We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Random Apostasies and Heresies

Midwest Christian Outreach has a good article about deception, and how it wrecks people’s lives.  All cults use deception to gain and hold converts.  MCO uses the Jehovah’s Witness as one of their examples.

Going along with deception, the Watchman Fellowship has an article (a “Profile”) explaining common patterns in cults.  Worth examining.

Speaking of deception and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jon over at Mind Renewers has been writing a series on the false teachings of the JWs.  Take a look at Part One, and you should have your appetite whetted for the rest of the series.

When it comes to deception, cults aren’t alone in using such tactics; the Roman Catholic Church has been a master of deception for centuries!  With them, it is a case of the blind leading more blind astray.  This week I was linked to an article in which the author discusses the RCC deception of praying to Mary, and why it is problematic.  I previously address this issue in my article, “Mary, ‘Mother of the Church,’ Is Not the Mary of the Bible.”  If you missed that article, I recommend you review it if you want to learn more about the Romanist Mary and why she is unbiblical.

Speaking of the Romanist Church, it seems that a Catholic school in California fired one of its teachers because he “married” another guy, stating that the relationship is not compatible with Church teachings.  He’s been a teacher there for 17 years.  I think they are going to lose this case - and should.  It seems the guy has been in this relationship for ten years, and the school knew about it; it is only because he is now “married” that they have a problem with it.  Their claim is that they don’t discriminate against “private lifestyle choices,” but the new “marriage” has made it public. 
So let me get this straight; if this man was involved in any “private” sexual immorality which the school knew about, they would still let him teach there.  But if it becomes public he can’t?!?  This is rank hypocrisy!  The man should have been fired ten years ago when they learned of his relationship.  They should have known better.  If they want to make it a rule that sexual immorality makes them unable to teach, then it shouldn’t matter if it is public or private.

The Mormons claim that the original plates of the Book of Mormon were inscribed using a language called “Reformed Egyptian.”  Of course there is no evidence of such a language ever existing.  Someone who works with Mormons decided to write a Wikipedia article about “Reformed Egyptian” so anyone searching can see what a fraud it is.

Now that I’m on the subject of Mormonism, I am SHOCKED to learn that they are actually becoming soft of the subject of homosexuality.  As strong as they have been against homosexuality throughout history, to learn they are becoming supportive of it is something I never dreamed would happen. I guess I’m a bit behind the times on this, because one of the articles Mr. Stone links to is dated September 2011, when the church put a “gay” Mormon in a leadership post. 

The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society seems to have no end to their apostate activities.  If you are a member of the UMC and read this article, explain why you are still a member of that denomination.  As Neil says, they are beyond parody.

I keep reading articles about a new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”  There has been much exposure about the author’s lack of credentials, and much more exposure about the book’s revisionist history.  Denny Burke has a good article about why he isn’t reading the book, and I have to agree with him 100%.

Now it’s time to look at some false teachers in the news.

Pat Robertson says that there is no sin associated with a “sex-change” operation.  Hmm, a man mutilates his body to look like a woman so that he can have sexual relations with another man and there is no sin associated with it?  It is still homosexual behavior justified by mutilation of appearances.  Contrary to Robertson’s belief, there is no such thing as a “man trapped in a woman’s body.”  (see this link for another report)

Mark Driscoll.  What can I say?  And yet he is still seen as a worth teacher.

Mark Batterson now thinks if we “follow in Jesus footsteps long enough you will eventually walk on water.”  

Neil Anderson is extremely popular with the “Deliverance Ministry” crowd, and sells books by the thousands - all rife with unbiblical and false teachings.  For those who aren’t aware of his bizarre teachings - and why they are unbiblical - I suggest a perusal of this article.

And here is an article about someone who obviously listens to false teachers.  She says it is against her religious beliefs to process a gun for shipment.  I wonder what religion she follows.

Finally, some humor to send you off with.  It’s a good parody of what passes for “praise” songs in so many churches today.


Steve Bricker said...

I was asked to teach an adult Sunday School class on spiritual warfare and was given two of his books as useful texts to glean from. After reading through one and skimming the other, I knew this guy was off base, yet well-meaning Christians think he's wonderful.

I love Hans Fiene's satire videos. I knew about the contest and was waiting to see the results. Thanks!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Someone gave me one of Anderson's books years ago, thinking I would find it useful. I was ready to scream by the time I finished it, and kept some of the sections of the book for my "aberrant teachings" folder before tossing the book.

Anonymous said...

Oh my!!! That "soap opera praise and worship" video was hilarious!!! And yes, sadly, any of those songs could be on most "christian" (little c intentional) radio these days, because most songs are so vapid. Hence I no longer listen to "christian" radio. Unfortunately, I bet a number of believers would be fooled by these parodies. And at this juncture of church history, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these parody songs actually ended up being played in a church...

Regarding Mary, I grew up enmeshed in RC'ism, and remember learning about the "immaculate conception". I always thought that referred to Jesus - being born through the miraculous means via the Holy Spirit and the virgin young lady Mary. I guess the RC teaching never registered. Anyhow, after I was born again, I learned that it was a false doctrine about Mary, and "her" birth and supposed state of sinlessness! Ack! Yet she said "my soul magnifies in God my SAVIOR", and gave the required offering of two doves, things only sinners say and do! :)

Pat Robertson has said some seriously off the mark things over the course of time. So no shocker there. As for the religions that are all caving on various immoralities, again no shocker, religion doesn't sanctify man one iota. What people need is divine transformation from the Holy Spirit. Else, as you said, regarding the RC school and the teacher, there is no consistency at best, and rank hypocrisy at worst.

I dare not even click on the Driscoll ink. My mind was settled on the issue of his folly a number of years ago. What does puzzle me, like you, is that he is STILL considered a "worthy" teacher. Yet he doesn't meet the 1 Tim or Titus elder qualifications in any sense. He is waaaaay too immature, irreverent, and frankly at times, outright disgusting.

Deliverance - Years ago, I found an article by Bob DeWaay that helped me see the error in the "deliverance" teachings. It was from CIC Sept/Oct 2003, and the title was "The Bondage Makers - How Deliverance Ministries Lead People into Bondage".

Another great roundup today. Thanks Glenn!



Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I also used to think "immaculate conception" referred to the conception of Christ - but I was never Catholic. When I first learned this doctrine, I was flummoxed!

Go ahead and look at the Driscoll link. He made stupid statement and the responses are kind of good.

Anonymous said...

Hi Glenn,

HAHA, I wonder how many people think the "immaculate conception" refers to Christ. By the way, your article on the so-called Marian doctrines was good. Such strange - and frankly as you said sometimes idolatrous - doctrines regarding Mary have been conjured up in the RC canon.

Sigh, well, ok the Driscoll link was fairly benign, considering what he has said in the past. I didn't think you'd link to smut, but I always wince when I hear his name. Nonetheless, his statement was peculiar. Chose Father? God IS Father (and Son and Spirit, of course). Twitter has been used as a vehicle to disseminate far too many stupid statements, or should I say mis-statements, about the Christian faith.

Thanks Glenn!


The Whites said...

We were not "shocked" to discover that the LDS church is going soft on the "gay" issue, because we believe they have been somewhat ambiguous on homosexuality over the years. The LDS church never excommunicated nor disciplined Mitt Romney for his support for "gay" rights whilst Governor of Massachusetts, and they did not excommunicate their patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith despite evidence that he was a homosexual. Please click on the following links to read more ( one of the articles about Mitt Romney was written by a Mr.Stone, probably the same Mr.Stone you quoted in your post. http://renewamerica.com/columns/stone/120404

We believe that you owe us,(the Whites) an apology, Mr.Chatfield

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The Whites,

Your article stated that the LDS was sanctioning homosexual behavior. There is a big difference between sanctioning and going soft on it. There is no evidence they are yet sanctioning homosexuality.

Also, the disagreement we had was about your initial refusal to correct a claim about homosexuality in the LDS in the past. You finally corrected the article.

I see no need to apologize for anything.

Anonymous said...

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS ACCIDENTALLY DELETED DUE TO COMPUTER PROBLEMS (I may have to be out of action while this machine goes in for repairs). Fortunately, my e-mail inbox copy was still available for cutting and pasting below in its entirety. Glenn

The Whites has left a new comment on your post "Random Apostasies and Heresies":

We NEVER stated that the LDS church sanctioned homosexual behaviour, so, please do not misrepresent us. The Tanners article did say that the law of adoption could lead to temptation for any with an inclination towards homosexuality. They were not as dismissive of D.Michael Quinn as you are. Your readers need to know that you stated (in an e-mail to us,) these words, "the LDS is not going soft on the gay issue." You dared to rebuke us because we stated that they WERE going soft on homosexuality and you criticised our "lack of research!" Now, it is you who has to admit that we were right and you were wrong and that our research was good and yours was poor. However, when dealing with an arrogant man such as you are, no apology will be forthcoming. We hope you will let your readers view these exchanges, because no-one has anything to fear from the truth. By the way, please read the articles we linked to, about Mitt Romney and former patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith and tell us why you think the LDS did not excommunicate both, one for his pro-gay views (Romney) and the other (Smith) for homosexual activity. If you read to the end of the comments about Fielding Smith, a shocking allegation is made, and we intend to investigate this matter further.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The title of your article is, “Did church-sanctioned homosexual relationships flourish in early Mormonism.” http://thetruthshallsetyoufreeblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/did-church-sanctioned-homosexual-relationships-flourish-in-early-mormonism/

Our discussion was not about the LDS “going soft” on Mormonism except for one brief exchange in our e-mails where I stated, in response to your e-mail statements, that the LDS was not going soft. That was based on my information at the time. There is nothing to apologize for in that regard, especially when it is a subjective observation as to whether they are indeed going “soft.” Since their official stance is still that homosexual behavior is wrong, then your opinion and my opinion about “going soft” are indeed subjective and can be argued. As I stated in my e-mail to you, the fact that members are “going soft” does not necessarily mean the entire denomination is doing so. The fact that they did nothing about Romney’s actions has nothing to do with them “going soft” rather it has everything to do with politics and desiring a powerful Mormon in his position. Even Romney’s personal beliefs do not seem to have changed, rather he was/is playing the political game for more support - which is how he was elected governor. It is unethical and dishonest, and cowardly, but non-action by the LDS does not make them “soft.” Possible homosexuality by Joseph Fielding Smith still does not suggest at all that the LDS is/was soft on homosexuality - they took what they deemed appropriate action according to the link you posted.

But all this is nothing but a red herring in regards to our conversation on your blog and in our e-mail exchange. I did NOT rebuke you on the “going soft” issue. I rebuked you for posting your article in the first place because your article was nothing but gossip - as I proved. I rebuked you because you refused correction in regards to the article. By your posting the article you demonstrated that you did not do proper research on THAT topic, and THAT topic and that topic only was what I stated you did poor research on, yet you are here suggesting otherwise. The fact that you posted the article demonstrated you were accepting the claims as being true, and the title of your article suggested indeed that you were claiming that the LDS sanctioned homosexual relationships. THAT was the subject of my comments on your blog article, as well as our e-mail discussion. MY research on the topic was indeed good and yours was non-existent except for the article you posted.

It was your arrogance demonstrated by your attacks on me for suggesting you take down the article so as to not spread gossip. You suggested I wanted correction because I had some nefarious agenda, including support for the LDS faith.

You will not use this forum for continuing your false charges. You have time and again demonstrated that you are not open to correction (although you finally changed the article a few days later). When corrections are suggested you resort to ad hominem attacks.

You will receive no apology, your future comments will be deleted, and your e-mails blocked. End of discussion.

ali said...

Thanks Glenn, I always glean so much information from your RAAH posts.

Keep up the good work.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thanks Ali, it gets tough sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Hang in there brother, you're doing a good work for the Lord.