So apparently there has been a rumor going around on reddit and other places that says I, Larry Solomon (aka BGR), am actually Pastor Steven Anderson. Pastor Steven Anderson is the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He also founded the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement in 2017.
Do Pastor Anderson and I have many things in common? Yes. But we also have significant differences in our teachings as well.
Beliefs Steven Anderson and I have in Common
What follows are several similarities between my teachings and beliefs and those of Pastor Steven Anderson.
1 – We agree on the most important doctrine in the Bible
Pastor Steve Anderson and I both believe salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone.
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Romans 10:9 (KJV)
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12 (KJV)
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
2 – We agree on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy
The second most important thing Pastor Anderson and I have in common is that we both believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God and we are to live our lives by it:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
“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”
Matthew 4:4 (KJV)
3 – We both are Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFBs)
A third thing Pastor Anderson and I have in common is that we both come from IFB churches.
My parents raised me in IFB churches for most of my life. And as an adult I attended and raised my children in IFB churches. I attended and graduated from an IFB Christian school. Some of my class mates in high school went on to become IFB pastors or IFB missionaries.
4 – We agree on Biblical gender roles
Pastor Steven Anderson is one of the few preachers out there that is actually still preaching the neglected doctrines of Biblical gender roles.
In a sermon he preached on March 22, 2015, entitled “Women Working in Light of the Bible”, Pastor Anderson made the following statements which very much align with my teachings based on the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles:
“The main thing that I want to preach about this morning is the subject of women working outside the home, and the husband not providing and being the breadwinner of the home, but rather both husband and wife working. This has become the norm in our society today. It’s not biblical. It’s not God’s will. It’s not something that is the standard that the word of God says…
What the Bible teaches is that it’s man’s responsibility to provide for his him, and to provide for they of his own house, and that the woman’s job is to be a keeper at home, to be good, to be obedient to her husband, and to raise the children and guide the house and keep the house. I’ll submit to you that that is a full-time job.”
I have said from the beginning of establishing this blog back in 2014, that God had called me to speak on a particular area where I saw a great gap in churches today. That gap exists even within many IFB churches today. And that gap is regarding the teaching of Biblical gender roles.
Most churches today have abandoned the basic Biblical doctrine that marriage was created by God to be a picture of the relationship between God and his people Israel in the Old Testament and between Christ and his church in the New Testament. We find this picture presented to us in the Scriptures below:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
Ephesians 5:22-33 (KJV)
The Scriptures above tell us that it is “for this cause”, the cause of picturing the relationship of God to his people, of Christ to his Church, that we as men and women are to seek out marriage.
In marriage, men are to picture God’s love through his leadership, provision, protection, teaching and discipline of his people. And conversely, women are to depend upon the leadership, teaching, provision and protection of their husbands and submit to and reverence their husbands as the people of God are to do these things toward God.
Certainly, God places within us the drive for human companionship, sexual pleasure and the drive to have children as well and those are some of the other purposes for which God created marriage. But we must never loose sight of the primary purpose for which God created marriage, and that was to picture the relationship between himself and his people.
The sad truth is that most churches today teach an abridged and bastardized version of what the Scriptures state about marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 as well as many other passages. If they teach anything from the passage above, it is only to tell men that they are to “give themselves up” for and “cherish” their wives. They of course falsely interpret this as husbands needing to live to make their wives happy and worship the ground their wives walk on.
How many churches today teach that wives are to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord”?
How many churches today teach “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”?
How many churches today teach “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”?
How many churches today teach wives to “reverence” their husbands?
The sad answer to all these questions above is very few. But Pastor Anderson is one of the few left still preaching these Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.
5 – We agree that LGBTQ behavior is wicked and an abomination before God
Like Pastor Anderson, I too believe that the behaviors of LGBTQ persons are wicked and an abomination before God. The Scriptures are clear on this point:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
Pastor Anderson and I also have in common that we both reject Dispensationalism and believe in a post tribulation rapture and we also both reject Calvinism.
On the political front we both are avid Second Amendment advocates.
So yes, Pastor Steven Anderson and I have a lot in common, probably more than most people. But we also have several major doctrinal disagreements.
Disagreements I Have with Steve Anderson
What follows are several disagreements I have with Steven Anderson what set me apart from him.
1 – I am not KJV Only and Steven Anderson is
The 1611 King James Bible was actually preceded by 9 English translations of the Bible before it. Those earlier editions were the Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395), the Tyndale Bible (1523), the Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Taverner’s Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop’s Bible (1568) and Douay-Rheims (1610).
In addition to that, there were several revisions of the KJV and one of most commonly used today is the 1873 Scrivener edition.
When Steven Anderson and I both state that we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, we are basing that belief on different versions of the Bible. My belief is that the Bible is inerrant in its original writings in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. While no two ancient manuscripts of the Bible agree word for word, I believe that by taking the sum total of those ancient manuscripts that we can arrive at the complete Word of God. And no doctrine of the Bible is lost based on the differences between these ancient manuscripts.
The position of Steven Anderson and those hold the “KJV Only” position is that the 1873 Scrivener edition of the KJV Bible is the inerrant and preserved Word of God by which all other translations whether in English or any other language before or after this edition must be judged as accurate. They even believe that if the KJV has wording not found in any ancient manuscript (majority or minority texts), that God providentially wanted it to be there.
In contrast with Steven Anderson, I hold the “KJV Preference” position. I quote from the KJV the majority of the time on my blog because I admire its literal translation and its historical value as a world-renowned version of the Bible. But I also use the NASB from time to time because it is the most literal modern translation of the Bible in English and sometimes it is actually more literal to the original texts of the Bible than the KJV.
To those outside the Biblicist community of Christians, this might seem like a silly difference. But I have seen many IFB churches split into different churches based on this KJV Only issue.
2 – The IFB church I attend is NOT part of the Steven Anderson’s New IFB church movement
IFB churches originated in the late 19th and early 20th century as a reaction to modernist views which had infiltrated many churches, including some Baptist churches in America. It was also a reaction to the overreach of Baptist conventions like the Northern and Southern Baptist conventions.
This is where the term “Independent Fundamental Baptist” came from. “Independent” meaning a church not part of a convention (i.e. Southern Baptist Convention). “Fundamental” as in a church that teaches the fundamentals of the faith such as the Trinity, salvation in Christ alone by faith alone, the inerrancy of the Bible, the reality of miracles and a belief in a literal 6-day creation account. Historically, IFBs have also been some of the strongest adherents to Biblical gender roles. And finally Baptist, in holding to the historic Baptist beliefs of believers baptism by immersion, the autonomy of the local church, the priesthood of the believer, communion and baptism being the two ordinances of the church, only two church officers those of pastor and deacon and membership in the church being only those who have been made public professions faith and have received baptism by immersion.
Another core tenant of the IFB movement was an utter rejection of all forms of ecumenicalism and that is why until the last decade or so you would never see any IFB church doing joint ministries with any church except another IFB church.
KJV Onlyism was also a core tenant held by most IFB churches.
Many IFB churches also had added some additional rules not found in the Bible including prohibitions against using play cards, attending movie theaters, mixed bathing (going swimming with members of opposite), women wearing pants or shorts, smoking, drinking alcohol and gambling. When rock and roll music came out, the IFB churches added prohibitions against their members listening to any music with a “rock beat”.
As of 2020, there are an estimated 6000 IFB churches in America.
The IFB churches I grew up in, as well as the IFB high school I attend, had all these rules.
As a teenager in my IFB Christian school, I had a great love of studying and discussing the Scriptures. My history teacher once said to someone who asked about me- “I predict that Larry is going to be either a pastor, a programmer or a politician”. He was referring to the passion he saw in me for the subjects of theology, computer programming and history. In the end I chose the programming route, but I was able to teach Sunday school in IFB churches over the years and then I was able to start this ministry 6 years ago to further use my God-given gifts for the kingdom of God. So, thanks to God and his providence, I have been able to pursue all three God given passions the Lord has laid on my heart since I was a young man.
But while I greatly admired the IFB legacy of a zeal for living by the Bible and its adherence to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, I came to reject some of the more traditional IFB beliefs which I found to be lacking in Scriptural support.
I started having some of these differences with my IFB upbringing as early as my late teens, while many others I came to in my early to mid-20s. Some I did not come to till much later in life well into my 30s.
I came to reject the IFB traditional rules against using play cards, attending movie theaters, mixed bathing (going swimming with members of opposite), women wearing pants or shorts, smoking, drinking alcohol, gambling and listening to music with rock beat. I found that all these rules lacked clear Scriptural support. And the biggest change for me was coming to reject KJV Onlyism after an extensive study I did on the history of the making of the Bible when I was in my early 20s.
Eventually I knew I had to leave the IFB church I attended and move to one that was closer to my position on these issues and I found that in the IFB church I have now attended for more than a decade. I still have some differences with my current Pastor, but far less than I would with some of these other IFB churches.
Just this last Sunday, my Pastor was telling me before the service that he found an old sermon that a previous pastor of our church had preached many decades ago against play cards. He actually did a whole series against playing cards! We both laughed.
My pastor and I agree that many of these older IFB rules are what Colossians 2:22 refers to as “the commandments and doctrines of men” rather than the commandments and doctrines of God.
When I first came out with my differences on these positions more than 20 years ago, some of my IFB friends called me “liberal” even though I still strongly believed in the fundamentals of the faith and Baptist church practices. Eventually though, during those same two decades, many of my IFB friends, as well as their churches, changed their positions on some or all of these issues.
And that brings us to Pastor Steven Anderson. Pastor Anderson did not agree with these moves away from traditional IFB rules of “holy living” and especially the move away from KJV Onlyism and this prompted him to create his “New IFB” church movement in 2017.
In 2020, there are about 30 IFB churches that have joined his movement.
3 – I don’t believe the government must have the death penalty for homosexuals, Steven Anderson does
Steven Anderson has said in so many words on more than one occasion that he would like to see gays put to death. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he means the government doing it, and not Christians running in the streets randomly killing gays. He bases that belief on the following Old Testament passage:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”.
Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
When we look at the Old Testament, we must be careful to separate the moral law from the civil penalties imposed for breaking God’s law under the theocracy of Israel which God instituted. The New Testament church is not a physical nation, but rather a spiritual nation made up of believers from all physical nations of the world. The church has no civil authority to execute punishments like these imposed for the theocracy of Israel.
So no, the United States government is not Biblically obliged to execute homosexuals as Steven Anderson believes. But there is a difference between executing homosexuals, and approving of their behavior as the American government now does.
The Scriptures tell us the role of all civil governments:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well”.
1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)
All civil governments have a God ordained duty to condemn behavior which God condemns in his Word. God condemns activities like prostitution, premarital sex, incest, adultery, men having sexual relations with men and transgenderism. Therefore, the civil government by the command of God has an obligation to punish these “evildoers”.
The punishments of course are not defined for any civil government outside the theocracy of Israel which no longer exists, therefore the punishments are left by God to the discretion of the civil authorities.
Someone might ask “Ok, so Leviticus 20:13 does not mean all civil governments for all time must execute men who have sex with other men. But does it allow civil governments to do this if they wanted to?” The answer to that question is YES. Now to the humanists (Christian or atheist) reading this, they may see this as a distinction without a difference. But it is a very big difference between me and Steven Anderson. He believes the government is compelled to execute men who have sex with other men, while I believe the civil government is only compelled to condemn this action and may punish this behavior in other non-lethal ways.
4 – Steven Anderson and I would strongly disagree on Biblical sexology
If the people spreading rumors that I was Steve Anderson had really done their homework, and simply searched for “Steven Anderson” in the search bar of my blog, they would have found an article I wrote way back in 2015 refuting Steven Anderson’s position on what the Bible says about lust. The article is entitled “What is the Lust of the Eyes in I John 2:16?”. I had it slated for migrating over to my new blog BiblicalSexology.com, but I will leave it here for a while longer although I have turned off the comments for it.
I teach that Matthew 5:28’s prohibition against a man looking on a woman “to lust after her” can only be understood by the Biblical definition of lust. The Biblical definition of lust is given to us in Romans 7:7 when the Apostle Paul states “for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”. After being told that lust is covetousness and a violation of the 10th commandment, we must then look to the 10th commandment. In Exodus 20:17 the Bible states “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.
So, this leads us to the following conclusions regarding lust. If lust was merely desire of any kind, then all real-estate transactions would be sinful. You don’t buy someone’s house without first finding it desirable, and then going through the process to purchase it.
What Exodus 20:17 teaches us is that covetousness (aka lust) is when we desire to use or take something or someone in an unlawful manner. In the context of sexual lust, that would mean a man desiring to entice a woman into having sexual relations with him outside of marriage.
Lust is not merely a man finding a woman sexually desirable. It is not a man enjoying the view of a woman’s body or even him having sexual fantasies about her. Lust is not normal heterosexual desire.
It is only when we desire to entice someone into having sexual relations outside of marriage that we have committed the Biblical sin of lust in the sexual sense of the word.
Also, Steven Anderson and I would disagree on the subject of Biblical polygamy. He does not see it as allowable for the New Testament age and I do.
For more on these topics regarding Biblical Sexology, please go to my new site BiblicalSexology.com. And if you want to discuss these topics on sexuality, I would ask that you comment over on that blog on the relevant topics which you can easily find right on the home page of that site.
I am not Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
Anderson would call me a “KJV denier” for not being KJV Only.
Anderson would call me a “worldly man” because I play Texas Holdem with my friends and family, because I love movies and have a massive DVD and Blu-ray collection of sci-fi, horror movies and action films. Because I let my daughter wear all kinds of pants and shorts and because I let my daughter go “mixed bathing” (aka swimming at beaches).
Anderson would also consider me an “ecumenical” because I associate online with other conservative Bible believing Christians of all denominations who embrace the Biblical doctrines of gender roles. Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics – Oh my!
And if he ever read my views on BiblicalSexology.com he would deny that I am even a Christian, let alone an IFB Christian.
So no, I am not Pastor Steven Anderson. Nor would I encourage any of my children, family or friends to join his church or any of the new IFB churches.
3 thoughts on “No, Larry Solomon of BiblicalGenderRoles.com is Not Steven Anderson”
@ Not pastor Steve Anderson aka BGR
Have you ever had the opportunity to read the late Greg Bahnsen? He authored such notable books as “By this Standard” and “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”. I highly commend these to you, I am certain you would find them edifying. Bahnsen lays the groundwork of Theonomy in an inescapably logical and biblical manner. Full disclosure, he was one of my teachers.
I mention this because I do believe that homosexuality is described as both a moral and civil crime which carries a capital remedy for both moral and civil violations. Bahnsen unpacks this extensively among a myriad of other case law issues.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (which is almost word for word the same as the London Baptist Confession), uses this language: “ To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” Because scripture teaches that the land is defiled because of the practice of homosexuality, the general equity does require that the magistrate strongly discourage the practice of homosexuality. I argue therefore the remedy for homosexuality has not expired according to both confessional and Biblical standards. But it is not like the US is likely to change its liberal embrace of homosexuality so the discussion of civil ethics is somewhat moot except that Christians should not be supporting homosexual candidates or those that treat homosexuality as a protected class.
I have not read that book but I am familiar with the concept of a Christian theonomy. In fact I advocate for us as societies moving toward that in my article “The Case for Christian Nationalism” (not sure how realistic it is, but goals are good).
I agree in the Mosaic law that homosexuality is “described as both a moral and civil crime”. And I don’t disagree that homosexual behavior should be criminalized once again as it used to be in American law. The question is about the penalty for breaking this law. So for instance, if two men are caught having sex together what should the civil government do? Under the mosaic law given to the theocracy of Israel instituted by God, the penalty for committing this crime was death for both men.
I am not arguing that to have death as the civil penalty for these two men caught in the act of sex would be wrong. In fact the example of God giving it as a prescription to the theocracy of Israel makes death an an acceptable penalty for two men caught having sex.
But this is where we come to our disagreement. You argue that the “remedy for homosexuality”, the penalty for committing this crime under the theocracy of Israel, has not expired. I respectfully disagree.
I would contend that the requirement to execute men for engaging in homosexual behavior with one another was specifically given to the theocracy of Israel and expired when the theocracy of Israel ended.
Again I am not saying that it is not allowed as a penalty, should a civil government choose it. I am not just saying it is not required. And I am also not saying homosexual behavior should not be punished, but the punishment can be something less than death such as incarceration. And obviously if homosexual men were incarcerated they would not be able to share cells with other men so they would have to have individual cells.
I actually think there is another remedy short of death that could be applied as well for a host of sexual crimes.
If a man is caught having sex with a prepubescent person (a pedophile by Biblical standards), or caught forcing sex on a woman not his wife (committing the act of rape by Biblical standards), or he is caught having sex with another man then he gets castrated and then imprisoned for a length of time. If he is thought to be ok to be released into society after so many years and then he commits one of these acts again (you can do it without the biological parts), then he is either imprisoned for the rest of his life or put to death.
Again – to those outside our circle of Bible believing Christians, my differences with you and Anderson on this issue of capital punishment for homosexual behavior would seem to be a “difference without a distinction”, but there is a difference.
I would also leave you this Scripture to consider in support of castration for those who commit sexual crimes (including men having sex with men):
I believe that it is possible for a man who has struggled with sexual deviancy of any kind to be reformed in this way and he could actually lead a good life of service to God after undergoing the procedure.