Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I have heard that Chuck Swindoll was a false teacher. One has said he was an "OSAS wolf" (OSAS being "once saved always saved"). I even asked an AI to tell me the controversial teachings of Mr. Swindoll. I was told that conservatives criticize him on focusing more on grace and less on performative action. As for he who called Mr. Swindoll an OSAS wolf, I asked the person if he knew of any exact quotes of Mr. Swindoll's, response pending.
Yet, I had to find out for myself. So, I went to insight.org, the website for Mr. Swindoll's ministry Insight for Living, and immediately, something caught my eye: "Essential Beliefs". Oh great. Is Mr. Swindoll another one of those "essentials" teachers? Let's see:
And while a grace-based ministry such as ours allows for freedom of interpretation and expression in many areas of Christian practice, we believe that the following essential beliefs are absolute and non-negotiable.
Ah. There it is. "freedom of interpretation". This is a classic heresy. In order to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15), interpretations of Scripture must not be loose. The Bible must mean what it says, and say what it means. Otherwise, is the Bible really that authoritative?
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
(Mat 7:28-29)
As for "essential beliefs", which in most modern false churches, include the 66-book Biblical canon, the "Trinity", man's sinfulness, the way of salvation, the final resurrection, the Church, etc (most of these doctrines I take no issue with btw), two problems. Firstly, if we are to talk about foundational doctrines, why is the modern list different from a list such as this:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.
(Heb 6:1-3)
Is Chuck Swindoll saying that repenting from dead works, baptism, and laying on of hands, are non-essential doctrines? The writer of Hebrews includes them in Christianity 101! Obviously, the writer of Hebrews is not saying that all other doctrines besides that list are non-essential, lest he himself doesn't believe that man lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".
Secondly, is Chuck Swindoll suggesting that the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount are non-essential? Some of which speak of Hell, not going to Heaven, or not being forgiven of sins? (Matthew 5:20 on exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, v. 22 on "thou fool", v. 29-30 on removing sources of temptation, 6:15 on nonforgiveness, 7:13 on the broad road to destruction, 7:21-23 on "I never knew you").
To be a Christian and be saved, you must believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), who is the Word of God (John 1:1, 1:14, etc., also see Luke 8:12). To believe in the Word of God is not to believe part of it and ignore the rest. You must believe ALL of it, or you don't believe it at all.
If Chuck Swindoll's teachings are rooted in the essentials lie, he is a false teacher, and he is not saved, and he is leading many to Hell.
Citations:
“Essential Beliefs.” Essential Beliefs - Insight for Living Ministries, www.insight.org/about/essential-beliefs. Accessed 4 Jan. 2025.
This really ticks me off. (But I personally forgive him. (Matthew 6:14-15) ) For the past 48 hours, I have been so distressed thinking that I wasn't saved because of Will Allen's use of the word "sin". And then I come to find out that what Mr. Allen calls "sin" is confirmed to be "willful rebellion against God". Firstly, if that's what you mean when Christians are "sin-free", then by that weird definition, that is correct. When I think of that definition, I think of Hebrews 10:26:
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26, KJV)
And "sin-free" perfectly fits the other translations of I John:
“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” (1 John 3:9, ESV)
Yet, "keep on sinning" is NOT the biblical definition of "sin". This is (from Strong's Dictionary):
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.
To Biblically sin is to be imperfect. This verse, also from I John, sums it up well:
“All unrighteousness is sin...” (1 John 5:17a, KJV)
It is also confirmed on Reddit that Will Allen, username Dappereddit, is KJV-Only, citing that there are "many reasons" that one should "stick with the KJV" (another user).
Look at Isaiah 61:1-2 in the KJV. It reads:
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
(Isa 61:1-2)
Now look at Luke 4:18-19 in the KJV. It reads:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(Luk 4:18-19)
The version Jesus was reading from adds: "and recovering of sight to the blind", among other things. Yet, no sin was committed.
If other versions were good enough for Jesus, they're good enough for us.
Stay away from the teachings of Will Allen. He twists the English and Greek language and will confuse and disturb many.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
(1Jn 1:8-10)
The YouTube algorithm has shown me another man who claims Christ, and gives the bold claim that it is impossible for a born-again believer to sin. Ever. In that, if someone who claims to be a born-again believer is still sinning, then it is evidence that that person has never truly converted to Christ. Will goes even further by saying that the way to become sin-free through Christ is to truly surrender yourself to Christ.
Now, on the surface, it all seems well and good.
However, I worry that this will make believers worry about their own salvation, in that if Will's doctrine was heeded faithfully, even the smallest sins amongst "believers" (for example, evil thoughts, see Proverbs 6:18) are evidence enough that such a person has not truly converted, for if they have truly converted, they would have committed NO sins at all post-conversion.
Naturally, I was about to expose this gentleman left and right. The thing is, I don't need to. Just read the comments in the following page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3aQvISIYU (I refuse to link it for obvious reasons) and you'll see why. I even made a comment (which was later deleted because I hid him from my feed), which reads:
Oh wow, the Ephesians 5:11 is deep in the comments section. Here's some more help folks:
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
(1Co 11:27-32)
In this Scripture, Paul is warning the Corinthian believers that those who commit sacrilege against the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper are guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord. In fact, Paul is saying that many of such believers have already sinned in this manner, and thus have suffered the consequences of sickness and bodily death. Yet, in the Lord's judgment and chastisement, there is a chance for them to return to righteousness.
Next:
2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.
This was in reference to I Corinthians 5, when Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for tolerating a sin among the believers that not even the pagans would tolerate! Yet, repentance is possible.
Next:
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
(Jas 5:13-15)
James is suggesting in this Scripture that it is possible for a believer to have committed sins, James is speaking to BELEIVERS (James 1:2, "brethren"). Yet, forgiveness is possible.
Next, as an example:
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
(Rev 2:20-22)
Jesus is addressing the church in Thyatyria, rebuking the church for tolerating the false prophetess Jezebel. She led Christ's SERVANTS to sin. Yet, repentance is possible ("except THEY repent of THEIR deeds").
Now, as for one of Will's proof texts:
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Many other translations of that verse and others render "commit sin" as "keep on sinning". And this appears to be a sound translation given I John 1.
Will, what I find troublesome with your doctrine is that those who adhere to it are liable to be anxious about their own salvation, as if, if they commit even one sin after conversion, it's proof that they've never converted at all. I agree that we are to avoid sin at all costs (Hebrews 12:4), and that sinning should NEVER be encouraged (Romans 6).
However, PLEASE consider ALL of the Word of God (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, Acts 20:27). How is it even possible for a true born-again believer to be sinless and yet, among true born-again believers, acts of sin has been recorded in Scripture? The impossibility of believers to sin and the examples I've shown above appear to be contradictory. I welcome correction (Proverbs 6:23).
Now, as I've said, this is an ongoing exposure of @willforthelord, because I have a feeling I will be hearing from him soon. All I can say is, stay tuned.
Update: Honestly, I am very disheartened at this doctrine of @willforthelord, and while in a practical sense, I do acknowledge that to live sin-free on this earth would be a wonderful thing (and yes, I do agree that it is not of our own righteousness or effort that we stay away from sin), I find so many pieces of Scripture that contradict this, as seen above! Even more evidence:
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
You know what? Because Will's doctrine is so foreign to me, I must heed the following from Jesus:
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
I have blocked Will's YouTube channel as much as I can.
As I've said before, there is one thing I agree with Will about, is that it's not of us to keep from sin, but of God:
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
At the very least, it means that God keeps us from apostasy. It is impossible for true Christians to fall away from the faith.
Those who trust in God will be righteous because God will carry us to such:
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
11/25/2024 Update: I've got another piece of Scripture that contradicts Will Allen:
Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
(Jas 5:19-20)
James is calling the erring brother a sinner. Why would James call them brethren if they're outside the faith? If I take nothing else away from this, I must take away this: Repentance ALWAYS leads to life (For example, Acts 8:27b).
7:16PM Update: I remembered something. I remembered that Will Allen defines "sin" as an intentional act, which, based on that definition, makes his doctrine sound more plausible, as, if I understand it right, no true believer commits an intentional sin, it just has too many Hebrews 10:26 vibes, correct me if I'm wrong (Proverbs 6:23)
However, Will's definition is sorely incomplete, as unintentional sin also exists (I'm using the ESV here for clarity):
““Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD's commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them,” (Leviticus 4:2, ESV)
There's more where that came from in that chapter, by the way.
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
Here are some things I need to confess. I'm not perfect. (I John 1:8-10) I get distracted by worldly things. This was even more so when I was younger (perhaps I wasn't even saved back then).
Here's what happened: For the past 11 months, I have been without a night custodian. In December 2023, I had to withdraw my participation in the high school's quiz bowl tournament as a moderator, because I had to work overtime as a custodian. As of yesterday, I now have a night custodian (he's more of a floater, going to at least three schools to help, but hey, it helps). So, I am able to participate in this year's quiz bowl tournament, and signed up.
Yet...I have thought about that above verse (of which I have discussed before) pertaining to such an "extra-curricular" activity such as quiz bowl. Was I sinning by participating in secular activities?
Honestly, I don't know. Quiz bowl is no sin in and of itself; how can the promotion of truth be sinful? I've been wrestling with my participation all day today, and so far, I came to the present conclusion that my participation is better than the alternative: doing nothing (highly discouraged, if not sinful, in Proverbs 19:15:
Pro 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger.
). [Wait, seriously? Am I lazy for not doing quiz bowl? No, I'm lazy if I do nothing after work, chores aren't nothing.]
As of now, I'm writing this blog post. Yet, on most days, I do jack squat when it comes to productivity. I once said to myself, "I need to relax in order to get ready for the next day." This is why I don't do any web development during the week, it racks the brain too much. But other things? Perhaps that's for another blog post. (That's probably a good idea, a critique of the 40 hour work week. (See Matthew 20:6,9 and the "eleventh hour".))
So what do I have to do to prepare for being a moderator of a quiz bowl tournament? Not a whole lot: Just look over the questions, and make notes on pronunciations, changes in current events (this happened in 2021 when Olaf Shulz took over for Angela Merkel as Chancellor of Germany), the acceptability of certain answers (Octavius vs. Octavian, accepting "Bryant" for "Vanessa Bryant"), etc. Honestly, it doesn't take that long.
Even the event itself doesn't take that long. As Sima Guang Hater, a critic of Kansas quiz bowl on hsquizbowl.org has said:
"KS quizbowl consists of 16 questions per round, which are one line long and sorted by category. And 3 of them are math calculation. This has the advantage of allowing tournaments to happen in the 3 hours between the end of school and dinnertime, but is otherwise quite terrible."
Now, does this mean that if something of greater importance comes up, that I'll abandon the quiz bowl event? Of course. But until then, I have pretty much committed to it, and barring that something of greater importance, it would be unbecoming of me to abandon it (Numbers 30:2, Romans 12:17). Correct me if I'm wrong please. (Proverbs 6:23)
Hater, Sima Guang. What’s the Matter with Kansas?, 26 June 2011, hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11697.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
(Mat 5:10-12)
So...it all started when Donald Trump became President-Elect of the United States. A comic I read called "Pizza Cake Comics" released a comic talking about Project 2025. In the first three panels, the representative said, "We want to ban abortion for all American women!" (PCC is based in Canada), "We also want to ban access to contraceptives! Women need to know recreational sex is evil!" Then in the last panel, a news article reads "AMERICAN WOMEN STOP HAVING SEX ALTOGETHER" "REPUBLICAN MEN CONFUSED, HORNY" 'DON'T THEY WANT 16 CHILDREN??" with a side headline that reads, "ALSO PORN IS NOW ILLEGAL?"
Now, this post is not about Pizza Cake Comics. I get the point. The Left thinks Project 2025 will turn America into Gilead.
But here's what happened: A comment by Kaitlynn Cary spoke of how Republicans keep saying "abortion is bad" but won't even help the child after birth. This sentiment I totally agree with.
So I replied, "Former Republican here, [I became Unaffiliated on September 1, 2022] and I agree. I'm still anti-abortion, but mainly [I first said "only", but changed it because I want to be clear I'm not cold and indifferent towards life] so God won't smite America. Because of that, I don't mind what the GOP calls "socialism". I want pre-borns AND pre-schools fine [a George Carlin reference]."
So...some alarm bells went off. Yet, I wasn't entirely sure why.
Just now, I found out. It was the God part.
So, Ms. Cary replied, "No no, Douglas. I want reasoning without god (which some have given)."
[In my opinion, you can't talk about abortion vs. pro-life without talking about God, God is very much on the minds of the pro-life crowd]
A gentleman named Aaron Murray (who calls himself a "Christian who actually reads the Bible") then piped in, telling me, "Bud, abortion isn't a sin." then explained to everyone about Exodus 21:22:
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Another gentleman named Lawrence Inutiq-Sackett cited Numbers 5:11-31, saying that's "literally how to do an abortion". The key verses are these:
Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
(Num 5:21-22)
I was then called an "imbecile" and a "Pharisee". But before I jump for joy (Luke 6:23), let's just make sure this is persecution, because I may be wrong on the abortion definition.
So, my response to all of this:
"Before I have this thread go off the rails (my apologies PCC), Firstly, I apologize. I don't consider the biblical examples Mr. Murray and Mr. Sackett cited to be sinful, those examples I don't consider to be abortions (maybe my definition of abortion is off [It was, they consider removing babies of miscarriage abortion]). I simply believe that an unborn child is a life, and any procedure that intentionally ends the child's life by another person is murder. As long as the child is not murdered, I'm fine with any termination of pregnancy [I implied that giving birth is technically a termination of pregnancy], even if it ends in the child's death."
Mr. Sackett says "Wrong Answer":
"They didn't have Plan B millennia ago, you disgusting excuse of a man. Pro-tip, don't want an abortion? Don't get one you Fake Xtian."
OK, NOW it's persecution:
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5, KJV)
There is a new anime character, and it's coming from the Catholics. Her name is Luce, which is Italian for "light". Immediately I thought, "idol" (Exodus 20:4, Leviticus 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:16, 23, 25, etc.).
Then I realized my own struggles with other worldly characters, especially during Planet Comicon:
"Yet, my fervor at beholding the Winged Knight [Batman] stirred within me a disquiet: Had I begun to elevate my soul unto these follies [a reference to Psalm 24:4]?" --The Ninth Cloud, Chapter 2, Verse 46
After any of my own hypocrisies are dealt with, then I can keep a 10 foot pole distance (see I Corinthians 10:14) from Luce.
This may have been a part of it: I attended a Sunday School today, and one of the Scriptures mentioned was the following:
Deu 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.
In other words, the ability to make money does not come from you. All your skills, all your talents, comes from the Lord. Correct me if I'm wrong (Proverbs 6:23)
As many of you know, I am a school custodian. Many months ago, I was left short-handed, becoming the only official custodian of the building. With the exception of some help here and there, I am still the only custodian of the building. At first, I worked plenty of overtime. Now, I work less, because I have learned to be more efficient. This made me somewhat prideful in my heart (Proverbs 16:18).
Sunday School reminded me of that.
Now, on to what I was going to talk about:
On my Facebook page, I used to have a picture of plastic canvas pieces that read "28 28", referring to Job 28:28:
Job 28:28 And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.’”
I also mentioned in my bio that I am a God Fearer and Lucky. The "Lucky" comes from the following:
Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
I'm still willing to acknowledge that I'm lucky, for we all are. And I still believe in the concept of fearing God. We should fear God, mainly because:
Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Yet, I also believe in not being a hypocrite, as is written here:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Mat 7:1-5)
Now, I still believe that "Judge not" doesn't mean "Judge never" as shown in this post here. Even in this Scripture, Jesus permits one to "cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". Why does one do this, unless it's a problem?
So what's the deal? Do I no longer fear God? I surely hope not. I surely hope my fear of God (which is a LITERAL DREAD (Isaiah 8:13)) remains. Yet, I would be so heartbroken to be found a hypocrite if I do anything that suggests I don't fear God.
I'm not perfect. My struggle is just like what Paul is saying here:
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
(Rom 7:18-25)
So, yeah. That's what's going on. I haven't abandoned the faith. I'm just being honest with myself. Only God knows if I'm being faithful. I hope and pray that I still am so.
