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, September 24, 2015

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

Another article via Erin: I am soooooo sick and tired of pastors goatherds using people in the entertainment industry as “Bible Study” aids.  It’s as if they have no idea what the Bible is!

For those who are unaware, Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist.  You’ll find some good questions for him as well as other SDA members here.

Another example of problems with “The Message” and why NO ONE should use it.  It is a “mess.”

C. Peter Wagner declares that the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is not a cult, and I agree.  It’s just a whole lot of false teaching with some of the most aberrant theology out there.  It is Dominion” theology, which is not centralized to any specific group of people—which is unfortunate, because if it was centralized it would be easier to point to the problem people!  They are nothing but false prophets and wolves.

The unbiblical nature of prayer circles, and who is promoting them, including people you’d think would know better.

Excellent article exposing the cult of Gothardism, and their current best-known propaganda family, the Duggars.

Why “War Roomshould not have used Beth Moore or Priscilla Shirer:  They are both false teachers.

I’ve alerted my readers to the false teachings Oprah Winfrey and the spiritual dangers of watching her show or following her teachings.  This video is six years old, and I’ve seen it before, but I’ve not posted a link to it.  Now you can see from Oprah’s own mouth that she cannot be a Christian as she claims.

Tim Challies has a good review of Paul Young’s new book, “Eve.”  Like “The Shack,” it is rife with unbiblical and heretical teachings.  Don’t waste your money on it.

Another frequently abused Bible passage is John 14:14, and the Word Of Faith cult is the guilt party, spreading the lies about this passage to non-discerning people who think God is a virtual Santa Claus.

In my last “Random” post I noted another false teacher setting a date for the end [the link was gone by 12/30/16 and paragraph was deleted].  His name is Chris McCann, and he was a follower of Harold Camping.  Go figure.

Steven Furtick’s use of his church to advertise his books and enrich himself even more is downright disgusting.  The video is almost 42 minutes long, but well-worth for understanding several other aspects of this false teacher and his abuse of his position.  You’ll also learn some more about Ed Young’s wealth and his association with Furtick, as well some exposure of other mega-church false teachers.

UPDATE 9/25/15:  I have been advised by a reader that while the particular article about Jonathan Cahn is good, the linked page is by Walid Shoebat.  I've never heard of him, but he is a false teacher with "unsubstantiated claims about his past and defends the false idolatry of the Catholic Church" including icons, images, veneration of saints and relics, etc.  So those of you who went to the link, beware that anything else other than the article about Cahn may very well be false teaching.

The pope is again speaking on “climate change,” full-bore with the LEFTIST agenda.  Since he’s supposed to be speaking for Christ, why is he being such a false teacher?  Oh, wait, that’s the whole history of the papist church.  There is absolutely NO evidence that man is causing any climate changes.  The planet has gone through hot and cold cycles since creation, and yet the pope has no clue.

Lastly, The problem with Christian films.  I have to agree with this viewpoint.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now wait, Glenn, what happens if I draw a "prayer circle" INISDE a "war room"...?

Goatherder Gothard is a very, very sick man.

-Carolyn

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

A prayer circle inside a war room -- instant disintegration?

Anonymous said...

HAHA, I figured someone would think that might give extra special super powers to one's prayers. *rolling eyes*

-Carolyn

Mrs. Mac said...

Wow. I'd not heard of “The Message” and it is definitely a “mess” – a very scary mess.

Regarding "Christian" films: I dislike them. My church holds "movie" night on any 5th Sunday evening. Movie and fellowship in place of teaching and fellowship. I stay home. I normally find very little uplifting or helpful in these movies, to me they are just a glossy piece of fluff.

Recently a couple from church, who are normally very solid in their beliefs, recommended a tv series to me. I got the disk from Netflix and within 10 minutes my radar was going strong. Way too much "feel good" things plus some phrases that set off my alarms. I stopped and dug into the film on the 'net and discovered this 'family' show was produced by the LDS church and it was nothing more than propaganda.

A Christian has to be so very careful.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Mrs. Mac

You haven't heard of The Message?!?!? It's sold right along with real Bibles; been out for years. Rick Warren loves citing it when he needs a verse which supports some weird teaching, because "The Mess" will translate it how he wants it. Really lots of New Age in it. Horrible paraphrase. I've wanting to get a chance to do a thorough article on it and bought a NIV/Message parallel to do it, but just haven't had time.

As for "Christian" movies, some can be just as enjoyable as secular movies, with some good plots, but with weak theology. But most just are like the article describes, and even then some have horrible theology.

The LDS puts out a lot of movies which trap Christians. The have one "brand" (can't remember off the top of my head) which are animated for kids. Sneaky.

Mrs. Mac said...

No, I'd never heard of "The Message"; but I live in a very rural area with no book stores (short of Walmart and Fred Meyer's). There was a "Christian" book store which was an hour-plus drive away on a somewhat treacherous road, so I only visited once a year and didn't spend a lot of time checking out new Bibles as I always had a shopping list with me, and had to get back on the road to get home before dark.

"The Message" reminds me of "Good News for Modern Man" which came out in the late 1960's. I wasn't saved at the time, and had been raised with the RSV Bible, but even I knew it was just wrong.

I mostly find "Christian" movies (and books) boring. They work too hard to be something they aren't. I'd rather watch an old Fred Astaire movie as some of the so-called Christian family entertainment out there these days.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Good News for Modern Man" is also known as "Today's English Version." Unlike "The Message," it isn't a paraphrase, rather it is a very dynamic version (thought-for-thought) written at the 6th grade level. But it still properly translates the text so as to say the same thing but in different verbiage. It's not a good one for deep study, but it's acceptable for the target audience.

Martin said...

No evidence for man-made climate change? You aren't looking for any, and assume, wrongly, that anyone who speaks about such things is leftist (frankly Christians shouldn't be using terms like left or right wing as insults, really unbiblical). Trying looking at some of the evidence provided by nasa and the ipcc, and also look at the story of Bangladesh, where climate change is affecting much of the population today. I honestly think it is really naive to assume that we don't make a difference in this world with the way we treat the planet. Even ignoring climate change read every text in the bible about the natural world, and let them inform your theology. That you seem to have nothing to say on it except when attacking leftist climate change is frankly not biblical Christianity.

Lindsay Smail said...

Another full RAAH Glenn - thank you. About 6 years ago I wrote a summary of Dominionism - it's still relevant today. It can be found at:
https://itaintthesame.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/dominionism-a-summary/#_edn18

Anonymous said...

Wow. Thanks Glen, I did not know Ben Carson was a Seventh Day Adventist/Helen White worship. My Republican family and church system sure do support their candidates regardless of religious affiliations, and then dare to call our President Obama a "false Christian." Seems like we spend more time arguing politics in churches these days than we do opening up the Word of God and learning from our Master, Jesus.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Martin,

The terms "right" or "left" are terms describing political and social positions and not insults, so they are not unbiblical to use.

You have been brainwashed into the whole man-made weather change nonsense. I have plenty of evidence against it. Here's a reference blog post I made with lots of links proving against the lie of man-made global climate change:
http://agotoblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/global-climate-change-nonsense.html
The whole thing is about government control and money.

The global climate has changed from hot to cold many times throughout history and it has nothing to do with the actions of man.

And that IS Biblical Christianity.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Lindsay,

Thanks for that concise summation!

Sharon Lareau said...

Glenn, thank you for sharing the link to my article on The Message Bible.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Sharon,

You are quite welcome. That was an excellent collection of comparisons which everyone should be aware of!

Martin said...

Glenn, you do a nice line in patronising. We don't agree on something, so rather than having come to a different conclusion I must be brainwashed. Let me let you know I have come to my conclusions based on well documented evidence, and I will read your entry if you agree to read the ipcc reports. But even taking climate change from the picture, what theology do you have regarding creation? Nice simple question. So much of the bible is about the natural world, so little 'biblical theology' is.

You tend to use the term leftist as abuse, so taking the pope story you don't criticise him for being wrong, but promoting a leftist idea. Is your theology such that anything you can class as right wing is good and biblical and left wing is always wrong. I come to the conclusion that you mean something as an insult when it is in capitals, else why do you use them?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Martin,

I don’t “patronize” anyone. And when I say someone has been brainwashed it is because they accept the media line rather than study all angles and use common sense. Common sense alone tells us that with the huge earth as it is that man cannot cause global climate changes. And the FACT that the climate around the globe has changed from hot to cold and back again many times over the past thousands of years proves that all that is going on is a normal cycle. When you study the origin of the whole climate scare claims, and see that we've gone from “global cooling” to “global warming” scares to where they can’t decide which it’s going to be, then you know the whole scam is about control and money. (And, by the way, look at the results of huge, cataclysmic volcanic eruptions over the centuries which DID cause climate problems - do you really think man can compete with that?!?!)

I’ve studied so-called “well-documented evidence” from the LEFT and have found it to be consistently wrong or intentionally mischaracterized, etc. I don’t need to read any more, but you apparently need to see the evidence proving against the climate change scare.

What theology do I have regarding Creation? Genesis and the rest of the Bible point to creation by God, and not by evolution.

No, I don’t use the term “leftist” as abuse, regardless of what you want to claim - you do NOT know my heart. I use it to describe the political/social position—period.

In my view, the pope is wrong in this situation BECAUSE he takes the leftist view. The leftist view is WRONG. My theology has nothing to do with right or left political views, but the political views of right or left must agree with biblical theology to be correct.

I use capitals for EMPHASIS - not insult. Perhaps you spend too much time on social media sites, etc, where people think using capital letters is shouting? Way back when typewriters had no way of italicizing words for emphasis, we used either caps or underline. Since I used underline to designate links, I use italics for emphasis and caps for “super” emphasis. You really should not assume to know what people’s thinking is.

Martin said...

I think you don't answer the questions at all. A theology of creation is not simply a chance to retreat the old evolution v creation debate, but to delve deeper into key passages, such as psalm 148, and Colossians 1 where Jesus doesn't simply reconcile human beings to God but all things. And yes I do think digging up the earth, pumping vast amounts into the atmosphere and the seas, destroying huge amount of habitat that God looked at and declared very good can and does affect the planet. I think that this is both natural but the speed of change is excessive. Would you live in Bangladesh? Changes are affecting them today!

I'm really confused by your use of left wing - is it always wrong by virtue of being left, and the right wing always right? What on earth do you mean by these terms. Surely it would be better to be open to the idea that something is true or false, rather than your simplistic left is wrong.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Martin,

I don't understand your delving into creation theology. Genesis is the starting point, and any one halfway familiar with the Bible know references to the creation are all through the Bible. SO? What is your point? I was not "retreating" into anything, I just didn't understand what your question was about and wanted to make a point that Creation is the proper biblical Christian viewpoint as opposed to evolutionism. The issue has nothing to do with the article I posted.

So now you are claiming we damaging the earth by "digging" it up - well, there's a whole lot of qualifying which has to be done; digging what? Digging where? Digging how? Such blanket comments. Pumping vast amounts of what into the atmosphere and the seas?

See, you bring in all sorts of straw men. The discussion was about global climate change, which is claimed to be cause by "greenhouse gasses," which is all bogus.

As for proper stewardship of the earth, every Christian should be for that, and I was an "environmentalist" (not the enviro-nazi type which puts creatures ahead of man) before it was in vogue. The speed of the change seems by the factual data to be no different today than any other time in history. What's affecting Bangladesh isn't global climate change.

The left wing- synonymous with liberal - is always wrong in my opinion, since everything the left promotes is unbiblical and ungodly: abortion, sexual immorality in general, the homosexual agenda, social gospel, redistribution of the wealth, government control of everything, etc. The right wing is usually synonymous with conservative, but the right wing/conservative doesn't always maintain what is a biblical worldview, but they are right more often than wrong.

Tell me something the left/liberal side of politics gets right.

Martin said...

My points are simple. Christian theology on the natural world should be a more than an opposed to evolution stance. There is precisely nothing in what you've said that, for example, talks about creatures praised God.whenever you write about the natural world it is against climate change or evolution. That is all. Nothing else to say.

I, of course, simplified. Not straw men at all. Let me give you examples
The UK otter population nearly died out, reason water pollution, and action to clean the waters has led to an increase in theology their number. Oil spillage destroy bird life and fish. The destruction of the natural habitat in Ecuador, in pursuit of oil. what is affecting Bangladesh, then, and what can you do about it? What do you mean when you use the word environmentalist? The difference between us is that if I am wrong on climate change but we took action anyhow then there is little problem, if you are wrong then there are consequences for humans and the planet.

As for the left wing, much of the left opposed apartheid, there seems among many left wing people a stronger concern for the poor and justice. You will disagree how the use the words, I know, but in your thought provoker website there is no section for me to look at poor or justice. The bible does have quite a lot of things to say. My position is something is true or false, and political definitions like liberal or conservative or left or right wing.

You mention the social gospel. In your mind is the gospel only about personal response to Christ and personal morality. If so you read a different bible to me! Which is, in part, why getting the theology of creation is so important, and not irrelevant at all as that is what the pope is trying to do. I will happily send you a book on the bible and ecology by Richard Bauckham, if you can supply an address.

Martin said...

I have spent the morning looking through the reports, mostly seem to be writers in the media than science. You regularly quote the daily mail, but it is a paper that is notoriously bad with science reports, and do, as I know from personal experience, make up some news stories. (If this were in history you could find reports why Hitler wasn't a bad man...) You also quote the guardian, but if you explore their website there's much more you could quote but which don't think as you do. You are not stupid and will know I could produce a blog with the opposite view, relying on media reports as good/ bad as yours, and the journalism of the guardian could feature heavily on that. Incidentally you'll find despite the journalism the company that owns daily mail believes in climate change!

I am disappointed in your blog, little scientific papers mainly media reports which, as I say, can easily have alternative views shown using the same methodology. Why should that guardian report, for example, be trusted, if you don't trust others?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Martin,

Christian theology about Creation IS more than just being opposed to evolution. No one has claimed otherwise — at least not that I know of. You attack me for what I don’t say about Creation, as if that is a problem. This blog is not about Creation - it is mainly about exposing false teachings and false teachers. Evolution is a false teaching which I think the majority of my readers know, so I criticize Christians to teach it. And I doubt sincerely that you’ve read everything on my blog in order to make the charge that the only time I “write about the natural world it is against climate change or evolution.” And even if it was - SO WHAT?? This is MY blog and I don’t have to satisfy every whim of every critical reader. I discuss these two subjects because they are false teachings.

You go on about water pollution, oil spillage, habitat destruction, etc, as if these are topics of discussion — or as if there is a problem with me not discussing them. The topic mentioned was the false teaching—the fake science — of “climate change,” and none of this other stuff is part of that discussion. Stick to the topic or end the discussion; I don’t have time for discussing every topic under the sun. And when I say I’M an environmentalist, I’m pointing out that I have always had concern for the proper stewardship of the environment to protect what God has created, and I do what I can in my power to protect it. And I AM right about “climate change.”

The LEFT wing in the USA supported slavery, have always been the racists, and even now keep the blacks in slavery to the government with their entitlement programs and race-bating.

Concern for the “poor and justice” is NOT something the LEFT cares about except to promote more programs to keep them on the public dole so as to keep them voting Demokrat. They rarely do anything to actually help the poor, and they redefine “justice” to mean everyone has to have 100% equality in everything, which is totally impossible.

The Thought Provoker does have quotes about “Social Justice” at
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/search/label/Social%20Justice
The poor in the USA (and probably every western nation) would be considered wealthy by every other country in the world! I do have a few quotes about poverty also
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/search/label/Poverty

The Biblical gospel is about ONE thing and ONE thing only: The good news of salvation from our sins through Jesus Christ. Anything else is a false gospel.

Your support of the pope is interesting, since he is a false teacher and the leader of an apostate and heretical religious organization.

NO, I’m not interested in any socialist books trying to meld the Bible with ecology.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

mostly seem to be writers in the media than science. You regularly quote the daily mail,

OH?!?! I have almost 50 links, and only THREE go to the Daily Mail, one of which points out the horrible expense to the public in new laws and rules. Two other articles cite the Daily Mail as one of their sources. SO out of 50 links I provide, a total of five point to the Mail any you call that “regularly” citing?!?!?!?

The linked articles, from reputable sources, CITE the scientific papers. The very first link is a video with John Coleman who knows weather and he gives a history of the whole scam. Then there is a petition by over 31,000 scientists against the same. Popular Technology cites over 1350 peer-reviewed papers against man-cause warming. Even the half-dozen or so personal blogs cite solid sources. Your claim only demonstrates you didn’t read diddly-squat because of your personal bias.

Going through the links I couldn’t even find a citation from the Guardian, so it must have been only one. SO? If the data is correct, what difference does it make where it comes from? LOGIC FALLACY!!

This discussion is way off topic and is now ended. You’ve had your say.

Alec said...

Hi Glenn,

I find these "Random aberrations..." posts so comforting. Not that all these things are happening - but that there are others who are focusing on and calling them out for what they are. Thank you for continuing to publish them.

Glad to learn of Erin's blog (http://www.donotbesurprised.com/p/about.html) - will be following her postings in future.

Lindsay, found your summary of Dominionism worthwhile and have marked it to send to others as the subject comes up.

Did not know about Ben Carson. Hmm.

Finally, without commenting directly on your discussion with Martin, tangentially I would only add that there is plenty of disinformation peddled as truth around the subject of the environment. There are not "two" sides on this subject (left/right). Some of us believe that both "liberal" and "conservative" as the terms are now used are more about dividing people and poisoning discussion than about truth.

"Climategate" showed that we cannot trust the official statistics for temperature. This should be of deep concern for all of us. What other official news can't be trusted? Without facts we are crippled in knowing what's going on.

One thing is for sure. The green environmentalism being pushed by the Pope and so many others is not about saving the planet. It's about control.

Alec