who raped my wife (and other little girls) when she was a child is now sitting in prison awaiting trial. Since then, several more women have come forward about him. Unfortunately, the pastor wanted to sweep this under the rug and hide it. Some direct quotes from him “No need for this to get out” “We need to keep this quiet” etc. We have been accused of “damaging the cause of Christ”. I fail to understand how denouncing a pedophile harms Christ’s image. What has been hardest for me is to see the effect this has had on my wife. She has been diagnosed with PTSD and has strong negative reactions to church and the Bible because that is what was used to attack her. I am sorry to turn this email into a rant. Especially since we do not know each other. It is just that I have read most of what you have posted on your site and it struck a chord with me. I do appreciate the time and trouble that this site must cause you. John Buckner P.S. I read the disclaimer and I would like to ask that you not post any of this on your site due to the sensitive nature of the information. The molestor is due to go to trial soon and we have been warned about posting things on the internet, etc. I would love for that man to be breaking rocks for 25 years and would hate to mess it up. Thank you.

Luke writes: Thanks for this site. I’ve recently left an IFB church. I was saved about 9 years ago, and about 6 years ago I joined an IFB church. Now, I am experiencing much of what you have – doubts about salvation, fearing God because I have sinned and am out of fellowship. I can’t even read some verses in the Bible because I heard them preached so much at me as warnings. I also live in New Zealand so it’s not just America that has this problem (although, my ex pastor is from Hyles Anderson college). I think the major catalyst for me was reading some books on grace – Miles Stanford “The Green Letters” and I am currently reading Steve McVey’s “Grace Walk”. But even reading them, I still find that old baptist in me being cynical and thinking that they are “liberals” (that was a favourite word in the IFB church – all other christians were liberal for listening to their rock music etc). There are some things I still believe (KJB only for example), but most of them are things I came into the IFB with (in fact, I think I joined the IFB because of their stand of the KJB.. shame they don’t actually read it.. they get all their teaching from colleges and men). God bless I will look around the site

Patrick writes: Brother. I would like to thank you for your web site. I spent over 10 years in IFBM and experienced many of the things you describe. I came out of the wilderness one day while the new pope of Fundamental Baptist was preaching (Paul Chappell) He was railing on some issue probably attacking everybody‚s spirituality I asked myself is this the way Jesus would be? Then I looked at my two young kids and I said “I don‚t want them becoming like these people” I currently teach and preach a home church for all those wounded by the Beasts of the Field Ezekiel 34:1-10. I am utilizing your website to help in this endeavor. I wish you God’s blessing and Thank Patrick

B W writes: I am a young, normal, married guy who within the last year found my relationship with God. I found it through a Baptist Church which a good friend introduced me to. At that time I was an exCatholic Athiest. Then I made a huge spiritual leap, and it changed my life. Thankfully God used the church to save me, but now I need some advice about the church.. I have been part of a FIBC for a few months now. I have learned alot there and am beginning to get into a bus ministry thing(talked into it). But like you I cannot help but notice some things That I absolutely need in a church, are missing. Also there a few things that I am having increasing harder time ignoring.

I’ll list them:
1.The absolute need to be separate hurts any idea of community outreach and caring for others(which I want to be part of)
2. I fall asleep reading KJV and am a closet ESV reader.
3. I don’t hate other people for being gay or catholic.
4. My tithes are being used to support a pastor and his family…I would teach, study, and pray with ANYone for free Anytime…When did this become a career? (Tithing is a not so private thing)
5. Our church is small but has several unused buildings that I can’t help but cry thinking of homeless people freezing outside. We own 2 churches (1 unused), camp, and a school (unused)
6. Church is held at 11am and 6 pm so that the entire day is messed up (I’m not saying I don’t want to worship God, but we aren’t gaining points for hours put in to hear someone preach are we?)
7. There is no bible study/discussion, just extra mini preaching services.
8. I really don’t think all black people are hamites and cursed by God.
9. I like contemporary music AND hymns, but we only get hymns
10. they believe Soulwinning (via door knocking) trumps Soulwinning (via serving others)

So I’m in this Church. My family is Roman Catholic. My wife and daughter don’t go with me, but are not against me going there. So what keeps me going to this place that I know is in some ways hindering my walk with Christ? The people there. I have become great friends with some of the people in the church. I left once to try other churches and was kinda talked into coming back to give it another try. Now I am absolutely certain that this church is just another legalistic institution that promotes holding others to the standards of the law. I want to serve God and I want to be Christ like. But How can I leave people who will be hurt by my leaving? I have tried showing different points of view, but if it doesn’t fit in with their view its evil. I don’t want to sound like a pushover, but I generally like making people happy. If I leave I would feel like i’m wounding these people. So what I want from you is pretty much some suggestions.

Luis writes: Great site! Already started recommending this site from my own blog that chronicles our abuse: http://independentfundamentalbaptistmess.blogspot.com/ This is our story/struggle. I don’t want to reveal the preacher just yet since he is my father-in-law. Feel free to share this, it may help other missionary kids that don’t have much options in life.

Al writes: I have tried to figure out why IFB are the way they are, if they have always been this way, or is this something that has evolved. Probably a mixture. It’s my understanding after 17yrs and 4 churches that most IFB’s came from Southern Baptists or at least they broke from a convention somewhere. I also believe that what drove these folks to separate was probably a sincere desire to live for God the best they knew how. As with any sysytem over time it tends to degrade. (Law of thermodyamics.) Conventions, Southern Baptist etc became to liberal or taught some error so Pastors chose to leave a couple generations ago. They started IBC’s. What I think has happened is similar to the days of the Pharasees in Jesus day. The Temple had become corrupt from the influence of sinful men and they turned the sacrifices and the Law into something mechanical that you would just do and then you would be right with God. The sacrifices of animals were supposed to make you feel sorrow for sin and repent. IFB churches took a desire to be right with God and over time it has evolved into the same Pharasiacal process to be right with God. Wear this, read only this, attend 3 to thrive, etc.. and you will be right with God. It’s like warmed over Catholicism. They left the Holy Spirit, if they ever had Him, and have chosen to follow men. Pastors will answer to God for the sad condition of churches. Most church members tend to desire to follow the Pastor. It is my conclusion what we see today is a result of dismal leadership in churches. God help us.

Rory writes: I can’t tell you how eye opening and helpful your website has been for me. I’m in a really tight spot and could really use your advice/help further. Briefly, I’ll fill you in; I have been seeing and getting very serious with a 30 year old widow and mother of 4 who attends a IFB Church. She invited me to attend and made it pretty clear that it was how she was raising her children and if I was to be a part of that, I’d have to be a part of it. I now attend (uncomfortably) whenever the doors are open. Oddly though, she is not happy in the church and is right on the cusp of realizing EVERYTHING you said on your site and everything that red flagged for me right from the start. The preacher has concluded that she and I are seeing one and other and, though I sit separately from her during services and keep our relationship very quiet, has began preaching messages to discourage her from seeing me. I am divorced from my unsaved ex wife who left me for another man. It seems like every week it’s another message about adultery and whore-mongering! She is OBLIGATED to attend 5 services a week (2 sun morn, 2 sun eve, and 1 wed eve) because her children attend the church school. The preacher requires modest dress and preaches about physical discipline. The members do whatever he says without hesitation. He forbids swimming, music other than hymns, movies, etc… Her father is a Trustee and leaving would break her mother’s heart. I’m reluctant to pursue that issue yet anyway because I’m worried for her and don’t want to lose her before I’m in a position to “rescue” her. She hates going there half the time and leaves every sermon feeling terrible about herself because of the messages directed at us. Yet, she will not leave. She loves me very much. I don’t have any doubt of that. But, she has mentioned the possibility of us not working out because of the church’s disapproval. She is constantly complaining that it seems (even after losing her husband of ten years suddenly last year) that the other church members would be more content for just to remain miserable. She doesn’t even pray anymore. The whole thing breaks my heart and I was somewhat unhappy with the church all along. After reading your page, I feel like I need to be crusading, banners high, to get her away from this prison. PLEASE HELP. Sincerely, Rory

Elizabeth writes: Hello, It is encouraging for me to have found your website. I left an IB church recently and with a group of about ten former IBs we started a Sunday bible study/fellowship and it is just such a blessing to be away from the legalism and politics of it all. There is true freedom in the gospel. How amazing the God we serve is. Lizzie M from Australia.

April writes: Saved by Grace….BUT… I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… my infant baptism & confirming of my belief as an early teen wasn’t good enough…I’d have to be “immersed” to really please God… I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… after being fully immersed in baptism by a christian preacher, that wasn’t good enough either, it wasn’t “valid”….. I needed to be baptised yet again, by one of *their* properly ordained preachers…( I listened to tapes from a tape ministry of that “church” that I got in college. I drove to another state to be baptised!! hard to believe, but it’s true)

I was told I was saved by grace….BUT… since being baptised by *the properly ordained preacher*, I was now a member of *their church* = the *true church*, which had the true faith & practice. Evidentally, no other churches did???? I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… to not go to any other churches…just listen to the sermon tapes & get in for “church” as much as possible. I was living in one state & my LOCAL church was in ANOTHER STATE????? How was that church MY local church?

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… since there were no *true churches* in the state I lived…..to be pleasing to God it may be that I needed to “forsake lands & family for the kingdom = their local church….” In the bible, I only read where the Ethiopian eunuch went his way rejoicing, I never read anywhere where he was told…”well, if a true church doesn’t pan out back in Ethiopia, you need to consider moving your life…guilt trip…guilt trip…guilt trip….” Anyhow, isn’t the church a spiritual house??? Doesn’t Christ built it?

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT…. that if we weren’t concerned about relocating for the *true church*…that “we probably didn’t love the church enough to even be members” …quite a judgmental remark, I wonder if that preacher says the same things to his “non-resident” members today as he did to us back then? Lots of pressure was put on us to move our lives to be in the “perfect will of God”.

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT….God wanted me closer to the *true church*…& us moving our lives 2 states from the only home we’d ever known, “would make life easier for *pastor*” ( he said that on more than 1 occasion!!)…what about the burden put on us? I guess making our lives easier didn’t matter to him…? I was told I was saved by grace…BUT…. God may expect you to walk away from a career, a loving family & friends….didn’t I love God enough to make these sacrifices for HIM?? Yet, I thought that all God requires is “to do justly, love mercy & walk humbly w/ thy God”?? Micah 6:8 LOVE is the greatest commandment & Jesus fulfilled the law…so why was the LAW put back on me by this “Sovereign Grace” preacher???? Calvinism is NOT the TRUTH….so if a person loves Jesus & his fellow man, they are following the TRUTH.

Also, DOCTRINE is SECOND to the FRUITS, WORKS & EXAMPLES. Sorry, but being a good *preacher* & yelling & screaming & ranting & being persuasive with mans’ wisdom & speeches & putting fear into people, & manipulating & all of the logic in the world…this is not what Jesus is about. This is not the truth. **I informed pastor that I considered Arminian christians brothers & sisters in Christ (the group we were in is Calvinistic)….the pastor glared at me & told me “so….you have changed…” You bet I had!! I no longer believed in this “prove yourself & we’re doing church better than everyone else..” religion, that claimed salvation by grace! It was hypocrisy & selfrighteousness to the core.

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT…. there were no other churches to go to except *their* churches (the few that there are). Those others false churches, didn’t use the right bible version, celebrated those pagan holidays, didn’t baptise properly, didn’t wash feet, used musical instruments, weren’t from the true lineage & were not pleasing to God in many other ways including being “lukewarm” in addition to other reasons…… OK…..wow…you just limited in my mind any other group except yours. Gee don’t abusers do that???…”you can’t go to anyone else???..you can’t make it without me…” In sermons it was implied & oftentimes stated that “you can’t go to any other churches & believe that God will be pleased with you. To be right with God, you should join us, those other groups aren’t righteous”. The pastor would mention some evil befalling a person who left & imply or sometimes out & out state that evil befell that individual because they left the “true church.”

If you hint at leaving, pastor will scream from the pulpit that “anyone is free to leave this church!!” …but then the “man of God” (cough cough gag gag) will imply how you will not make it, & God might be so pissed that he would kill you & the “brethren” will shun you. We were told if we left that the brethren would “wash their hands of us” This sounds more like a gang than a church! I was told I was saved by grace…BUT.. if a *true church* didn’t materialize in our homestate, “that we would do well to consider relocating our lives to live by the *true church*” Of course I don’t recall pastor teaching on..”the kingdom of God comes not with observation, neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you”? Luke 17:20-21 what about we are members of a “SPIRITUAL HOUSE” what about “where 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name, there am I …?” Rarely if ever heard these verses preached on..

I was told I was saved by grace.. BUT….because of the pastor manipulating bible verses & the pressure & guilt we moved our lives from the only home we’d ever known, left our family to live close by & be a real part of that supposed “spiritual family”. Yet…the majority of folks there didn’t go out of there way to befriend us or make time for us. This was very disconcerting…told pastor about our struggles, missing our family, feeling like outsiders…then….. I was told I was saved by grace..BUT.. in a sermon was blasted at us that “the church didn’t owe anyone friendship!!!”…..(never mind that we moved our lives for it & were told *they* were now our “spiritual family”….) talk about a bait & friggen switch!! We were told to move our LIVES, walked away from loving family, friends, career, opportunities, for our “spiritual family”…..gee…thanks, wish I would have known that “the church doesn’t owe anyone friendship” before we friggen moved here for that bible-cult! (mind you the pastor & members were incredibly solicitous to us when we lived out of state.. they love bombed us …BUT..once we moved here….well, their duty was done. They achieved their goal. We were now completely seperated from our friends & family…my husband starting his career, his ability to earn a living & support his family, from SCRATCH. Don’t abusers try to seperate you from your support system?

Our lives were a blip on a screen to them…they had no idea what it was like to MOVE YOUR LIFE for a group of people who were just too busy w/ their lives to make time for you. The stranger in a strange land is on their own…. I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… pastor informed me that if I was unhappy being in the “true church” & leave, they, (meaning the people in the *true church*) would “wash their hands of us”.(meaning cut us off from “fellowship”/friendship)……quite a frightening proposition considering we relocated to this state for that *church/cult* & the majority of people we knew were in the *church*! Obviously this was meant to scare us, manipulate us into not leaving the “true church”…..as if anyone can? Isn’t Christ the builder of his TRUE church? I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… that if we wanted to move back to our homestate, that was something the *pastor* could not condone. You see, we didn’t feel love or much true friendship after moving here for the “true church”.

We wanted to move back to our home state, where we have extended family, friends & connections.(we were even willing to stay nonresident members of that church/cult!)..doesn’t God say “I will be with you whithersoever thou goest?” Would God leave us because of where we choose to LIVE?? Pastor coldly informed us that he couldn’t be there for us if/when God would choose to judge us for moving back to our home state! We were in disbelief…. I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… “the pastor is to rule the church as the minister of Christ…hence the church is governed by Christ through His written word being administered by His appointed overseer, the PASTOR”…..that’s just fancy wording for THE PASTOR RUNS THE CHURCH..end of story. what about the Holy spirit leading us & the priesthood of believers? Who is the pastor accountable to in this setup? ………& not some lame answer of the pastor is accountable to God & the scriptures….I’m talking being accountable in the flesh to people who can question him without fear of the bullypulpit…..& other underhanded tactics. REAL ACCOUNTABILITY to REAL PEOPLE. There were NO checks & balances for the pastor. Another question….who preaches to the preacher? Funny how he would brag that he, like Paul was “chief of sinners”..well, if you’re a sinner like us lowly sheep, how come you have absolutely no checks & balances set up to make sure that you don’t become corrupted with power & narcissism?

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… that to leave that *church* would be leaving the kingdom of God & the body of Christ. In addition, it was implied that God might kill us for the decision to walk away from that group. We wanted to leave what we believed was wrong for us, not healthy, not right. We no longer agreed w/ the half anymore, yet we were judged for following our own God given conscience. No, that is not FREE to leave. I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… was told that those holidays were pagan & I shouldn’t celebrate them…never mind that when I celebrated Christmas I NEVER worshipped the tree! What about not judging a person “with respect to an holy day….?” I guess forbidding holidays is a good way to keep folks alienated from their families who choose to celebrate the holidays. We were not allowed to be “convinced in our own minds “. Pastor made up his mind & convinced us of HIS mind. I was told

I was saved by grace…BUT… that if I was going to miss church, I ‘d need to call *pastor* I didn’t realize that my spirituality or relationship with God was tied into “church attendance”. It didn’t dawn on me that I’d have to be spoon fed from the same *pastor* my whole life. What about the holy spirit teaching a person??…..did Jesus say I’d need some MAN = pastor to be my shepherd for the rest of my days???? I have only one shepherd…the LORD IS MY SHEPHERD…not some “pastor”.

I was told I was saved by grace…BUT… that if the *church* felt like a prison, not to worry, because Paul said “he was a prisoner for Christ….” What a twisting of scriptures! Didn’t Jesus come to set the captives FREE? I was told I was saved by grace…BUT….but upon willingly leaving the group, we were then punished by being “excommunicated – church disciplined” & judged. Pastor assassinated our characters from his bully pulpit. I was told I was saved by grace…BUT…. when we finally got the courage & left the abusive group, we were told to “watch out for God’s fiery judgment & indignation to devour the adversary….” US…being the “adversary”. We didn’t walk away from CHRIST & we certainly are not God’s adversary’s…but evidentally that is the conclusion the pastor had of us, for WHAT??? following our conscience & being convinced in our own minds that staying in that *church-cult* was not good for us. For disagreeing w/ pastor & his man-made doctrines? Pastor was judge, jury & executioner of us & our characters.

I was told I was saved by grace.. BUT… upon exiting abusive cult church, people who knew me for some 19 years have turned their backs on us….we are shunned. We gave up so much of our lives for that group….cruelty & betrayal describes what we experienced, in addition to other adjectives I wont bring up right now. I was told I was saved by grace….BUT….in the pulpit *pastor* screamed “anyone is FREE TO LEAVE this church!!!!” Free to leave would be a hug & a blessing, not a curse in an “excommunication/exclusion letter”, public rebuking, character assassination & made to feel that you are satan’s minions because you wouldn’t bow down to an Independent-Primitive-Baptist-Calvinist- religious dictator. People on the outside don’t get the whole picture.

I will believe Xpastor has an ounce of integrity when he has our excommunication sermon & the sermons of every person ever “church disciplined”, UNEDITED & available for purchase or download to the general public so that people can REALLY see what goes on & they can see what “Free to leave” is, according to Xpastor. I was told I was saved by grace….BUT…. was put under the law in ways that the Catholic church I grew up in NEVER DARED. I had burdens heaped on me HEAVY to be borne that the Catholic church would never have imagined to put on me in this life. Yet this was GRACE RELIGION…..I dont think so! What about what JESUS SAYS RELIGION IS???? “visiting the fatherless & widows…is religion pure & undefiled”.

The religion I was in for some 19 years had NO FREEDOM, it was BONDAGE. It certainly wasn’t Jesus’ religion. All of what I was told WASN’T ABOUT GOD OR HIS GRACE it was about a RELIGIOUS SYSTEM & putting my family & I in BONDAGE. It’s all done under the guise of TRUE RELIGION where supposedly God’s grace is taught. People BE CAREFUL, these supposed “Sovereign Grace” preachers will talk, talk, talk about God’s GRACE, but be careful because we were made to jump through hoops that the apostles never even dared to make believers jump through!! written By April If anyone is told these things I was told PLEASE PLEASE BEWARE PLEASE THINK TWICE BEFORE THROWING AWAY YOUR GOD GIVEN FREEDOM! You will be living under a religious dictatorship. God guide you!

An anonymous reader writes: I read your website and can tell you from first hand experience how much I agree with you. My mom got involved in an IFB church when I was a child. After a short time, she began telling my dad (who was and is a conservative and respectable Lutheran) that he was a heathen and leading his children astray. He saw the danger of what was happening and tried to keep me away from her church. This leaded to increased violence.

As a child, I was confused. I was forced to start wearing ankle length skirts to school and was no longer allowed to socialize outside of school because my classmates were unsaved. Still, I tried hard to please my mom and the church, including going to Hyles-Anderson College when I graduated. I have completed four years at HAC and have one semester left.

While there, I have seen much that I disagree with. The academics (which were easier than the work I did in high school) were often forsaken and ‘big days’, ‘mission conferences’, and church projects took its place. I stayed anyway, partly due to the tremendous pressure from my family. I can say though that I’m looking forward to leaving. Upon graduation, I will leave for Air Force Basic Training and become and Air Traffic Controller.

I consider myself very lucky because I know that I only have a few more months of the IFB church. I do worry about my brothers. They see constant arguing and even physical fighting between their parents because of differences in beliefs. At 13 and 15, they are constantly told they are rebellious and hateful. They have been the subject of many a sermon. In reality, they are normal teenage boys who are seeing the truth and deciding for themselves what they believe. I just hope they don’t suffer long-term consequences because of the way they were brought up.

I’m in no way saying I’m turning my back on religion as a whole. I love God and believe in Him strongly. I read the Bible (I actually like the KJV because of its poetic language though I’m not opposed to other versions) and pray. I want to lead a clean life. But it hurts to be seen as a ‘heathen’ and a ‘homewrecker’ because of my decisions for the future. Thank you for showing the truth in this group. I hope many are helped by it.

Michelle writes:  My husband and I have been in the independent fundamental baptist church since 1991. I was raised charismatic. He got saved 2 months before I met him. I was attracted to the fact that there was an absolute answer. My first IFB pastor was a strong, charismatic, funny person that everyone wanted to please. Like I said, I was attracted to that. I was 20 years old and searching for answers. Thankfully, my mom taught me one very important principle- God is always right, man can be wrong. And yes, this was from a Charismatic Christian.

Our first pastor ended up falling big time. He was involved in immoral behaviour for years. Manipulating women sexually. Stealing money. He finally got caught. Interestingly, it was after he sent nasty letters to us bad members who were either not tithing a full 10% or not tithing at all. We tithed about 5%, but I wondered how he knew it wasn’t 10%? Well, I felt so guilty, and so horrible. We made sure we tithed the full 10% after that! But, 3 short months later, God brought the hammer of justice down and he had to go to prison.

Our next church was a sending church from that one. Actually, they changed to a non-denominational church after about 5 years. We were burned, however, because my husband was not allowed to step-down as a worship “pastor.” We did not like having the “pastor” title. It wasn’t us. Originally, he was just helping with the music. Soon, he was attending the church’s school and was ordained, and I hated it. He would not let us step down….until a better, more cool guy came in- then he decided God didn’t want him to do that anymore. I was glad he didn’t have to anymore, but I realized they cared more about their church than their people. We were having financial problems, marraige problems, child problems and felt like hypocrites when reminded of the “leadership character traits” required in the Bible. Those weren’t good reasons to step down. Not being “cool” enough was a good reason. At this point, however, they were no longer IFB- they were not Rick Warrenites.

Then, accidentally, we happened upon a REALLY IFB church. Women in dresses and coulottes, music standards, you name it. I just wanted to fit in somewhere, and the rules seemed safe. I could see their points, but couldn’t be completely convinced. We went here for 7 years. I started questioning things and secretly considering differen ways of doing things…but then major family problems began! I thought it was my sinful fault. I considered disobeying them, and God was judging me. So, I was back to making sure I was in my place all 3 services, tithing my full 10%, taking my child back out of the evil Christian school and even having the pastor’s wife homeschool him because I couldn’t handle it- too much rebellion, etc. After a year of that, our relationships became better, and we questioned things together.

We didn’t like seeing how one family alienated their son. This family was the “effective, successful family.” However, I was not fooled. I heard their children talk. They followed all the rules, wore the suit and tie, sat straight, tall and quiet in church, sang in the choir, played the piano and their instruments- classical and hymns only. But, one freaked just before he left. They did those things because they would get spanked if they didn’t. None of it was in their hearts.

So, we reevaluated those things. We gave our son an iPod. We allowed CCM. We didn’t like the CCM he liked, but we didn’t have a SOLID Biblical reason. We say, it’s not our favorite, but we aren’t banning it. His old music about rape and murder, we have a solid Biblical answer for- so that is “No.” What kid wants an iPod with classical music? We put him back in Christian school- back with the “bad” influences. Even though the “good” family’s 2 sons were the ones who introduced our son to not just music, but music about rape and murder. Who introduced our son to R-rated movies.

We were treated like those bad people who “lowered their standards.” We wavered because our kid didn’t like the rules. We didn’t “stick to our guns.” We questioned God, and have turned our backs on His ways. We even sat through sermons we knew were directed towards us. (It is a small church.) If the pastor sees things he doesn’t like, he topically preaches on it Sunday nights, and everyone usually knows who it is for! Mostly, it is a manipulative way to make people afraid of questioning his judgment.

It will always be a small church. People who end up their who do not know Jesus Christ leave. Their tight pants are criticized, and they can’t listen to their music. If they are exercise instructors, they no longer have a job God can use because of dress and music! I could go on. I see people who do not know Jesus Christ leave, and I see other fundamentals come in. Their last pastor did something bad, so they find another fundamental pastor. Those are the people who attend.

Birth control is bad. Delivering babies and using medication is bad. The only way to raise children is on a strict schedule. If you don’t schedule your children, you are outside of God’s will. God is a God of order, and you have failed. You have to go to all services. If something bad happens it is either sin, unfaithful to church services or you are not tithing. You can not dance. You can not clap. Ever. If music makes you move more than your big toe or little fingers, it is sensual…you are sensual.

My husband is an excellent jazz musician. He has not played his horn in years. They only want a certain kind of music. But, you can’t find the music to play anywhere, so all an accomplished musician can do is play boring music out of a hymnal. Why play at all!

We left, my husband is playing his saxophone all the time. My son has picked up the guitar. His is a GIFTED musician who quit playing the piano because he didn’t want to be forced to play classical music and hymns only. There is music in my home again. Sunday I heard that God loves me regardless of my performance. I left getting a glimpse of the fact that I am accepted instead of being this wavering, inneffective, no- good parent! My son laughs with us- when 2 years ago he was punching holes in the wall and cursing at us!

He still wanted to go to camp with them. I sure wouldn’t have wanted to. They were going to “pray” about it. He had to interview with the pastor so they could get his heart on the issue. Forget it!

We were expected to keep our children 3 years and above in a LONG adult service. LONG! If they didn’t behave, they were to be spanked. We used to do that with our 2nd born. That was inneffective and wore us out. We started to with our 3rd born. How stupid. That makes them hate church. We quit spanking them for that. That was not sinful behaviour! They were bored out of their minds. So was I! So, we just quit going in the evenings when they were too tired to sit for 2+ hours and listen to things they didn’t understand.

I’m thankful for my mom’s upbringing. I learned that relationships come first. God is not a duty- He is a “get too.” I was also taught that the Bible is always right, people can be wrong. If it weren’t for her, I probably would have shyed away from the Bible altogether, too. Hopefully my son won’t.

Well, that’s my long story.

Christine writes:  

I grew up in an Independent, Fundamental KJV only, legalistic Baptist church as well…unfortunately spent about 16 years there or so….. I was so turned off to it by the time I was 18, that I stayed out of church until I was about 28 or so, due to my ignorance, thinking that all churches were like this. I did not want to go to hell, but in my opinion, going to this chruch was hell, so I refused to go back.

Then when I was 27 or so, i was curious and thirsty for God, and so I started going to a southern Baptist church which turned me back on because they were not legalistic and taught me about a true relationship with God and that it is what’s in the heart that matters, not all the ridiculous man-made rules and “religiousness” that goes on in the Fundamental type churches. I have now attended a Full-Gospel Pentecostal church that is not legalistic, for over nine years and could never go back to the rigid, black and white way of seeing things….. fundamentalism. It is my strong personal opinion, that any time you have “Fundamentalism” in a “religion” it is going to be extreme and out of balance… the same goes with the fundamentalists in the mormom church, muslims, etc…. extremely out of balance in the worst sense.

Though I agree not all of these Fundamental churches are manipulating, mean-spirited, controlling modern-day Pharisees, like most of them (99.9%) are, they for the most part are, they do an EXTREME amount of damage to the “church” as a whole, as they misrepresent what the Gospel is truly about and get people side-tracked onto rules, so much that they are so busy trying to please the leadership of the church with the length of their skirt being just right, or whether or not they’re wearing panty hose, or the men’s hair is the right length, that their whole way of thinking eventually becomes consumed with pleasing the leadership,and not God.

They do this all in the name of what they interpret to be “God’s true old-fashioned way”…. thus they stick to the KJV of the bible, as they believe old-fashioned is the best and most right way to be a “Christian”. What they fail to recogize in their narrow-minded thinking, is that the KJV is a version of the bible as well, and that there is nothing extra holy about a version that was made in the year of 1611. 99% of them would argue til they turn blue in the face, and sometimes even purple and black, that any other version is demonic and from the pits of hell. this is also a point where they go wrong, as we bring no glory to God whathsoever arguing about these matters, or anything that has to do with God… I have saw and heard of a lot of arguments in the Fundamental type churches, where people get so arrogant and hot-headed, trying to prove their point, as it is all based on a mentality of “we the KJV only people know best!!”… I honestly get very lost in this old version, as it is in Old English, and after going the spiritual abuse that I went thru growing up, I honestly never reach for a KJV bible. They believe it is the spirit of the Antichrist. They find soemthing wrong with anything and everything in Christendom that is not part of how they see things, or any way that is modern versus old-fashioned. God is not impressed with tradition or old-fashionedness, this is not God’s heart. God’s heart is love, mercy, and grace, and helping us find our way home to him one day, through that same grace and mercy, and love….

I have also discovered over the years that denominationalism is idolatry, and 99% of these fundamental Baptist believers are very haughty and prideful in the fact that they are part of this “elect” group of believers, and very proud of being a “Baptist” and you will be a whole lot more likely to hear them say this than to humbly say they are proud to be a “Christian” or “Child of God”…. They do not like to be around people who are not part of their elect group either, which is also not scriptural. I have a famly member who is a preacher at a Fundamnetal Baptist church and he finds something wrong with being on My space or Facebook, as it is “of the world”. Again, what they seem to fail to recognize, is that God can use outlets like this as a witness and for reaching people, and that it is not part of the “world” to let your let shine in that same dark world.

If wearing dresses makes me look holy, and my heart is dark as hell being judugemental and religious spirited, what would be the point? I know of a young lady who went to the same church I did while growing up. She told me the story where she raised 200.00 to attend a church camp, she did fundraisers, worked real hard to raise the money, and when it came time to go on the trip to the youth camp, her youth leader (who was also my youth leader) looked her straight up and down with a very demeaning and judgemental, better than thou mannerism, and said “You are not going to the youth camp, you are not holy.” He viewed her as “not holy” because she was wearing casual khaki pants, that were very decent and loose, and she did not find the holy code of wearing a dress, so he forbid her to go. The last I heard, she attends no church as she has been so hurt by this same church. She also was molested by the bus driver who took her to church, at this same very church in this town. He was also her God-father. I have heard story after story of people being hurt beyond measure by this church’s control, spiritual abuse, mind-control, judgementalism, rudeness, and hatred, all in the name of “winning souls to the Lord”.

I find personally that the whole wearing dresses all the time, sets up a spirit of “better than thou entitlement” or a sense that they are part of, again, an elite group of Christians, who have it all right, and that no one else does. It all boils down to “self-righteousness” though they are seemingly blind to discerning this. They find something wrong with anything and everything from Christian music with drum beats in it, a Christian singer without the look of a Fundamental Baptist, anyone who does not read the KVJ version of the bible, anyone who has been divorced cannot and is forbidden to get married in their churches, they mock people speaking in tongues, which is in itself bordering blaspheming the Holy Ghost, which the Bible says is unpardonable. I would not even want to get close to taking the chance of doing that… btw, Tongues is very biblical, and may I remind everyone, respectfully, that God never changes. They use the argument to explain their disbelief, that the bible says that “Tongues shall cease”. The words right after that in that verse is “Knowledge shall cease”. Has knowledge ceased yet? No…. it will only cease, just like tongues, after we are in eternity, and it is no longer needed here on earth…. What they are unfortunately failing to recognize is the big picture… Tongues shall indeed cease, in eternity, when we as believers, no longer have the need to use this spiritual gift for edification to the spiritual body as a whole and personally. They would find, however, that the gift of tongues would help get their minds off of themselves and their rules, and onto a supernatural and loving God.

I know I have rambled a bit, however I am very passionate about awareness on legalism and spiritual abuse, as I know, first hand, the damage it can cause to one’s spiritual growth and how one views God. Just because a church is zealous about “saving” souls, does not mean they are scripturally on the mark. We can, without even knowing it, be zealous in a way that builds ourself up, and not the true Kingdom of God. Thanks for reading, and God bless