SLA’s Rejection Of Dispensationalism Causes Him To Teach Modalism

SLA’s Rejection Of Dispensationalism Causes Him To Teach Modalism


Over the course of the last year or so, two of the big shots within Steven Anderson’s movement have rejected the Trinity and started to believe and teach a form of “Modalism” or “Oneness”.  That means that although they believe in the Deity of Christ, they reject typical Trinitarian explanations of the Godhead. This has turned into a witch hunt at Faithful Word Baptist Church which became weird to say the least.  (Side note: If SLA thought that they should be given leadership positions in the church, and they weren’t even saved (which is what SLA now claims), what else is SLA wrong about???)


The primary and obvious cause of this is that SLA produces YouTube watchers and not Bible readers.  When they argue about doctrine, 90% of his followers will resort to name calling when a flaw in their argument is given.  The reason is that they don’t know enough Bible to prove anything, they just watch SLA’s and his ilk’s videos.


The second cause of the surge of modalistic teaching in people connected to Steven Anderson is Steven Anderson himself.  Since he has decided to reject dispensationalism, he runs into a problem every time that the Bible teaches dispensationalism.  Bible Believers are dispensational because that is the only way to teach the Bible and be consistent. An example of being inconsistent is Steven Anderson.  He rejects Modalism and then also he teaches it. I will demonstrate two times that Anderson teaches modalism as a way of teaching the verse while at the same time, rejecting dispensationalism.  


Example #1:

This is taken from Anderson’s horrible sermon on Old Testament Salvation.


“Many will ask the question, “What name did they call upon to be saved in the Old Testament since they did not yet know the name of Jesus?”
First of all, what name did Abraham call upon?
Exo 6:3  And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Abraham called upon the name of “God Almighty.” David called upon the name of “the LORD” or “Jehovah.” We call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The common denominator is that we all call upon the name of the same person by faith in order to be saved. God Almighty = Jehovah = Jesus Christ who was God in the flesh.
Isaiah 45:22  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (underlines by me)

One of the easiest reasons to reject that salvation was the same in both testaments is that no one in the OT knew the name of Jesus.  We know that a person in the Church Age can’t get saved without knowing the name of a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. “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 Without the knowledge of that name, then the salvation of OT saints must have been different.  This is so simple that even a caveman can figure it out, but Andersonite Flunkies struggle with basics like this.  In order to get around this foundational truth, Anderson reverts to Modalism (he is, what I call a Modalist of convenience, like most Bible Believers are Calvinists of convenience when it actually comes to preaching the Gospel and witnessing, but oh well…).  


When you don’t make a distinction between Jehovah and Jesus, when clearly the Bible is making one, then you are a modalist.  Jehovah and Jesus are the same (deity of Christ), but they are also separate (here, one’s name is revealed in the OT and one’s name isn’t revealed until Matt 1.)  An interesting question for Anderson would be, can a person get saved in 2018 if he what Noah knew, but did not know about Jesus? Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario, but in reality, there are people out there who know about a Creator like Noah and Job knew, but they have never heard of Christ and they don’t know the Creator’s name.  I would guess the number of people like this would be a couple billion. Or could a person get saved today if he knew about Jehovah, but not Jesus?  If he answers yes, then Acts 4:12 is wrong. If he answers no, then his teaching about OT salvation is wrong.


Anderson’s exact words are “the same person”.  In teaching the Trinity, people say “one God, separate persons” which is a decent way of explaining it.  Anderson just rejected the Trinity by saying the Jehovah and Jesus Christ are the same person. His flunkies are following suit.


Example #2:

This is taken from Anderson’s writings on Abraham’s Bosom.


“A common objection people will make is that they will bring up what Jesus said to the thief on the cross. Yes, he told the thief he would be with him in paradise that day because God is omnipresent, meaning he can be in more than one place at once. “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.” Psalm 139:8”


We know that OT saints had to go to Abraham’s Bosom until Christ had died (Ex 34:7, Luke 16, Eph 4) and that is where Christ went after the cross (Matt 12:40).  But Anderson rejects the idea that any saved person could go anywhere except heaven after death. So instead of the dying thief going to Abraham’s Bosom, Anderson teaches that the thief went up to heaven and that “with him (Christ) means with an omnipresent God up in heaven.  


We all agree that God is omnipresent, but Christ was human in a sense as well.  Therefore, in a way, Christ could only be in one place at one time. That one place is where the thief went, too.  This fits the wording all through the Gospels and any rejection of this leads to modalism and absolute foolishness.  When Christ went to Galilee, that is the one place that he was. He wasn’t in Galilee and also in Scotland. Because he was human, he was only at that one place.  God the Father was in both places, as Ps 138 describes, but Christ, the Son, was only at one place. To teach otherwise is to create a contradiction.


When Christ descended into the heart of the earth, that is the one place that he is.  To teach otherwise is to create a contradiction. Think of it like this, we believe that Christ descended and then ascended.  If Anderson is correct, then those words mean nothing. He has stooped to changing the Gospel in order to keep rejecting dispensations.  Serious business.


Here, Anderson is not only teaching Modalism, but he is demonstrating why Modalism is wrong at the same time.  But his listeners aren’t quite keen enough to pick up on it. They only notice the Modalism. And over time, they begin to leave the heretic because of his inconsistencies, but they end up believing doctrine just as bad.  All because they reject dispensationalism.


If you are a Bible reader, just admit it.  Dispensationalism is the only way to believe the Bible doesn’t have contradictions.  Eventually, any rejection of this basic truth will result in heresy.  Like Paul said, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” II Tim 2:7


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s