WWUTT 705 Q&A King James Onlyism, Biblical Wording, and Sinless Perfection?

If you're part of a King James only church, should you consider leaving? If a friend claims to be a

Christian, but the way they describe their faith doesn't sound biblical, how can we correct them? And is sinless perfection a false doctrine?

The answers when we understand the text. This is when we understand the text, a daily

Bible study in the word of God, so that we may know the mind of God. Find transcripts to all our videos online at www .wutt

.com. Now here once again is Pastor Gabe. Thank you, Becky. You're welcome. My favoritest person in the world, on planet

Earth, in the universe. You're so sweet. So as you mentioned the transcripts to the videos, the most recent video is on King James only -ism, and the first two questions that we have to deal with today are about that video.

Oh, good. So let's go ahead and play the video first, and then we'll get to these questions here.

Sounds good. King James only -ism is the belief that the 1611

King James Version of the Bible is the only divinely authorized English translation. While modern translations corrupt the

Bible, it's not just a deception, it's a satanic conspiracy against the word of God.

The most glaring flaw with this doctrine is not one verse in the Bible supports it. And that's pretty much it.

It's a false doctrine. Now, if someone wants to use the King James Bible, that's fine, if you can understand it.

But to say it's the only translation God approved is a lie. King James only -ists argue the KJV is translated from the majority texts, while modern versions are from corrupt

Alexandrian texts. But the Byzantine texts used by King James translators were no older than the 11th century.

We now have access to older and more reliable texts, closer to the originals. King James only -ists say modern translations removed references to Christ's Lordship and deleted entire

Bible verses. But the Byzantine texts added these verses to the original text and the extra references to Christ's Lordship.

It's just extra pious language from some overly ambitious scribes. King James only -ists say the 1611 authorized version is the only true

Bible. Unless you have a King James Bible, you don't have a Bible. You need a King James 1611 authorized version.

Actually, no one uses the 1611, which also included the Apocrypha. Today's King James Bible is the 1769 revision.

God has preserved His word, which we have in some very good translations of the Bible. Jesus said,

Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away when we understand the text.

Now, before getting to the questions here, there was somebody on Facebook, on our Facebook page, who was upset at me for saying that it's not a big deal that our modern translations have removed verses that are in the

King James, but like the NASB doesn't have such verses or the ESV doesn't have such verses.

And they said, that's a problem because you're reading the NASB or the ESV and you'll come to that verse and it won't be there.

It'll go from verse 13 to verse 15. Well, what happened to verse 14? And so it's not right that we would encourage somebody in a modern translation because it could confuse them.

They will see that those verses are missing. Well, the chapter and verses were added to the text before the

King James was translated. So when the King James translation came about, they kept those chapter and verse markers.

And then when more modern translations were translating from the Alexandrian texts and some of the older texts that would be closer to the original autographs, it was very evident that some scribes had added verses to the text.

And so those verses, in order to be faithful to the original text, needed to be removed. But the removing of those verses does not change the meaning of the text.

An example of one of those verses that's been removed or a segment of a verse that's been removed is the conclusion of the

Lord's prayer. Matthew chapter six, verse 13, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

And we know what comes after that in the King James because you've been taught it when you were a little kid to memorize for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen. That's not in the ESV or the NASB. Correct. Why? Well, because some overzealous scribe decided to add a conclusion to the

Lord's prayer. And the conclusion that they added came from First Chronicles twenty nine eleven.

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours.

Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. So they took that from David's prayer and added it to the

Lord's prayer to give a conclusion to that prayer. That's where that comes from. But it's not in the original autographs.

OK, so when you go to read what would be Matthew six in the oldest manuscripts, you don't see that conclusion to the

Lord's prayer. It was added by some scribes several hundred years later and in faithfulness to the original text that's been taken out.

It doesn't change the meaning of the text. In fact, you've not even removed anything from the

Bible because that very conclusion, it wasn't there. That's that's for one thing.

That's really the case. It wasn't there in the first place. It wasn't there. But secondly, that phrasing is there in First Chronicles twenty nine eleven.

Somebody just moved it over to the conclusion of the Lord's prayer. So there's nothing that's being taken away from the text when those verses or those extra references to Christ Lordship have been removed.

As I mentioned in the video, it was just overzealous scribes that, you know, it's kind of like when you when you pray or you have somebody who prays those

King James type prayers and they say, oh, father, we we come before you, father. We love you, father.

Thank you so much for this day, father. Lord, I just want to lift up Matilda to you, father and father.

She just needs somebody to remind her that that you are still in control, father.

You know, it's somebody will drop in father over and over again in the prayer. You know, you know what I'm talking about? Right.

Well, that's just there is just an overzealousness there to want to address God as father, to revere the name, to use it over and over again.

Of course, it's also become habit and they're probably not even aware that they're doing that when they pray. But it replaces the sometimes there you go, right instead of going, um, what do

I pray about next? You just drop in a father. Speaking of,

I should have said father right there. So so the, uh, you know,

I don't know what I was talking about. Sorry. Okay. So back to the first Chronicles, I'm not first Chronicles, but the the other verse, the

Lord's Prayer, Lord's Prayer. Okay. At the end of that in the ESV.

Can you go back? Yep. Let me see. And then scroll down a little bit. Doesn't it say something about? No, no, no, no, not that far.

Okay. There we go. Verse 13. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Verse 14. For if you forgive others, their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you.

But if you do not forgive others, their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses. See, I thought that it was in there just a little bit further down.

No. Yeah. Not in the ESV. Nope. I'll have to look at which Bible that was that I saw it then.

There was a modern translation where you saw that. It might've been the NIV. Oh, okay. Yeah.

Yeah. I think so. It could've been an NIV earlier than 2010. Okay. Because I don't know that the new, new

NIV, it's the new, new international version now. Yeah, right. Newest.

Those copies that have been published after 2010 may not have it.

Actually, I can go ahead and check this right here because I got my Bible gateway up. Let me click right there, bringing it up.

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for if you forgive people when they sin against you.

So, no, it's not there in the NIV either. It could be in there in the older versions of the

NIV because I think part of the phrase for phrase translation by which the

NIV, which was the translating philosophy that was used when the

NIV was translated, they still probably borrowed from the King James and the Byzantine texts that brought about or that the

King James was translated from. So, I think that was part of the translation process for the

NIV. Therefore, they would've added that conclusion in there. I gotcha. But now they don't anymore. I don't know why.

The new, new international version made a lot of changes. I don't really understand, but I didn't research their translating philosophy either.

But anyway, so that's all just to say that the removing of those verses and the extra references to Christ's Lordship don't change the meaning of the text.

It's not at all like the modern translators are trying to reduce the importance of Christ or trying to somehow get the reader to believe that he's less than God than what the

King James Bible presents him as. It's nothing like that of the sort. But the

King James only -us will try to convince you that there's some kind of satanic conspiracy going on.

That was a King James preacher named Robert Breaker, whose voice you heard in that video. And he's actually holding up a copy of Gail Riplinger's book from back in the,

I can't remember if it was the 80s or the 90s when she published that book, extremely popular among King James only -us.

They still reference this book, even though it's been thoroughly debunked. Many of her claims in that book are just outright fallacious.

Oh, that's sad. They're awful claims. She misrepresents people that she quotes.

I haven't read all of it, but I have read portions of it. I listened to the debate, the radio debate from back in the 90s between her and Dr.

James White, and she really gets panicky in that debate.

And White corners her quite a few times, particularly toward the end of the debate, asking her questions that she just absolutely refuses to answer because she knows that what he's asking her is exposing the fact that she's lying about what she's saying about modern translations.

But King James only -us just love it. There was a video that I saw on YouTube with Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger together, and Hovind is still pushing that book.

Oh, this is just so wonderful. This book from Gail Riplinger, and she really has some trouble looking in one direction.

Her eyes are darting all over the place, so she's rather manic. I don't know what she was like when she was younger, when she originally wrote the book.

So in addition to Gail Riplinger, and probably influenced by Riplinger, the King James only -us will claim that modern translations are a satanic corruption of the text.

And we unfortunately do have such a church here in Junction City. I think there's at least two churches that are

King James only -us here. There are some that will, they want to teach the

King James text, but they may not go as far as saying that it's the only God -authorized translation of the

Bible. They just prefer the King James. And there's some people that do that because that's tradition. They grew up reading the

King James. My grandmother, for example, Mimi was faithful to her

King James Bible. She just wasn't going to change. Even when some of the preachers that she listened to for years started changing their translations, she wouldn't change hers either.

My parents, I remember when I was seven or eight years old, I remember them giving me an

NIV and specifically telling me, this is the Bible. This is the translation that you're going to learn from.

My dad explaining to me that he still read the King James Bible, but he wanted me to learn the

NIV. I think he understood that when he was going to teach me how to read the

Bible, the NIV was going to be easier for me to read than the King James Bible. I still think that's the case now.

I open up a King James and I'm going, my goodness, the wording is just so different from what

I'm used to in the NASB and the ESV. You got to bury yourself in it. You really have to be used to it.

It's not that a person who prefers the King James would read the King James and therefore interpret the text wrongly.

They're just more used to that language. Right. And it makes sense. Right. They don't have to think about it as long as I probably do when

I'm reading that. So anyway, we had some questions that came in about the King James Only Us video.

And John from Alabama says, Pastor Gabe, thank you for the what video on King James Only Ism. I knew that you had done a video before, but I went back a couple of months ago to find it and it appeared as if it had been taken down.

Is this the same video? No, it's not the same video. There are a couple of slides in this video that are the same as the first King James Only video that I did.

The reason why I took that down, and there were a couple of King James Only Us I found on YouTube who were saying,

Ha, Gabe took the video down. We won. Right. Somebody made the comment. Not quite. Yeah, right.

Because it had over 10 ,000 views by the time I took it down. Somebody also made the comment, he just couldn't respond to the questions that we were asking him.

And so that's why he took the video down. The reason why I removed it is I felt like the video was attacking the

King James Bible more than it was confronting the problem of King James Only Ism.

And that's not what I wanted to do, especially the comment that I made in the video, in the first video.

Why don't I go ahead and play it? Okay. So here's the first King James Only Ism video that I did and you'll notice the difference.

King James Only Ism is the idea that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only divinely authorized

English translation and every other is corrupt and unreliable. The most glaring flaw with this doctrinal perspective is that you will not find one verse in the

Bible that supports it. Yeah, and that's pretty much it. KJV Only Ism is an anthropocentric doctrine.

It is not grounded in God's Word in any way, nor as a translation is it somehow holier than all others.

The KJV came from a Greek text edited by a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus who was rushing to meet a deadline and did not possess a single complete manuscript.

Sometimes he just guessed at what the original text might have said and admitted his edition contained hundreds of errors.

King James himself had political motives, imposing rules on his editors regarding which words they could use.

And some of the words are dated and done, not the least of which is the mention of unicorns. It wasn't until numerous revisions that the

KJV became a decent translation. A King James Only Church is teaching a false doctrine.

Now that's different than a church using the King James Bible as a text. But if they teach it's the only English version

God accepts as holy, that's a lie. The Bible is God's Word. We must be discerning and receptive of knowledgeable scholarship because not every translation is sound.

Or even a Bible. Ahem. The message. Ahem. A translation is not holy. God's Word is.

The only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. When we understand the text.

Can we say Bueller? What? Nothing. The coughing.

Oh, the. Ahem. Yeah. The message. The wording that I really didn't like in that video.

And I didn't like it the moment I was done with it and posted it. But it was kind of like, ah, well, people are watching it already anyway. But then as I started getting questions about it,

I was like, yeah, I really should, I really should change it. But it was where I said it wasn't until after numerous revisions that the

King James became a decent translation. It's a good translation. And it has, it has made an incredible impact on the world.

There probably is not a book in the world that has been more impacting on mankind than the

King James Bible. No translation of the Bible has been more impacting than the

King James Bible. So for me to kind of attack the King James that way, all this stuff that I said there is true, but it makes it sound like the problem is the

King James Bible rather than the problem being King James only. And that isn't it. That wasn't what I, especially when as a church, as our church, one of the translations that we recommend is the

New King James. The New King James Bible is translated from the same manuscripts that the King James Bible is translated from.

It's just that the language is more updated. It makes more sense. So no more unicorns, no more unicorns.

And somebody tried to gig me on that, too, is like, no, you don't understand a unicorn. It would have been like a rhinoceros.

You're right. I get it. But the point is, it says unicorn. It says unicorn. And if you give that to a kid, they're going to be totally distracted by unicorns.

And atheists love to attack that. They're like, yeah, you read the Bible, the Bible has unicorns in it. It's not the magical horse with the horn on its head.

I get that. But it's the fact that as a word, we don't use that word anymore to describe a rhinoceros.

It describes a mythical character. And so, yeah, we don't even want to go into that.

That furthers the argument that the King James language is dated. And in fact, the King James translators themselves intended for language to change, and therefore the wording of their translation would change because words, meaning of words, will change over time.

Oh, yes. They meant for that. And I think it's the statement of faith at the beginning of the 1611 King James Bible.

It's mentioned in there about the translation changing over time as language changes.

But you've got these folks today who just believe that somehow the King James was that's it.

That is the English translation that God was behind. And there won't ever be another English translation because we have it in the

King James Bible. But again, words change meaning. And because words change meaning, it will change the meaning of the text, not in hugely deep, significant ways, but still enough that it will make the text confusing.

Yes. And then people go and assume. And then that's where it divides.

It divides people. Right. Well, and King James only is hugely divisive. Yes. Well, that's not.

Yeah, it's because it's largely independent fundamentalist. And so they're very divided when you make a claim that if you don't have a

King James Bible, then you don't really have a Bible. And there are people that believe the King James Bible is the hill to die on.

This is the Bible. And anything else is a corruption. It's a satanic conspiracy, as Robert Breaker put it, and as Gail Ripplinger has also put it.

So anyway, so you see the difference between the two videos. I did change it because I wanted the focus to be less on the

King James as the translation and more on the problem with King James only ism. And it is very cult like some

King James only as churches are cults. They will oppose any critical thinking. You cannot question anything that they do.

They will isolate members or penalize people for leaving and will tell you have nothing to do with that family and ostracize them before the church.

They will elevate certain doctrines that aren't even mentioned in the scriptures because King James only ism itself is not even mentioned in the in the scriptures.

They will tell you how to dress. They will monitor your income and say, this is how much of your income that you need to be giving.

So it doesn't just stop with the King James Bible. There's all these other things that they will elevate to that level of primacy.

And if you are not following this doctrine, then you aren't saved. You know, this spiritual bullying that they will do.

So this next question here, and this has to do with King James only ism also. This comes from Jessica in Kentucky, and she says,

Pastor Gabe, I love your podcast. Thank you for your faithfulness in having a new episode up every day and even bigger thanks for your faithfulness to the word.

I have a question about your video on King James only ism. I attend a King James only church.

It wasn't King James only when my husband and I first started attending. The pastor read from the

King James Bible, but he didn't make everyone else have a KJV. My husband and I have a new King James Bible.

One day at a business meeting, the church decided that King James was the only true

Bible, and they discouraged anyone from using any other translation. But they said it was okay if my husband and I continued using the new

King James. Do you think I should be concerned about the church's direction? We live in a rural area, and it would be very difficult for us to find a new church.

Well, yeah, I would be very concerned. I would be too. I would be very concerned about the direction, especially because hairs start getting split over this issue, as we just mentioned.

So again, a King James only church will tend to make this the hill to die on. So even though they're allowing you to use the new

King James now, how long will it be? And I would be even willing to guess,

Jessica, that you're already getting that kind of pressure. There's already some people who are making suggestions about, well, you know, the new

King James isn't, that's not really the real translation of the Bible anyway.

There's already going to be people making those kinds of statements. And so I would be concerned.

If there is another church somewhere that you can attend, try it out.

Even if they're Arminian, it's not like the gospel doesn't exist in an Arminian church. Even if they're not

Calvinist, because I know your King James only church isn't Calvinist anyway. But even if they don't have or hold to a more reformed soteriology, you can still find

Arminian churches that are faithful to declaring, preaching through the word of God, declaring the gospel regularly from the pulpit.

If you can find something like that, then I would encourage you to start looking around and pray about it.

Certainly pray about it with you and your husband. There are going to be some particulars and some nuances in the church that you're currently a part of that I just don't know based on this email that you've sent.

But you know some of those underlying things. You will know the direction the church is going.

You will see a transformation in the pastor if he's being less gracious, less and less gracious about secondary issues and he's starting to make those secondary and tertiary issues into primary or fundamentalist issues.

Then things are going to start to get divisive. Then he's going to start bullying, like a spiritual bullying.

Well, if you don't believe this, you're just not growing as a Christian. And then eventually it becomes, how can you even call yourself a

Christian if you still believe that? Oh, that's so sad. And that you're right. That's going to be the direction of that the doctrine is going to go.

Because like we heard even in the clip that I borrowed from Robert Breaker, him making the comment that these modern translations are a satanic conspiracy.

King James only ism can go as far as being heresy. When you say this is the only

Bible that is God -breathed and every other Bible is not God -breathed, then you can end up rejecting the word of God altogether.

And what you're praising is a man -centered doctrine on a translation that came about 500 years ago or 400 years ago.

Now, if they've just picked that Bible to use, sort of like when you change from the

NIV to the ESV, would that be acceptable? If they just decided to use the

King James Bible. Oh, sure. It's fine. Yes. Yeah, like I said, if you want to use the King James Bible, great.

Right. I don't know what she calls discouraging, like telling people they can't use it at all or this is what we're going to preach from, so it'd be easier for you to follow along.

Kind of discouraging. You know, there's a nice and a not -so -nice way. Right. Based on what

I got from her email is the direction the church is going is that, well, the King James Bible is the only divinely -authorized translation, so that's the translation we're going to start using.

At least that's what I got. Let me see. She says, one day at a business meeting, the church decided the King James was the only true

Bible. Oh, ouch. So that's what I'm guessing is going on. That's much different. And I mean, that's an independent fundamentalist characteristic.

When you take a secondary or tertiary issue and you raise it to fundamental importance, that's why those churches are called fundamentalist.

And the thing is, they wear that label as a badge of honor. Yeah, I'm part of an independent fundamentalist church.

Yeah, just like all the other independent fundamentalist churches, which is not really all that independent. The church isn't supposed to be independent.

It's not. We are part of a larger body of believers that Christ has called out from the world to follow him and be zealous for his good work.

Which is why it's so important that you need that healthy church. The church that you're a part of is a healthy church.

Or at least, if you have the influence, go in and help them, or your husband, help them along the way to a healthier body.

Now, I'm fine with a church that's independent, that's not part of a larger denomination. So when

I'm talking about independent fundamentalists, I'm not talking about just your non -denominational church that was started up in a community that hasn't fixed itself to a particular denomination.

That's not what I'm discouraging. But it's that church that starts to elevate those secondary and tertiary issues.

And then when you have a fundamentalist church like that, that's making secondary issues fundamental doctrines, you can really get beat up in that church.

And so you're getting beat up by the world, and then you come to church and you're getting beat up even more by your brothers and sisters in the

Lord, who are supposed to be encouraging you and lifting you up and filling you up with the hope of the gospel.

And that's really one of the damaging things about an independent fundamentalist church.

I don't know anyone who has ever come out of an independent fundamentalist church just excited to have been there.

Even those who have been in IF churches their entire life, or IFB because it's usually independent fundamentalist

Baptist, when they've been in IFB churches their entire life, they're hard -hearted and bitter when they hit old age.

I just don't know a lot of joyful people that have come out of IFB. In fact, the stories that I most commonly hear are, man,

I was caught up in that cult and I'm glad I got out. That's typically the stories that I hear. So if that's the direction,

Jessica, that the church is going, again, you and your husband pray about it. She didn't mention anything in the email about having kids.

But boy, especially if you have kids. Because even though the pastor and some of the elders of that church might be nice to you about, well, it's okay if you use the new

King James, they're going to be indoctrinating your kids. Oh, yeah. This is the only

Bible, it's the only one that you can start reading, because it's the only one that God has authorized.

No, you're wrong on that answer, because it wasn't KJV. That's the other thing, too, is the

King James only, they will listen for your language. And what you're quoting better be exactly the wording that you have in the

King James Bible. And there can be no deviating from that at all. This next question comes from Jeff.

Is this the... No, we did both the King James only questions. So this next one's from Jeff. Hi, Pastor Gabe.

I offended a brother today because I challenged him regarding the notion that the Holy Spirit needs our permission for various things, including revival, spiritual gifts, healings, etc.

He used terminology that sounds a lot like Joyce Meyer and Jim Baker, definitely not those of the

Reformed camp. Could you speak to that possibly in a future video? The other thing that I particularly need help with is how to deal with,

I'll call it, semantics. This could include the above example of challenging a fellow brother over his misunderstanding of the role of the

Holy Spirit and what he supposedly will and will not do. Other examples include the following.

A man in our church brought me a song that he wanted to sing with him called Two Hands by Tom Coombs, which include the words like, accept him with your whole heart and feel the faith swell up inside you.

Things like that. I need some serious wisdom as to whether or not I should correct somebody from the scriptures along with when and how.

Any resources that you could point me to or advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your consideration. Well, as Paul put it with the Colossians in Colossians chapter four, let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt.

And Peter put in 1 Peter 5 that we need to be humble toward one another, clothe yourselves with humility toward each other is the way that Peter put it.

So be very gracious in the way that these things are approached.

I think that you should approach them because the language in the song that your friend presented you with is incorrect.

Accept him with your whole heart. Feel the faith swell up inside you. Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with the end goal there.

Ultimately, what your friend wants and what the person is probably singing about is that we would love the

Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Right. And that we would be filled up with faith.

Right. But it's the way those things are worded. Accept him with your whole heart.

We don't accept God. Right. It's a gift. Right. Our call to faith is by the grace of God.

We're called out of darkness into his marvelous light. So we are accepted by him because of the grace of Christ and the righteousness that we've been given by Christ by his death on the cross.

So and then the next phrase, feel the faith swell up inside you, again, you're just making a reference to feelings or emotionalism there, rather than having a faith that is grounded upon the truth of God's word.

I don't even know what that means. How do you feel the faith swell up inside you? Did somebody punch my faith and now it's swelling?

Sometimes the emotionalistic wording in some of these things is really quite comical, but as you, and I'm making fun of it, but be a little bit more gracious than that when you talk about these things.

See, he's presented you with this. So you have an opportunity to come back to him and go, could we talk about the song a little bit?

And arm yourself with some scriptures, be ready with some Bible verses that you can use to respond to that, or even asking him the question, can you point to me in scripture where it says that we accept

Jesus with our whole heart? We worship him with our whole heart.

We should certainly do that, but we don't accept God. We're not receiving God. Right.

And it could be the kind of thing where they think about it as, yeah, the wording's that way, but I feel like it's this way.

And so in his mind, he could be filtering it through a sound lens, but it's just not going to be sound to those who don't know any better and who are babies in the faith.

Yeah. Like his desire to want to love God with all of his heart. Amen. It's just, he's just not wise to the wording of what's being said here in this song.

One way or another. It could be that what you were saying, and it could be, you know, the instincts. It could be that he really does think that he accepts

God or feels faith swell up inside of him. Getting goosebumps when somebody sings with a tremendous voice,

I guess that's feeling faith swell up inside you. But anyway, and Tom Coombs, I don't even know who that is.

I don't think I know who that is as a songwriter, but anyway, now the song has been mentioned. Now the song has been mentioned, so you can go on YouTube and find it if you'd like.

Or not. But I think the first part of the question there, hang on, I'm going to come back to that. Holy Spirit needs our permission for various things, including revival, spiritual gifts, healings, etc.

Go read Hebrews chapter two, where it talks about how the Holy Spirit does all these things according to his will.

So it's not by our will that we give the Spirit permission that he's able to do those things.

The Spirit does these things by his will. And we need to be obedient to what God's word has said.

And I get that when you are going to correct a person's phraseology,

I get they're going to be offended. Oh, yeah. Happens to me all the time. You know, I'm correcting phraseology even in a what video or something like that.

And people are going to get offended by that. Just be gracious, be gentle.

Don't be confrontational if they're getting mad, but tensions are not rising on your part.

Just step back. Hey, I think we just need to calm down a little bit. We'll come back and talk about it again. But to understand these things, sometimes it takes several times.

It'll be several conversations before it starts triggering in their minds. To be gentle enough. Yeah. And gentle in those conversations.

And coming at this with Scripture as well. So like I said, it's in Hebrews 2 where we read that the spirit does according to his will, not according to our will.

So the way you will change his thinking on an understanding of how some of these things are worded and phrased, whether they're repeating

Joyce Meyer or they're singing a song by Tom Coombs or whatever, the way that they're going to change their understanding of this phrasing is by reading the word of God, by understanding

God's word. And listening to sound teachers. Yeah. Sounder teachers.

If you can suggest some. If I could suggest some. Or he. Yeah. In his conversations.

Vodie Bauckham, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, R .C. Sproul, Steve Lawson, Josh Bice.

And there's a few recommendations for you right there. A handful. There you go.

And some of those guys will, or listening, you know, listening to Wretched because Todd Freel will even play clips from a number of other preachers.

Oh, yeah. So then you can pick up some preachers that way. Ref Net, the guys that you'll hear on the

Reformation Network. Also some good stuff. So I hope that's enough for you, Jeff. And you asked for wisdom.

And I hope that I was wise. Yeah. Can't go wrong with knowing the scriptures and sharing the

Bible with your friends. That's right. Because that's what's going to help to conform their thinking to God's thinking rather than those false teachers or the passions of their flesh.

Right. And it is your job to help guide them if you are further along in your walk with Christ.

Yeah. So Romans 15, one, we who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak.

Right. And not to please ourselves, but to consider our neighbor for his good. Right. To build him up.

Which makes it really, really tough sometimes. It's hard sometimes. Because you really don't want to offend them.

I don't want to make you mad, but I have to correct you where you're going with this.

And then also Colossians 3, 16, that we are called to encourage and admonish one another and be filled up with the word of Christ.

With the word of Christ. The word of Christ. Not the, what do you say, filled up with the faith, filled up with faith.

Feel the faith swell up inside of you. Right. You should have faith inside of you.

You should. Or if you have faith inside of you. Just have faith. You just have faith. Anyway.

In your mind. I'm getting caught up in the wording of this stuff too.

Okay. So last question. This one comes from Amber. Hello, Pastor. Thank you for all of the work that you do to spread the gospel and help us rightly divide the word.

I had a quick question for you. I do not hold to sinless perfection by any means. It's a common

Wesleyan doctrine. Common to the Wesleyan church, Methodist, Nazarene.

But I know those who do, they do believe in sinless perfection. And they often refer to Jesus saying, go and sin no more as a proof text that we have the ability to never sin and that Jesus means what he says and that he expects us to stop sinning.

They often say that temptation to sin is still there, but we have the ability to obey and not sin.

In my personal experience, sin is so ingrained in me that I probably never go more than a few minutes not sinning, especially if we look at the command to love the

Lord with all of our heart and mind and strength. That means that every moment of every day with no impure motive and knowing that our hearts are so deceptive,

I just feel the view of sinless perfection lowers the bar of the law and also does not see sin as how serious and prevalent it really is.

How do we read the statement of go and sin no more properly in the context of other verses in scripture?

So the two most prominent occasions where we see Jesus say go and sin no more is in John chapter five and in John chapter eight.

And in John five, he's talking to the man at the pool of Bethesda and in John chapter eight,

I think it's actually John eight verses one through eleven, the precipice adultery, the story of the woman that's caught in adultery.

So he tells her where are they who he asked her, where are they who have condemned you? And she says, nowhere, Lord. And he says, neither do

I condemn you now go and sin no more. And so how do we understand those passages? Well, we understand that Jesus is telling the sinner to go and sin no more, right?

That's how we understand that. But if we're incapable of that because sin is so ingrained in us, how do we understand that commission by Christ to go and sin no more in the

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter five? He said, be perfect is your heavenly father is perfect, right? Another way to say that is go and sin no more.

So how do we do that? Well, the apostle Paul talks about this in Philippians chapter three, starting in verse seven.

Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing

Christ Jesus, my Lord, for his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things.

And I count them as rubbish in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.

Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible,

I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own, but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,

I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Let those of us who are mature think this way. And if in anything you think otherwise,

God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

And when Paul says that there, let us hold true to what we have attained. It's the level of sanctification that we are at now, and there's still more sanctification to go.

So if you believe in a doctrine of sinless perfection, you're basically saying that there is no doctrine of sanctification, right?

You're claiming to be fully sanctified. And Paul's letter to the Philippians really is a great letter to confront that concept of sinless perfection, because at the very start of the letter, he says,

I am confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it at the day of Christ.

So it will not be completed right before the day of Christ. You will continue in that process of sanctification.

Paul in Romans chapter seven, Oh, wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death.

Right. Praise be to Christ Jesus, my Lord. So Paul says here in Philippians chapter three, not that I am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own because Christ has made me his own.

So the goal that you're looking at is sinless perfection, but it's across the line of eternity.

Right. You will have died and entered into eternity before you attain sinless perfection. And then as we read in first John three, two, we will be made to be like him because we will see him as he is.

Right. We will have that perfection of Christ. Paul also saying to the Philippians, it's going to be more glorious, makes me a little verklempt.

As Paul also says to the to the Philippians that now I can't remember

I was going to say, you're welcome. I got verklempt again. Thinking, thinking maybe if I just read some

Philippians here, it will come to me. Oh, there it is right there. That's exactly what I was going to say.

Philippians three twenty. But our citizenship is in is in heaven. And from it we await a savior, the

Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

And and that's that's the sinless perfection that we will attain. The glory that we will be transformed into when we get to the other side, when we are with our

Lord Christ forever in glory. I'm so excited. So again, Amber, how do you confront this issue with your friends who believe this thing?

Again, it's with the word of God. It's understanding the scriptures just as the answer that I gave to Jeff a moment ago.

How is it that you respond to your friends whose phraseology or their terminology and wording may be a little bit off?

You give them the word of God because we can form our mind and our thinking according to this word.

And it will transform the way that we even explain certain doctrines or understand this faith that we have that we are growing into.

It all comes from the word of Christ. So a little bit of help for you, Amber, and we appreciate you writing in.

Thank you. If you have a question that you would like to ask on the broadcast, the email address is when we understand the text at Gmail dot com.

Be in prayer for us. I'm going to be at the Southern Baptist Convention all this next week. You'll still hear the podcast, but but I will be in Dallas, Texas for the convention.

All kinds of stuff going on in the SBC right now. I'm not going to address that at the present time. No, just wait till it's over.

Just just be praying for me. And for Becky as well, we've got a family reunion at the end of the week.

Becky's going to leave for that. And then when I leave Dallas, I'm going to go with the kids. She'll be by herself with our four children.

I'm going to leave Dallas and meet up with them in western Kansas. It'll be also a lot of traveling coming up this next week.

Yes. All right. Let's pray, babe. Yes, let's. Our Lord Christ, we thank you for salvation and we thank you that you have called us to yourself, that we have heard the voice of the good shepherd.

And as your sheep, we have listened to it and we are following it. And I pray that you would continue to keep us steadfast, though we and our sinfulness and in our flesh are so capable of going astray.

We are so capable of getting lost and wandering away. Yet it is you who are faithful and you will continue to keep your promises to us even when we are faithless.

So hold us steadfast and deliver us into your kingdom. And where where we feel weak in our faith, give us your strength and remind us over and over again, my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in your weakness.

This is all upon Christ and and not not for ourselves, but all glory be to God.

I pray for those that we have received emails from today and responded to some of those questions. I pray for those who are caught up in King James only as cultism and and that they would not be discouraged, but that they would hold forth the word of Christ.

And if people's minds continue to be unchanged by what they're presenting from the word, preaching grace to the hearers,

I pray that you would give them an opportunity to have another church where they can grow with other believers and be encouraged by the word instead of discouraged by all of this legalism and fundamentalism that they would experience in such a church that can be rather bullying sometimes.

I pray also for the individuals who are asking, how do I answer my friend with these questions?

Give them wisdom. And as James says, if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who gives generously and without reproach.

So give us wisdom and may we grow in an understanding of your word day by day. It's in the name of Christ that we pray.

Amen. Amen. You are listening to When We Understand the

Text, a daily Bible teaching podcast to help you encourage, help encourage. Help you encourage in time.

Yep. Help you encourage to keep your nose in that book.

Anyway, the Bible, right? I know what you're saying. Okay, good. It's still just cute.