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

Friday, October 23, 2015

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

The results of the leftist/liberal/apostate teaching from so-called Christians has led to demanding acceptance for homosexuals and other sexual deviants.  Matt Walsh does an excellent job of responding to such ideology.

Real love includes hate for sin and evil.

While I disagree with Rome as to their handling of divorce and remarriage, the idea that homosexual couples should ever be allowed communion is totally unbiblical.  Yet this archbishop thinks it is just a matter of conscience for homosexual couples to decide for themselves.  So why isn’t this guy defrocked?

Did you know you may be attacked by witchcraft at any moment?  This is an example of the totally unbiblical nature of charismania.  They just make this stuff up, and it puts people under such burdens of fear and paranoia that they can never just live a joyful life in Christ.

Another example of unbiblical ideology of charismatics.  These people are an embarrassment to the Church; rank arrogance! And her “tongues” are hysterical, with great response by the guy.

Often when I mention teachings by John MacArthur, I get the inevitable claim that MacArthur’s “Lordship Salvation” teaching is nothing less than the heresy of “works salvation.”  I’ve countered this many times in comments and emails, and what I find ironic is that it usually comes from KJV Onlyers or “Free Grace” heretics (yes, it’s heresy if you believe you have no lifestyle change after becoming a believer).  Well, I’m cleaning out some old files and I came across an article by Gary Gilley which explains the issue quite well.

Thrivent and Planned Parenthood: for Lutherans, this seems to still be an active issue.

Mary Dalke has quite a bit of information about the Parliament Of The World’s Religions.  Don & Joy Veinot, of Midwest Christian Outreach, also discussed their trip to the “Parliament,” as they explain the “mom doctrine,” which keeps people in false teachings.

For those unfamiliar with the false teachings of “Dominion Theology,” Gary Gilley has an excellent summation.

Finally, an article from The Crux, The E-Newsletter of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc, 10/22/15, demonstrating another reason why John Hagee cannot be trusted for anything:

Over the last several years John Hagee has been telling the following story about an incident that occurred at Trinity Assembly Church in San Antonio, TX, in 1971 when he was pastoring:

"There was a man who walked into my church during a Bible study. It was on a Wednesday night, and he came in. He was carrying a loaded six-shooter, and he walked to the front of the church and he roared like a wild animal and said, 'I've come to shoot you to prove that Satan has more power than Jesus Christ.' And I held up my Bible and said that this book says that no weapon formed against me shall prosper. And he became infuriated and said, 'I'm going to kill you on the count of three. Get on your knees and beg for your life.' I said, I will not because the Lord is my protector. And he said, 'I'm going to shoot you on the count of three.' He lied. He started shooting on the count of two. And he emptied the gun at me from a distance of eight to ten feet, and by the grace and mercy of God missed every shot. He ran out of the building, he was knocked down, apprehended, sent a few days later to the asylum for the criminally insane. Ninety days later a team of psychiatrists pronounced him ready to take his place in society and he went home and immediately climbed the highest tree in his backyard and hung himself,"

It is an interesting and for some a spellbinding story but, as is often the case with Hagee, only very loosely resembling the actual facts. The September 23, 1971 San Antonio Express there was a shooting but it was not at Hagee or about his teaching on demons. It was a gun fight between 2 cousins. According to the Express, one man entered the church and at gun point made forced his cousin to mount the podium and kneel to beg for mercy. Hagee did attempt to calm the situation as the gunman began counting and then fired his pistol his cousin pulled out his pistol and fired back. One of them was wounded in the cheek the other was unharmed even though 7 shots had been fired at him, but not at Hagee.


Anonymous said...

Hi Glenn,

Gilley's article on the Lordship controversy was spot on. I'm not in any of the three men's camps either, per se. My position is like Gilley's - between Ryrie and MacArthur - for the same reasons Gilley provides. In my view, a genuine believer will demonstrate outward evidence of their salvation, but that fruit does vary from person to person. I do not believe in front-loading the Gospel with works-based evidence... ie, it is ridiculous to expect mature development from a new convert; babes need time to grow. The church at Corinth was a mess, but Paul addressed them as believers... baby believers who needed to grow up. However, I also do not believe that an empty confession with no visible fruit, even after a lifetime, is real salvation. Scripture is abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit brings about a true change in a repentant person. That said, I REALLY did appreciate Ryrie's view on assurance. I think his objective/subjective balance was excellent.

Anyhow, I am surprised that KJVOs would have issue with MacA's "Lordship" - I thought KJVOs tended to be very legalistic, so I thought they'd be right on board with the Lordship view, because of its emphasis on works. I do know KJVOs tend not to like MacA's soteriological view.

Also appreciated that you posted Gilley's article on Dominionism. Dominionist teaching is gross error.


Anonymous said...

Ok, I just have to add another thank you for posting Gilley's articles. I always appreciate his articles and book reviews. I had "forgotten" about SVC and his ToTT writings. Thanks for "reminding" me. After reading his article on Lordship, and the one on Dominionism, I was really energized!


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I have a whole binder full of Gilley's articles from ToTT over the years I've subscribed. So I want to end up with all of them linked from my blog, so I can get rid of my hard copies!

Claudia Wells said...

Hello Mr. Glenn! I just have a question , my husband and I go to Calvary chapel and I they always taught us that we are gonna be rapture before the great tribulation , right? I'm just confused after a really good friend of my husband said we are gonna be rapture post tribulation and he was reading Matthew . Thank you so much for taking the time to respond 😀

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Claudia,

Well, the "rapture" issue can be quite divisive, and it really shouldn't. Getting dogmatic on eschatology is quite foolish in my opinion.

Here's the thing: I became a believer through the Navigators and they taught pre-trib rapture, so that's what I believed for years. But there were too many things which didn't set well with me in Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," which was what the Navs gave to everyone. I found lots of eisegesis, which I learned over the years is something pretty standard with Lindsey's teachings. So I studied the whole rapture issue from the pre-trib view to the mid-trib view, to the pre-wrath view to the post-trib view so as to come to a conclusion as to what really was true. I came to the conclusion that the Bible teaches post-trib rapture.

In my research, I discovered that the pre-trib position developed in the 19th century, which right away should raise flags, since what they are saying is that for 1900 years the church had it wrong. I go with the apologetics adage, "If it is new, it isn't true; if it is true, it isn't new."

A few years ago I began reading the writings of the ante-Nicene "fathers" and everywhere the end times were mentioned, they seemed to understand the rapture to follow the tribulation. And after that would be 1000 literal years of the reign of Christ. So, since I understand the Bible to teach post-trib, and the early church seemed to be understanding it the same way, then I think post-trib is the correct understanding of when the rapture will take place.

Elena Nash said...

How can it be mid trib or post trib for Jesus says "...no one knows the day or the hour but the Father..."
So NO ONE knows as Jesus said; that would
mean that His return is imminent (will occur at any time). He could come at any time.
Christ's return could easily be determined if He were to come at the mid or post term of Daniel's 70th week.
That would make Jesus a liar when He said, ..."NO ONE knows the day or the hour..."
Daniel's 70th week is for the Salvation of Israel and the determination of ALL the sins of the entire world.
Since the believers make up the "Body of Christ" have been forgiven for ALL of their sins, past, present and future, what would the "Body of Christ" be doing in the 70th week? There are NO sins to be determined or judged;
they've been paid for by Jesus Christ who shed His devine blood for the forgiveness of ALL our sins, died was buried and rose again.
What about the Blessed Hope?
What about, "Wherefore comfort each other with these words."?
Is this "Blessed Hope" and "comforting words" somehow disguised as being dragged through Daniel's 70th week the most horrible, terrifying and cataclysmic time that will ever come upon all the earth?
By the way, the protection that will be provided is ONLY for the Jewish believers in Israel during this time.
Remember, Daniel's 70th week is for the Salvation of Israel plus the judgement of the sins that rest upon an unbelieving world.♡

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Again, read my comments as to why pre-trib rapture is not tenable. You can't find it in the Bible or in the writings of the early church fathers; it did not become a teaching until the 1800s. So you have to assume that in order for it to be correct, the Church had it wrong for 1800 years.

We don't know when the Tribulation will start so we can't know when He will return. For all we know, we could be in the 1st year of the tribulation now, with all the persecution of Christians around the world.

Elena Nash said...

Dear Glen,
There are historical statements that verify that people have believed in the pre trib teaching before the 1800's.
the early church held to a premillennial view of Christ coming at any time. This is known as the "Doctrine of Imminency".
Take a look at some of these pre-trib views:
1. The Shepherd of Hermas (95-150)
2. Victorinus in (270ad
died 303ad)
3. Ephraem Nisibis (306-373)
4. Bro. Dolcino (d.1307)
5. Increase Mather (1639-1723)
6. Peter Jurieu (1687)
7. John Gill (1748)
8. Morgan Edwards (1742-1744) Founder of
Brown University
Source: Go to History of Pre-Trib Rapture esentialchristianity.com
I'd be interested in what you think.♡

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I began my Christian walk as a pre-tribber, but my studies of the Bible and numerous books and commentaries led me to believe in post-trib. I have read the early church fathers (ante-Nicene fathers - 10 volumes), as well as the many other early texts saucy as the "Shepherd of Hermas. I have never found any support for pre-trib teachings. People who use such texts must twist them the way Hal Lindsey was famous for doing.

It does NOT affect the "doctrine of Imminency, because we agree he can come at any time, the difference being that you believe that any time will be prior to the tribulation and I believe it will be after. Those of us who believe after will be the only ones psychologically prepared because everyone else expects a "get out of tribulation free" card!

While the idea of pre-trib rapture first appeared in the 17th century, it wasn't until the 19th century that it took hold, especially with the Plymouth Brethren, and from them it spread as a doctrinal standard. But I'm of the belief that a doctrine that is new, can't be true.

Eschatology is a topic I don't like to discuss because everyone fights for their own interpretation and it very often leads to name-calling. Since the topic has no effect on salvation, or any other cardinal doctrine, i just let people believe what they want. What I do stand by is that there WILL be a rapture, and it will be followed at some point by a 1000-year reign of Christ.

Tom said...

I wonder if you might comment on what the Texas group "Church of Wells" believes? It's very difficult to suss out. Do they believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture or something else?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I've reported on this cult twice before on "RAAH" posts. Here are the links I pointed to; they should give you enough information.