Why are Joe Schimmel and Jacob Prasch not discerning within their own camps?

           

Why are Joe Schimmel and Jacob Prasch not discerning within their camp?
Or are they mere oversights?

A response to left behind or led astray.

Who is leading who astray?

For a long time, my ministry has been focused on exposing what has become known as the “new spirituality” in many churches and the growing ecumenical movement that has been steadily making its way into Protestant circles. This movement, often labelled with terms like “missional,” “social,” and “institutional ecumenism,” seeks to unite various Christian denominations and, in some cases, other religious traditions under a banner of shared social and cultural goals. While these goals may seem admirable on the surface, there is a clear spiritual danger in the way this movement subtly compromises biblical truths. My concern is that, over time, these compromises have gained traction not only within the broader church but also in ministries that were once committed to defending orthodox Christian doctrine.

This article is not primarily about the eschatological differences between pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation views, but it does concern the way that certain individuals, especially those associated with Messianic ministries and discernment/polemical groups, are compromising biblical truth. Some of the people mentioned in this article have been publicly warned about by well-known figures like Jacob Prasch and Joe Schimmel, but it is clear that not all have been addressed or called out. These alliances, whether deliberate or inadvertent, are problematic because they detract from the core issues and provide a platform for ecumenical ideas that compromise the gospel message.

The goal of this article is not to engage in a critique of the content of Joe Schimmel’s video (which has already been discussed and critiqued elsewhere), but to look into who Joe has chosen to align himself with, and why these associations raise serious concerns about the direction of his ministry. It is not just about the people he is associated with, but about the choices he has made that reflect a deeper lack of discernment. The lack of caution in who is promoted, defended, and endorsed has implications for the message that is being presented to the public, especially when that message is one of biblical truth. Ministries that once stood for discernment must now be called into question for their own failure to exercise discernment in these areas.

The Real Issues at Hand

It occurred to me recently that even seemingly trivial matters can easily distract from the more profound and dangerous issues in the church. When it comes to the debates surrounding the Tribulation (Pre-trib, Mid-trib, Post-trib), much of the focus has shifted away from the true issues facing the church today. While eschatological matters are important and certainly deserve attention, they should not become the cause of division or deflection from more urgent concerns. The question I am asking is not simply about the timing of the Tribulation or about theological differences regarding the end times; it is about the insidious way in which the ecumenical movement has wormed its way into ministries and how this is diverting attention away from the real problems in the church.

The focus in many evangelical and Messianic ministries has shifted away from warning about the dangers of Roman Catholicism, Jesuit influence, and other forms of ecumenical compromise. Instead, we are seeing an increasing emphasis on eschatological positions, which, while important, are secondary to the broader issue of doctrinal integrity. I believe it is crucial that we turn our attention to the influence of individuals whose positions on salvation, ecclesiology, and the gospel itself do not align with the historic, biblical faith.

We are witnessing a subtle but growing trend where those in ministry, including Joe Schimmel and Jacob Prasch, are associating with individuals who have troubling doctrinal stances that support or promote ecumenism. These alliances are not trivial; they affect the integrity of the gospel message that is being communicated to their audiences. This isn’t a “Matthew 18” issue where personal sins are involved; this is a public concern that affects the broader body of Christ. The Apostle Paul made it clear in Ephesians 5 that leaders are responsible for warning and protecting the flock, not only from false teaching but also from any form of spiritual compromise that could lead others astray. This is why I cannot remain silent on this matter.

The Ecumenical Influence: An Infiltration into Ministries

Over the years, as I have continued to raise alarms about the growing influence of ecumenical movements, I have noticed how influential leaders like Joe Schimmel and Jacob Prasch have either inadvertently or deliberately become involved with individuals who are part of that very movement. One of the primary concerns I have is the manner in which Good Fight Ministries and Moriel Ministries have partnered with, promoted, or failed to critique individuals whose views are deeply compromised by ecumenical influences.

For instance, Joe Schimmel’s ministry has formed close relationships with figures like Joel Richardson and Paul McGuire, both of whom have connections with ecumenical and Roman Catholic sympathies. These relationships are not merely coincidental; they are built on shared platforms, joint projects, and public endorsements. Paul McGuire, whom Jacob Prasch and Joe Schimmel have referred to as a “friend” or “brother,” is one example. His teachings, while promoting certain aspects of biblical prophecy, have also been associated with ideas that blur the lines between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. McGuire’s participation in projects alongside Joel Richardson, who has been linked with various controversial figures, is troubling.

What needs to be highlighted is the willingness of leaders like Joe and Jacob to overlook the deeply troubling doctrines held by those they work with. Both of these men, who have historically been outspoken against Roman Catholicism and its theological errors, have allowed their ministries to be associated with individuals who are actively contributing to an ecumenical agenda that seeks to water down the biblical gospel. The problem is not just with the individuals themselves, but with the fact that these associations legitimize and amplify ecumenical views within circles that have historically been critical of them.

This isn’t a matter of guilt by association, but guilt by participation. It’s not enough to say, “I don’t believe in their doctrines, but I’m working with them for the sake of the gospel.” The Bible is clear that our associations matter, and we are to be discerning in who we partner with. The Apostle Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 6:14 that believers should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. This command is not just about personal relationships but also about ministry partnerships, which can send a message to others about what is considered acceptable within the church.

The Need for Discernment in Ministry

It is with a heavy heart that I address these concerns. The leaders involved in these ministries, including Joe Schimmel and Jacob Prasch, are not intentionally leading others astray. However, their lack of discernment in whom they associate with has the potential to cause significant harm. We must not be blind to the reality that no one is immune to deception. As the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:12, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” None of us are above reproach, and none of us are beyond the reach of compromise, especially when we fail to be vigilant in our associations and teachings.

I do not intend to accuse Joe Schimmel or Jacob Prasch of intentional wrongdoing, but rather to raise the question: why are they allowing certain individuals to influence their ministries? Their involvement with people like Joel Richardson and Paul McGuire should not be dismissed as an oversight, but rather recognised as part of a larger issue that affects the integrity of their teaching. Ministries that once stood firm on doctrinal purity must now be called into question, not because they are teaching heresy, but because they have opened the door to those who do.

This is not about condemning anyone personally. It is about safeguarding the integrity of the gospel and ensuring that leaders in public ministry are held accountable for their choices. If we fail to address these concerns, we risk allowing the gospel itself to be compromised.

A Call to Repentance and Discernment

My hope is that Joe Schimmel, Jacob Prasch, and their respective ministries will recognise the seriousness of the concerns raised here. I am not calling for a public shaming, but for a genuine reflection on the direction these ministries are heading. There is a pressing need for repentance, not just on personal issues, but on public associations with individuals who undermine the gospel and blur doctrinal lines. The gospel is too precious to be treated lightly, and the Church too important to allow any form of compromise to slip in unnoticed.

In the past, Good Fight Ministries and Moriel Ministries have done valuable work in exposing false teachings, particularly the dangers of Hollywood’s satanic agenda and the Roman Catholic Church’s errors. There is no doubt that Joe Schimmel has a genuine heart for evangelism, and his ministry has been instrumental in reaching many with the message of salvation. However, in this current climate, we must be vigilant in ensuring that our actions align with biblical truth.

The call here is not just to criticise, but to encourage repentance, discernment, and a return to sound biblical teaching. As believers, we are all accountable to one another. The stakes are too high for us to ignore the dangers posed by ecumenical influence and compromise in the Church. I pray that Joe Schimmel, Jacob Prasch, and others in similar positions will take the necessary steps to correct their course, for the sake of the gospel and for the purity of the Church.

The Dangers of Ecumenical Unity: Why Evangelicals Must Stand Firm Against the Catholic Church’s Agenda

A troubling trend has emerged in recent years: the growing involvement of evangelical Christians in ecumenical movements, especially within the pro-life movement. A prominent example of this can be seen in the approach of Joe Schimmel, a well-known Christian leader who, while standing firm against abortion, has failed to address a critical issue—the growing influence of the Roman Catholic Church within the pro-life camp. As a Bible-believing Christian, I hold a responsibility to speak out against abortion, but I do so without compromise, especially when it comes to the doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church. Joe Schimmel’s failure to address or warn against the dangerous ecumenism infiltrating pro-life groups is deeply concerning.

Let me share a personal experience that sheds light on this problem. One Saturday, I encountered a group called Abort67. While there is nothing inherently wrong with standing against abortion, I quickly realised that a much deeper issue was at play. As I questioned the influence of Roman Catholicism within their movement, the response was hostile and defensive, highlighting an underlying tension in the pro-life camp when it comes to addressing doctrinal differences. As I watched, a Catholic woman approached the group, and the representative warmly greeted her with a “God bless you.” She walked away, still fully entrenched in her Catholic faith, never once having been confronted with the gospel. This was a missed opportunity to share the truth of Christ with someone who was, in my view, deceived by false teaching.

Afterward, I offered a gospel tract to a representative of Abort67, hoping to spark a conversation. She rejected the tract and refused to engage further. This experience underscores a major issue in the pro-life movement: while the cause of ending abortion is undeniably vital, the gospel is often neglected in favour of social activism, and doctrinal compromise with the Catholic Church is being allowed to persist without challenge.

Now, I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that Joe Schimmel himself is spiritually united with the Catholic Church, but it is concerning that he does not address the growing ecumenism in the pro-life movement. In his writings and videos, his focus appears to be more on eschatological matters, but he overlooks the critical issue of doctrinal compromise. By failing to warn against the spiritual dangers of ecumenism—particularly the Catholic Church’s influence—Schimmel is missing a key opportunity to safeguard the integrity of the gospel and the church’s witness.

Historically, evangelical leaders have recognised the dangers of the Catholic Church’s ecumenical agenda. A telling example is Melody Green, who, when supporting pro-life groups in America, rejected her late husband Keith Green’s stance against Roman Catholicism. She claimed that Keith had retracted his position on the Catholic Church after publishing his Catholic Chronicles. However, this shift took place during a time when the Vatican was becoming more explicit about using social issues, including abortion, to reunite “separated brethren” with the Roman Catholic Church. In its official documents, the Vatican has clearly stated that its ultimate goal is to bring Protestants back under the authority of the Pope, and this agenda is being pursued through a variety of methods, including social and political causes.

One of the most concerning aspects of this ecumenical movement is the notion of co-belligerency—the idea that evangelical Christians should work alongside Catholics and other religious groups in the fight against common social issues, like abortion, without addressing doctrinal differences. On the surface, this may seem like a noble effort, as it seeks to unite different religious groups for a common cause. However, the reality is that co-belligerency is both wrong and dangerous for several reasons.

First, it blurs the line between truth and error. By working alongside Catholics without addressing their unbiblical doctrines, evangelicals risk endorsing a system that denies the very core of the gospel. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through a combination of faith, works, and the intercession of the saints—an outright rejection of the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The Catholic veneration of Mary as the “Mother of God” and co-redemptrix is also unbiblical and blasphemous, yet by partnering with Catholics in the pro-life movement, evangelicals fail to address or challenge these doctrinal errors.

Second, co-belligerency leads to compromise. As Andy Burton, the Campaign Director of 40 Days for Life in Milton Keynes, admitted in his own reflections on his experience with Catholics in the pro-life movement, the temptation to “tolerate” Catholicism and the spiritual danger of working alongside those who hold false teachings becomes too great. He wrote:

“I feel I’ve led my friends into the very seductive world of tolerance for Catholicism, Ecumenism, Love Evangelism via the temptation to be grateful for the support the Catholics bring us and the friends they’ve become over the last three years.”

Andy’s experience mirrors the broader issue: working alongside Catholics in the name of a shared social cause leads to the acceptance of their false doctrines, which, in turn, weakens the witness of the church and diminishes the call to proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace alone. This is especially problematic in light of the Catholic Church’s efforts to use social issues like abortion as a vehicle for ecumenism, with the ultimate aim of bringing Protestants under the authority of Rome.

This type of compromise is not just a personal issue for those involved in these ecumenical movements; it has serious ramifications for the broader church. When evangelicals engage in co-belligerency with Catholics and other religious groups, they inadvertently endorse false teachings and undermine the message of salvation in Christ. The church is called to be a beacon of truth, not a partner in error.

Furthermore, we must recognise that the Catholic Church’s ecumenical efforts are not about dialogue or mutual respect. They are about bringing others under Rome’s authority, whether through subtle influence or outright coercion. The Decree on Ecumenism from the Vatican makes this abundantly clear, stating:

“In certain special circumstances, such as prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.”

This document reveals that the Catholic Church views ecumenical efforts not as a means of fostering mutual understanding, but as a strategic method of reuniting all Christians under the authority of the Pope. For evangelicals to participate in these efforts is to unknowingly support Rome’s ultimate goal of theological submission.

This is why I have grave concerns about Joe Schimmel’s stance on ecumenism in the pro-life movement. By failing to address the spiritual dangers of co-belligerency and the influence of Catholicism in these efforts, Schimmel is missing a critical opportunity to lead the church in standing firm against compromise. As evangelical Christians, we cannot afford to participate in movements that promote doctrinal unity at the expense of biblical truth.

In conclusion, the question must be asked: why has Joe Schimmel remained silent about the issue of ecumenism in the pro-life camp? Why has he not warned the evangelical community about the dangers of co-belligerency with the Catholic Church and the compromising effects it has on the purity of the gospel? The pro-life cause is essential, but it cannot come at the cost of doctrinal fidelity. Evangelicals must stand firm in the truth of God’s Word, speaking out against any movement that seeks to unite believers with false teachings. The Catholic Church’s ecumenical agenda is not one that evangelicals should support or engage with, and it is crucial that we recognise the spiritual dangers that come with compromising the gospel for the sake of social causes.

Who is it that Joe Schimmel is in partnership with?

Joel Richardson

Joe Schimmel’s recent DVD and his promotional content, which criticises non-post-tribulation/pre-wrath believers, prominently feature Joel Richardson, a key figure involved with Good Fight Ministries. In the trailer for the DVD, Richardson’s name is included in the credits, which raises an important question for those following Good Fight Ministries—what does it mean for a ministry like theirs to align itself with a person like Joel Richardson?

Placing the emphasis away from Joe’s dogmatic eschatology views, that this new DVD is about as advertised on Joe’s website, it puts into question who is Good Fight Ministries aligning themselves with. It was not so long after the DVD was promoted that Good Fight Ministries would consider going on the Jim Bakker show, Jim Bakker is a word of faith teacher and is part of the Elijah List along with Patricia King, Jim Bakker still holds to the many false doctrines, it does not really make any sense as to why Good Fight Ministries speak out against the word of faith teachers and then seeks to consider sharing the same platform as those whom Good Fight Ministries objects too.

On the surface, the DVD seems to focus primarily on Schimmel’s eschatological views (his interpretation of the end times), but it inadvertently draws attention to the question of who Good Fight Ministries is partnering with, and whether those partnerships align with sound doctrine. The controversy deepens when you consider that just after promoting this DVD, Good Fight Ministries was considering an appearance on The Jim Bakker Show. This is concerning because Jim Bakker is widely recognised as a Word of Faith teacher—a group often criticised for promoting prosperity gospel and other doctrinal errors. Bakker’s affiliation with the Elijah List and figures like Patricia King, both of whom are associated with many unbiblical teachings, further complicates the situation.

It is curious, then, that Good Fight Ministries, which has previously been outspoken against Word of Faith teachers, would even consider sharing a platform with someone like Jim Bakker, whose teachings they have actively opposed. This contradiction raises serious questions about the ministry’s theological consistency and its commitment to doctrinal purity.

Joel Richardson’s Controversial Associations

Looking deeper into Joel Richardson’s own associations, it becomes apparent that this issue of theological compromise may not be isolated. Richardson’s website reveals concerning connections with individuals and groups that are widely regarded as compromising or even heretical. For instance, Richardson has been linked to figures like Glenn Beck, a well-known Mormon, and James Goll, who is associated with the ecumenical movement and the controversial Elijah List. Additionally, Richardson has engaged with individuals like Paul Wilbur, who has been involved with the Roman Catholic Church, and Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer (IHOP), a group that has attracted criticism for its charismatic and mystical practices. Even the Promise Keepers, an organisation that has been critiqued for its ecumenical stance, is mentioned in connection with Richardson.

Such associations are troubling because they imply that Good Fight Ministries, through their partnership with Richardson, may be unintentionally aligning themselves with figures who hold unbiblical views. More troubling still is the use of iconography—religious images or symbols—on Richardson’s website, which can be a strong indicator of theological compromise.

What is Iconography, and Why Is It a Concern?

Iconography, the use of religious images, is a practice rooted in both Eastern and Western Orthodox traditions, as well as in the Roman Catholic Church. For many believers in these traditions, icons are not merely artistic representations; they are viewed as conduits to the divine. The use of icons is especially significant in Christian mysticism and Gnosticism, where they are believed to have spiritual power beyond their visual representation. Some groups argue that icons facilitate a deeper connection with God, and they may become objects of worship in and of themselves.

This practice is concerning from an evangelical perspective because it conflicts with the biblical teaching that worship should be directed to God alone, and that the use of images or physical objects in worship can lead to idolatry. The Bible consistently warns against the worship of images (see Exodus 20:4-5), and many church leaders throughout history have emphasised the importance of keeping the worship of God free from any distractions or potential for idolatry.

In fact, some historical research suggests that the use of icons has its roots in pre-Christian practices, particularly in paganism, where idols and images were used to represent deities. The connection between icons and mysticism is particularly notable in monastic traditions, where practices such as Lectio Divina (a form of contemplative prayer) involved meditating on religious images in order to experience a deeper, mystical union with God. This blending of Christian devotion with mystical and even pagan practices is a major point of concern for evangelical Christians who seek to maintain doctrinal purity and biblical fidelity.

Theological Implications of These Associations

When a ministry like Good Fight Ministries aligns itself with individuals like Joel Richardson, who has connections to known compromisers, it sends a problematic message. Richardson’s associations with figures like Glenn Beck, James Goll, and the use of iconography suggest a willingness to tolerate or even embrace practices that are contrary to biblical teaching. This compromises the gospel message and risks leading believers into confusion regarding the purity of the Christian faith.

From a theological standpoint, these compromises undermine the foundational principles of the Christian faith, particularly the centrality of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ in salvation. The influence of mysticism, the veneration of icons, and the endorsement of ecumenical partnerships that blur doctrinal lines can lead to spiritual confusion, diluting the gospel message and undermining the church’s call to remain distinct from worldly and heretical teachings.

Conclusion: Why This Matters

In conclusion, the partnerships that Good Fight Ministries and Joe Schimmel are forming, particularly with individuals like Joel Richardson, raise significant concerns. These alliances seem to suggest a willingness to compromise on key doctrinal issues, especially in relation to the purity of the gospel and the theological integrity of the ministry. When ministries that are ostensibly committed to biblical truth engage in partnerships with those who are linked to heretical teachings or unbiblical practices, it confuses the message of salvation and risks leading believers away from sound doctrine.

As theology students and laypeople alike, we must remain vigilant in discerning the relationships and affiliations of ministries that claim to represent the truth. Theological compromise, especially in the form of ecumenical alliances with those who do not hold to the core truths of the gospel, is a dangerous road that can lead to spiritual deception and the watering down of the faith.

Why Use Iconography and What Do Icons Represent?

The use of iconography is far from a harmless tradition or a mere matter of artistic expression. It is a deeply significant religious practice, not only within the Eastern and Western Orthodox traditions but also within the Roman Catholic Church. Theologically, icons are not just pieces of art; they hold a place of reverence and power that places them at the heart of worship and spiritual experience. This is not just about culture or history—icons are considered a bridge between the physical world and the divine, offering believers a way to connect with God in a mystical, almost sacramental manner.

Historically, icons have been used in Christian mysticism and Gnosticism—two movements that view images as a means of accessing a deeper, almost transcendent connection with God. These traditions often elevate icons to a place where they become an essential part of spiritual practice. The belief is that these images are not simply representations, but channels through which the believer can encounter the divine presence.

In the book Icons and the Mystical Origins of Christianity, it is noted that icons have pre-Christian roots, with a strong link to pagan practices. The very act of venerating images is seen in various forms of ancient religion, where idols and representations of gods were worshipped. Even in the early Christian era, certain groups—like the Gnostic Carpocratians—used images of Christ in ways that blurred the line between reverence and idolatry. Irenaeus, one of the early church fathers, was critical of such practices, condemning the Gnostics for using images in worship, linking them directly to pagan idolatry.

The use of icons also finds its place in monastic traditions, where practices like Lectio Divina (a form of contemplative prayer) often involve gazing upon and meditating with images. This practice, while cloaked in spiritual language, can lead believers into an experience that distorts true biblical worship. Icons, when used in this way, are not merely aids to devotion; they risk becoming the object of worship themselves. This is a key concern for anyone seeking to uphold the purity of biblical faith.

In the book Lectio Divina—the Sacred Art: Transforming Words and Images Into Heart, the argument for icons is explained, but it fails to address the key biblical concern—does God allow man to create images through which we experience Him? While it is true that the New Testament refers to Christ as the “Eikon” (the image) of the invisible God (Hebrews 1:3), this does not provide a biblical mandate for creating new images of Christ for worship. In fact, the second commandment explicitly forbids the creation of images for the purpose of worship (Exodus 20:4-5), reinforcing the biblical teaching that God cannot be reduced to a created image or idol.

Iconographers often claim that icons are not objects of worship but “windows to heaven,” allowing believers to engage with the divine. However, this claim does not align with the biblical mandate that worship is to be directed to God alone, and that images should never serve as intermediaries in our relationship with Him. The danger of using icons, even as mere “windows,” is that they draw the believer’s focus away from the direct revelation of God in Scripture and the person of Christ.

From a biblical perspective, using icons on a website or platform that claims to represent biblical Christianity is problematic. Why? Because it sends a message that these images, which are deeply rooted in pre-Christian pagan practices, are somehow acceptable in the worship and representation of the Christian faith. This compromises the purity of the message and risks leading believers into practices that are not only unbiblical but also historically linked to idolatry.

For those who claim that icons are simply part of Christian tradition and not harmful, I point to the historical record. As the Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources note, the use of icons in Christian worship has roots in paganism. The earliest recorded instances of Christian images used in a pagan context come from the 4th-century writings of Aelius Lampridius, who mentions the emperor Alexander Severus—who was not a Christian—using images of Christ alongside other pagan deities. The Gnostic Carpocratians, condemned by Irenaeus, also used images of Christ in ways that mirrored pagan idol worship. These early examples show that the veneration of images was a practice that blurred the lines between Christianity and paganism, a compromise that early church fathers sought to oppose.

Should Good Fight Ministries Overlook This Compromise?

Given the theological implications and historical evidence of iconography’s roots in paganism, the question must be asked: why would Joe Schimmel and Good Fight Ministries partner with someone like Joel Richardson, who is publicly embracing the use of icons in his ministry? Richardson’s apparent tolerance of iconography and its use as a spiritual tool is troubling, especially when considering the biblical and historical warnings against such practices.

When ministries like Good Fight Ministries choose to overlook such compromises—whether out of a desire for unity or a mistaken belief that such practices are harmless—they risk leading others astray. We must ask ourselves, who is influencing whom? Is Good Fight Ministries being led into theological compromise by aligning with someone like Joel Richardson, who is embracing practices that contradict biblical worship? Or is Richardson simply echoing the influence of compromised teachers who place tradition above Scripture?

At the heart of this issue is the need for discernment. Good Fight Ministries must carefully consider the implications of partnering with those who engage in practices that are incompatible with the teachings of Scripture. Tolerating iconography, no matter how it is framed, is a step toward compromising the gospel and moving away from the purity of biblical Christianity. The church must stand firm in rejecting such practices, maintaining its focus on the direct revelation of God through the Word and the person of Jesus Christ—not through images, icons, or any other form of idolatry.

“Front Line” is an imprint of Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, the same publisher behind Charisma magazine, which is known for promoting unbiblical teachings within certain segments of the Christian community. Over the years, Charisma has played a major role in advancing the Word/Faith movement, prosperity gospel preachers, and the Kingdom/Dominionist theology, which hold that Christians should take dominion over the earth’s systems before Christ returns. The magazine has also promoted the Apostles and Prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and spiritual movements such as the Toronto Airport Vineyard, Brownsville, and Lakeland revivals, all of which have been criticized for their excesses, unbiblical practices, and faulty teachings. These movements, often referred to as part of the “Third Wave” of the Charismatic Movement, have raised concerns about the authenticity of their supposed spiritual experiences and prophecies.

The irony in all of this becomes apparent when we consider that one of the key chapters in The Harbinger (TH) – Isaiah 9 – deals with God’s judgment on Israel for following “lying prophets.” This is striking, especially given that Charisma has, for decades, featured numerous individuals who fit this description. While this connection does not automatically render TH’s message false or invalidate it entirely, it should prompt serious concern and a careful examination of its claims. If such a prominent publisher has repeatedly aligned itself with questionable teachers and movements, then it stands to reason that any new book or teaching coming from this platform should be scrutinised with a critical eye. In essence, the tree is known by its fruit, and the fruit of Charisma and its associated ministries is problematic.

Jonathan Cahn’s Increasing Mainstream Influence

Jonathan Cahn, the author of The Harbinger, has made a significant impact on evangelicalism in recent years, gaining attention for his interpretation of biblical prophecies and the idea of secret messages hidden in Scripture about future events. However, his growing influence raises serious questions, particularly when considering his expanding network of associations. Cahn has, over time, partnered with figures involved in movements that are often viewed with suspicion by more conservative Christian circles. For example, he presented at The 2012 International Prophecy Conference in Florida, alongside notable evangelical figures such as Tim LaHaye, Grant Jeffrey, and Randall Price. While these men may have a reputation in certain conservative Christian circles, they have also been connected to quantum collaborators, who often embrace unbiblical ideas, or to those associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. The conference was hosted by Joe Van Koevering, who has long been connected with the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), a platform that has been a major promoter of the prosperity gospel and Word/Faith teachings, as well as figures like Chuck Missler, who has had ties to quantum mysticism and NAR-affiliated beliefs.

Cahn’s association with Van Koevering, Missler, and others raises red flags. Van Koevering and Missler, for instance, have both appeared on TBN’s Praise the Lord programme, which is known for broadcasting teachings from figures associated with the Word/Faith and prosperity gospel movements. In 2011, Missler awarded Van Koevering an honorary gold medallion through his Koinonia Institute, an organisation also tied to quantum mysticism and esoteric theology. These continued associations between Cahn, Missler, and individuals with connections to NAR and Word/Faith ministries highlight a deeper issue. Despite Cahn’s popularity and his book’s mainstream success, his endorsement of individuals with questionable doctrinal backgrounds raises significant concerns about the integrity of his teachings and affiliations.

Furthermore, these associations don’t stop at the level of conferences and media appearances. Both Van Koevering and Grant Jeffrey have appeared on Benny Hinn’s television programme, This Is Your Day, which is notorious for promoting false teaching, including the prosperity gospel and Word/Faith doctrines. While Hinn is widely regarded as one of the most infamous false teachers within the Charismatic movement, his influence and media presence continue to shape the theology of millions of people worldwide. The involvement of Cahn and others with figures like Hinn not only tarnishes their credibility but also implicates them in endorsing a wider theological framework that contradicts the core truths of the Christian faith.

In addition to these television appearances, the individuals involved in the aforementioned ministries have also been linked to highly dubious ventures, such as an online business involving medicinal hyssop. This odd business venture was linked to figures like Bob Jones, Randy DeMain, and David Van Koevering (different from Joe), who are all associated with the NAR and other unbiblical movements. This raises further questions about the doctrinal purity of the circles Cahn and his colleagues are part of.

Cahn’s Popularity and Influence: The Harbinger and Beyond

In light of these associations, it is crucial to evaluate the broader impact of Jonathan Cahn’s work, particularly his bestselling book The Harbinger. The book promotes the idea that hidden messages in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Isaiah, foretell the downfall of America due to its moral and spiritual decline. However, the book’s premise of secret coded prophecies in Scripture is a controversial and unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. It aligns with the “prophetic code” genre, which claims to reveal hidden meanings in the Bible that predict future events, often in ways that cannot be supported by sound biblical exegesis.

The troubling aspect of Cahn’s work, particularly in the context of his affiliations, is that it perpetuates a method of biblical interpretation that has been widely critiqued for being both unbiblical and manipulative. His focus on finding hidden codes in Scripture is reminiscent of similar attempts made by individuals who often drift into the realm of numerology, mysticism, and speculative theology. It’s also deeply concerning that Cahn’s book has been endorsed by figures like Joseph Farah, who produced a DVD based on The Harbinger, further promoting Cahn’s interpretation of Isaiah. Farah’s association with Cahn, along with the promotion of such material by Missler and others, signals a troubling trend within certain evangelical circles to embrace teachings that are inconsistent with sound, biblical doctrine.

The Role of Moriel Ministries and Other Discernment Ministries

It is troubling to see that ministries like Moriel Ministries, which otherwise pride themselves on defending the truth of the gospel and exposing heretical teachings, have allowed individuals like Joel Richardson to contribute to their work. Richardson, who has close associations with figures like Jim Bakker and Jonathan Cahn, has consistently surrounded himself with those who promote unbiblical teachings, yet Moriel and other so-called “discernment ministries” have not taken a firm stand against his compromised position. This inconsistency is troubling, especially given the sharp accusations that such ministries often direct at others for holding differing views on eschatology or theology.

For example, Moriel Ministries has been vocal in condemning those who differ from their interpretation of eschatology, accusing them of heresy or Gnosticism. However, they do not seem to extend the same level of scrutiny to their own associations. By working with Joel Richardson, a man who frequently collaborates with false teachers such as Jim Bakker (a well-known Word/Faith preacher) and Jonathan Cahn, they are implicitly endorsing a broader theological framework that is problematic. This double standard reflects poorly on their commitment to biblical discernment and raises significant questions about their theological integrity.

Ultimately, ministries like Moriel should be wary of the relationships they foster. By continuing to support and promote figures who are linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, Word/Faith theology, and quantum mysticism, they risk compromising their own witness to the truth of the gospel. The ongoing trend of endorsing individuals with questionable doctrinal positions reflects a broader issue within certain segments of evangelicalism, where popularity and influence often take precedence over doctrinal purity. It is crucial that discernment ministries take a firm stand against the influence of false teachers and be consistent in holding all teachers to the same high standard of biblical truth. Only then can they truly protect the flock from the dangerous teachings that threaten to infiltrate the church.

Joel Richardson, Jonathan Cahn and Jim Bakker.

Joel Richardson’s involvement with Jim Bakker and Jonathan Cahn has raised significant concerns among biblical purists, particularly due to their associations with individuals and movements that promote unbiblical teachings. Bakker, a well-known Word of Faith preacher, has a long history of controversial practices and teachings. His theology centres on the idea that God promises wealth and success for those who have enough faith, which is contrary to biblical teachings about the true nature of the Christian life, which often involves suffering and sacrifice. Bakker’s involvement with Richardson, Cahn, and others has led many biblical purists to question the integrity of their associations.

Jonathan Cahn, a key figure in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), has been known for promoting ideas rooted in mysticism and a distorted interpretation of prophecy. His bestselling book, The Harbinger, has attracted widespread attention for its claims of hidden messages in the Bible that supposedly foretell America’s future. However, biblical purists argue that such interpretations stray far from sound biblical doctrine, distorting Scripture to fit personal agendas. Cahn’s connections to the NAR, a movement notorious for its unbiblical teachings about the roles of apostles and prophets, further raise alarms. Figures like Cahn collaborate with others within the NAR such as C. Peter Wagner, Dutch Sheets, Chuck Pierce, and others who endorse a theology of Dominionism—the belief that Christians are meant to take dominion over every aspect of society, including politics, media, and business.

Chuck Pierce and C. Peter Wagner, both influential figures in the NAR, have supported controversial figures like Todd Bentley. Bentley, a former pastor whose ministry was marked by extreme practices including false healings and an unbiblical emphasis on signs and wonders, has been widely discredited by biblical purists. His teachings and methods are seen as deceptive, creating a culture of emotionalism and manipulation that distorts the gospel message.

For biblical purists, the main issue with Richardson, Cahn, and their associates is not just their affiliations with questionable individuals but also their tendency to dilute the gospel message in favour of sensationalism and spiritual experiences that do not align with Scripture. These men and women appear to be more interested in building their own platforms and promoting personal revelations than faithfully teaching the Bible. Their partnerships with Bakker and others only deepen the concerns surrounding their ministries, as they continue to spread teachings that have been widely deemed heretical by those who hold to biblical truth.

The problem with these associations is not simply that they promote teachings contrary to the Bible but that they actively encourage a false sense of unity within the body of Christ. By fostering ecumenical relationships with mystics and those who promote doctrines of the New Age or New Apostolic Reformation, they blur the lines between true Christianity and heresy. This undermines the integrity of the gospel and misleads believers into following teachings that will ultimately lead them away from the truth of God’s Word.

In short, for biblical purists, the involvement of Richardson, Cahn, and their associates with figures like Bakker and others who promote unbiblical and even dangerous teachings is a serious cause for concern. These associations reflect a broader trend within modern evangelicalism where the pursuit of fame, fortune, and influence often supersedes the faithful preaching of God’s Word.

Who are Joel Richardson’s other bedfellows?

Joel Richardson’s associations and use of language raise significant concerns for those who take biblical purity seriously. A key phrase that Richardson uses is “thoroughly missional,” which warrants deeper scrutiny. The term “missional” is frequently associated with the Emergent Church movement, and Richardson’s use of this term creates an immediate point of contention for discerning Christians. The Emergent Church is known for its rejection of traditional, biblical understanding in favour of a more subjective, experiential faith that prioritises human experience over doctrinal truth. By self-identifying as “missional,” Richardson may be aligning himself with an ideology that has reshaped the mission of the church, making it something more akin to a social movement than a biblically grounded proclamation of the gospel.

The term “missional” was first coined in the early 2000s within the context of the Emergent Church, and its usage has become widespread across various theological camps. According to Patheos, the term is broadly adopted by groups ranging from Southern Baptist neoconservatives like Ed Stetzer to Anabaptist pacifists like David Fitch. While the term has gained wide acceptance, it has also become increasingly diluted, making it difficult to pinpoint its true meaning in any given context (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/02/20/some-honest-talk-about-labels-emergent-missional-etc/). The term’s flexibility allows anyone to adopt it, from theologically conservative figures to those aligned with more progressive or even heretical movements. This raises an important question: What does it mean when someone like Richardson adopts this term? Is he intentionally associating himself with the broader missional movement, or is he simply adopting the term without understanding the implications of its associations?

The problem with this use of the term “missional” is that it has been appropriated by the Emergent Church to describe a mission that is disconnected from biblical doctrine. In the Emergent framework, mission is not necessarily about proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ or planting churches. Instead, it has become more about engaging in general acts of social good, improving society, or achieving an undefined, utopian vision of the future. As Bob DeWaay explains in his critique of the Emergent Church, this new definition of mission is fundamentally unbiblical. The Great Commission, as outlined in Matthew 28:18-20, clearly directs Christians to make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything Christ has commanded. The Emergent concept of mission, in contrast, often lacks this foundational gospel-centred focus, placing the emphasis on human experience and social improvement rather than divine revelation and salvation.

DeWaay also points out that those involved in the Emergent “conversation” generally define themselves as “missional,” but their definition of mission is not grounded in the Scriptures. For the Emergent thinkers, including figures like Brian McLaren, mission is not about spreading the gospel of salvation but rather creating a better world through works of social justice, environmental activism, or other humanist endeavours. McLaren himself has written that theology must emerge from mission, meaning that mission precedes theology. This idea contradicts the traditional, biblically grounded understanding that our theology must be rooted in Scripture, from which our understanding of mission naturally flows. Instead of starting with biblical doctrine, the Emergent Church allows practice (social action, environmentalism, etc.) to define theology. This redefinition of mission is dangerous because it shifts the focus away from the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to human efforts, making it unclear whether the gospel is being proclaimed at all.

Another problematic aspect of Richardson’s associations is his frequent sharing of platforms with figures whose theology and teachings diverge significantly from biblical orthodoxy. This includes individuals who are directly linked to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the Ecumenical movement, and Christian Mysticism. For example, Richardson has appeared on Jim Bakker’s show, where he has been associated with well-known heretical teachers like Jonathan Cahn. Cahn, a self-proclaimed prophet, has been heavily criticised by biblical purists for his promotion of unbiblical doctrines, such as his use of “hidden prophecies” in the Bible to predict future events and his ties to the NAR. This group has been widely criticised for its unbiblical teachings on Dominionism and the so-called “apostolic” and “prophetic” ministries, which are not supported by Scripture.

Furthermore, figures like Cahn and Chuck Pierce, a leader within the NAR, have been vocal proponents of dangerous and unbiblical movements such as the so-called “Toronto Blessing” and the Lakeland Revival, both of which are characterised by extreme emotionalism, supposed supernatural manifestations, and a focus on personal experience rather than sound biblical teaching. Pierce, who has supported figures like Todd Bentley—an individual infamous for his unbiblical teachings and immoral behaviour—has long been linked with the NAR and other charismatic excesses. His support for such controversial figures raises questions about Richardson’s discernment in continuing to associate with these individuals.

Given this context, Richardson’s decision to maintain connections with these teachers raises serious concerns. While it is possible that Richardson is unaware of the full extent of these individuals’ theological errors, it is also possible that he is deliberately choosing to align himself with a broader network of false teachers, which would further compromise his credibility and his ability to discern truth from error.

Even more troubling is the involvement of figures like Joe Schimmel, who is known for his efforts to expose false teachings and heresies within the church. Schimmel’s collaboration with Richardson, especially in light of Richardson’s associations with people like Cahn, Pierce, and Bakker, is perplexing. Schimmel has previously been vocal about the dangers of NAR theology and the heretical teachings associated with the Word of Faith movement, yet his involvement with Richardson raises questions about his own discernment. Why would Schimmel, who has exposed these very errors in the past, choose to overlook the dangerous theological affiliations and associations Richardson has made?

The answer may lie in the fact that the term “missional” has become so pervasive and so widely used that even those who have historically been defenders of biblical truth may not fully understand the implications of the term. As Richardson and Schimmel continue to endorse each other’s ministries, it becomes increasingly important for discerning Christians to evaluate their affiliations carefully. In a time when theological compromise is rampant and heresies are spreading, it is crucial to test every teacher and every movement against the clear, unchanging truth of Scripture.

In conclusion, Joel Richardson’s use of the term “missional” and his associations with figures who are linked to the Emergent Church, the New Apostolic Reformation, and other unbiblical movements raise serious concerns for those committed to biblical orthodoxy. His failure to distance himself from these groups and his willingness to share platforms with false teachers should be a cause for alarm. As biblical purists, we must be vigilant in guarding against theological compromise and ensuring that our understanding of mission and theology remains firmly grounded in Scripture.

Joel Richardson is a well-known figure in Christian circles, particularly in relation to his teachings on prophecy, eschatology, and current events. Over the years, Richardson has made numerous appearances on a wide variety of radio and television shows, as well as in major news outlets, all of which have helped to shape his public persona. These platforms include some highly influential outlets, such as the Glenn Beck Show, the Mike Huckabee Show, the Gordon Liddy Show, the Dennis Miller Show, Chicago Public Radio, the Steve Malzberg Show, Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural, Jewish Voice Today, and numerous others. Richardson’s widespread media presence has contributed to his reputation as a leading voice in prophecy circles, but it has also raised questions about his affiliations and the platforms on which he chooses to appear.

The significance of these appearances is not merely about the number of shows Richardson has been featured on, but more importantly about the associations these platforms have with other figures, especially those who hold to unbiblical beliefs. For instance, Glenn Beck, the host of The Glenn Beck Show, is a well-known Mormon, and while his show may attract a large audience, it is important to note that Mormonism is considered a false gospel by biblical standards. The teachings of the Mormon Church significantly deviate from Christian orthodoxy, especially concerning the nature of God, the Trinity, and the path to salvation.

Similarly, Sid Roth, who hosts It’s Supernatural, is associated with the Word of Faith movement, which has been widely criticised for promoting prosperity gospel teachings and unbiblical manifestations of the Holy Spirit. This movement, known for its emphasis on health, wealth, and success, is heavily criticised by biblical purists for its lack of sound biblical theology and for its focus on experiential signs and wonders rather than the clear proclamation of the gospel.

Moreover, The Glenn Beck Show, The Dennis Miller Show, and The Mike Huckabee Show are not necessarily Christian-focused programmes. While Huckabee, a former governor and Christian, may be more aligned with traditional evangelical values, the fact that Richardson chose to appear on platforms like these speaks volumes about the range of his outreach efforts. These appearances, particularly on secular or politically conservative outlets, may appeal to a broader audience, but they also expose Richardson to potential compromise in terms of associations. There is a significant risk that, by appearing on shows hosted by figures with unbiblical beliefs or associations, Richardson inadvertently lends credibility to their views or fails to clarify the differences in doctrine that separate him from his hosts.

The Omissions on His Website: A Cause for Concern

A recent change on Joel Richardson’s official website has sparked further questions. The list of media outlets on which he has appeared, including the Glenn Beck Show and others mentioned above, has been removed. The new statement on the website simply reads, “Joel has also been featured on or written for numerous radio, television, and news outlets across the world.” The omission of specific names and programs, such as those associated with questionable or heretical teachings, is curious.

Why would Richardson choose to remove this information from his website? Is he attempting to distance himself from certain platforms that might be seen as problematic by discerning Christians? Or does this omission reflect a more subtle attempt to downplay the significance of his previous associations, particularly with figures or networks that do not adhere to orthodox Christian theology?

What is particularly striking about this omission is that Richardson has not made any public comment or clarification about why he is distancing himself from these media outlets. It would have been appropriate for Richardson to publicly state if he no longer wished to be associated with such platforms or individuals, especially given the controversial nature of some of the shows he appeared on. This lack of clarification raises important questions about his discernment in choosing his associations, as well as his willingness to address concerns about potential theological compromise.

For example, if Richardson had previously been a guest on The Glenn Beck Show—a show hosted by a prominent Mormon—he could have clarified his position by publicly stating that he disagrees with Beck’s views and does not support Mormon doctrine. Similarly, if he appeared on Sid Roth’s programme, which is linked to the Word of Faith movement, Richardson could have made it clear that he rejects the prosperity gospel and its associated teachings. Instead, Richardson has chosen to remove any mention of these past associations without offering any explanation, which leaves his audience to wonder why he felt the need to hide or minimise these connections.

Why Is This Omission Problematic?

The omission of these specific media associations is concerning for several reasons:

1. Lack of Accountability: Richardson’s removal of these details without any explanation suggests a lack of accountability in his ministry. If a public figure, especially one with a platform as large as Richardson’s, has previously associated with groups or individuals holding unbiblical views, it is important for them to publicly address and clarify these relationships. This ensures that their audience is not left with any misconceptions about their theological stance. By failing to do so, Richardson creates confusion and potential distrust among his followers.
2. Compromising Doctrine: The fact that Richardson chose to associate with figures such as Glenn Beck (a Mormon) and Sid Roth (a proponent of the Word of Faith movement) suggests a willingness to compromise biblical doctrine for the sake of wider exposure. For Christians who are committed to the purity of the gospel, these compromises are deeply troubling. Mormonism and the Word of Faith movement both espouse beliefs that are at odds with core biblical teachings. Richardson’s silence on these affiliations indicates a lack of discernment or, worse, an implicit endorsement of teachings that contradict the gospel.
3. Avoiding Responsibility: By removing the list of media appearances without comment, Richardson may be attempting to avoid the responsibility of addressing these past associations. Christian leaders are called to be examples of truth and integrity. It is important for them to publicly stand firm in their beliefs and be willing to engage in conversations about their past actions, especially if those actions may have been seen as compromising or unwise. Richardson’s failure to make a public statement regarding his previous media appearances is a missed opportunity for him to demonstrate transparency and accountability to his audience.

The Importance of Discernment in Ministry

For laypersons and Bible students alike, the situation with Joel Richardson serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of discernment in ministry. It is crucial to carefully evaluate the platforms on which we stand and the people with whom we choose to associate. Scripture commands believers to avoid partnerships with those who hold to false teachings (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). While Christians are called to engage with the world and proclaim the gospel to all people, we must do so while guarding against compromise and ensuring that our associations do not undermine the message of truth we seek to proclaim.

Joel Richardson’s recent omission of key media associations raises valid concerns about his commitment to biblical integrity and transparency. Whether this is a deliberate attempt to distance himself from previous compromises or a failure to address potential theological errors, the absence of a clear explanation leaves his audience with unanswered questions. Christians must remain vigilant and discerning, ensuring that our leaders are faithful to the gospel and willing to publicly confront errors when necessary.

In conclusion, the removal of these media associations without explanation leaves Richardson open to criticism and creates confusion among his followers. If he truly seeks to honour God and uphold biblical truth, it is essential for him to be open about his past relationships and affiliations, clarify his theological position, and demonstrate a willingness to engage in responsible, biblically grounded dialogue about the platforms on which he appears. Only through such transparency can Richardson regain the trust of those who are concerned about the purity of his ministry.

The alliance between Joel Richardson and individuals like Glenn Beck, who adhere to Mormonism, is problematic because it forms an unholy alliance, one that compromises the fundamental truths of the gospel and leads to spiritual confusion. At its core, there can be no genuine unity between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, as the doctrines they espouse are diametrically opposed. This alliance is not just a matter of differing opinions on secondary issues; it involves fundamental disagreements about the nature of God, salvation, and the person of Jesus Christ.

First and foremost, the theological differences between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are irreconcilable. Evangelicals hold to the belief in the Trinitarian nature of God, that there is one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—existing eternally in perfect unity. Mormons, on the other hand, reject this doctrine of the Trinity, instead believing that God is an exalted man who was once a mortal like us and that he progressed to godhood. They view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct gods rather than as one God in three persons. This difference is not just a minor theological nuance but a fundamental divergence that goes to the very heart of who God is.

Additionally, the Mormon understanding of salvation is in direct conflict with the biblical gospel. While evangelical Christianity teaches that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, received by faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), Mormonism teaches that salvation is a process that involves both faith and works. Mormons believe that in order to be saved, individuals must adhere to the teachings and ordinances of the Mormon Church, including baptism, temple rituals, and living a morally upright life according to their standards. This works-based salvation directly contradicts the clear biblical teaching that salvation cannot be earned by human effort but is a free gift from God, given to those who believe in Jesus Christ alone (Romans 6:23).

These profound doctrinal differences make it impossible for there to be genuine unity or cooperation between evangelicals and Mormons. To attempt to form such an alliance is to blur the lines of truth and compromise on the gospel message. The Apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, warns believers: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” This passage underscores the danger of aligning oneself with those who hold to false teachings. The unity that the gospel brings is not a superficial, ecumenical unity based on shared political or social interests; it is a deep, spiritual unity that comes from a shared commitment to the truth of God’s Word.

When Joel Richardson forms connections or engages in dialogue with figures like Glenn Beck without making clear the fundamental differences between their belief systems, he risks promoting a form of unity that is not grounded in truth. By associating with individuals whose beliefs distort or reject the gospel, Richardson not only jeopardises his own integrity but also misleads others into thinking that such unity is acceptable or desirable. This is a dangerous path, as it undermines the very foundation of the Christian faith.

The Bible calls believers to be distinct from the world and to be steadfast in defending the truth of the gospel. Ephesians 5:11 admonishes Christians: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” This is not to say that Christians should never engage with non-believers, but there is a clear distinction between seeking to share the gospel with those who are lost and forming alliances with those who openly reject the truth of Scripture. The latter not only compromises the message of salvation but also risks causing confusion within the body of Christ. True Christian unity can only exist where there is shared faith in the essential doctrines of the gospel, and where that faith is unapologetically upheld and proclaimed.

By aligning himself with individuals like Beck, who not only reject the gospel but also promote a false understanding of God, Richardson is walking down a dangerous path. The attempt to work together with those who are in opposition to the truth of Scripture is a misguided effort at best and, at worst, an unholy alliance that undermines the gospel. True unity can only be built on the unshakable foundation of the truth of God’s Word. When that truth is compromised or downplayed for the sake of political or social unity, the result is a distorted message that ultimately leads people away from the true gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, there can be no real unity or cooperation between evangelicals and those who reject the gospel, such as Mormons, because such a partnership would be at odds with the very heart of the Christian faith.

What Does Glenn Beck Believe?

Glenn Beck has openly stated that he is a Mormon, and in doing so, he acknowledges that Mormonism has significant doctrinal differences with traditional Christianity. In a discussion, Beck stated, “Mormons, the doctrine is different. However, that’s what attracted me to it. For me, some of the things in traditional doctrine just doesn’t work, but it works for millions of other people, and that’s great. It happens to work for millions of Mormons the other way. That’s great. You know, I’m not going to preach to you, you don’t have to preach to me. We’ll pray for each other and we’ll see each other on the other side hopefully.”

In these comments, Beck admits that Mormonism’s teachings attracted him precisely because they differ from traditional Christian doctrine. He expresses a personal preference for Mormon beliefs over what he views as the inadequacies of orthodox Christianity, and his statement that “we’ll see each other on the other side” is a reflection of his belief in the afterlife that includes those of all faiths. However, this statement should raise concerns for anyone who is familiar with the exclusivity of the biblical gospel, which teaches that salvation is found only in Christ Jesus, not through other faith systems (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).

The Heresy of Mormonism: Why Beck’s Beliefs Are in Opposition to the Gospel

The core of Mormonism fundamentally contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ, and this is where Glenn Beck’s beliefs are problematic from a biblical standpoint. In Mormon theology, several key doctrines differ sharply from biblical Christianity, leading to a rejection of the Christian gospel as revealed in Scripture. Understanding these differences is critical to grasp why Beck’s Mormon faith cannot be reconciled with evangelical Christianity.

1. The Nature of God: Polytheism vs. Monotheism
   One of the most significant heresies in Mormonism is its belief in the nature of God. According to Mormon doctrine, there are many gods, and God the Father was once a man who attained godhood through obedience to divine laws. This teaching contradicts the biblical doctrine of monotheism, which affirms that there is only one God (Isaiah 45:5-6) and that He is eternal, unchanging, and without origin (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). The Mormon concept of God is a form of polytheism, where God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are seen as separate beings who once lived as mortals and progressed to godhood. This is in stark contrast to the biblical teaching of the Trinity—one God in three persons (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Mormon view of God is heretical because it distorts the nature of God, reducing Him to something less than the eternal, uncreated Creator that Scripture reveals.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: A Different Christ
   Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but in a very different way than orthodox Christianity. According to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer (Satan) and was a created being who achieved godhood. This view conflicts with the biblical doctrine of the full deity of Christ, which states that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and is one with the Father (John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9). The Mormon Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Bible. This heretical view of Christ as a created being and as a brother to Satan denies the gospel message that Jesus, as God incarnate, is the only Savior of humanity, sent to die for the sins of the world (John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5-6).
3. Salvation: Works-Based vs. Grace Alone
   Another major point of contention is the doctrine of salvation. In Mormonism, salvation is not solely by grace through faith in Jesus Christ but is also dependent on works. Mormons believe that in order to achieve the highest level of heaven, individuals must adhere to Mormon teachings, participate in temple rituals, and live a moral life. In contrast, the Bible teaches that salvation is a gift from God, not something that can be earned through works. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” The Mormon view of salvation undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work on the cross and the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone.
4. Scripture: Additional Revelation Beyond the Bible
   Mormonism teaches that the Bible is not the complete or final revelation from God. Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon as an additional, authoritative scripture that complements the Bible. This book is said to be a record of ancient peoples in the Americas and includes teachings that contradict the Bible in significant ways. The Bible, however, warns against adding to or taking away from Scripture (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2). By accepting the Book of Mormon as divine revelation, Mormons reject the sufficiency of the Bible, a position that is incompatible with biblical Christianity.
5. The Doctrine of Deification
   Perhaps one of the most striking heresies of Mormonism is its belief in the doctrine of “exaltation” or “deification.” According to this doctrine, faithful Mormons can become gods themselves, just as God the Father did. This is based on the teaching that men and women are “eternal beings” with the potential to attain godhood through adherence to Mormon teachings and ordinances. This doctrine stands in opposition to the biblical understanding that God alone is God, and human beings cannot become gods (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5). The idea that humans can attain godhood is not only unbiblical but also blasphemous, as it elevates human beings to the same level as God.

Why Glenn Beck’s Involvement with Mormonism Is a Cause for Concern

Given these serious doctrinal differences, Glenn Beck’s profession of faith in Mormonism presents a significant issue for anyone involved in ministry or evangelism who claims to uphold the biblical gospel. By publicly identifying as a Mormon and rejecting the essential tenets of Christianity, Beck is essentially preaching a different gospel—one that cannot save. As the Apostle Paul warned in Galatians 1:6-9, any gospel that differs from the one revealed in Scripture is a false gospel, and those who promote it are accursed.

Beck’s rejection of traditional Christian doctrine in favour of a theology that contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ poses a serious risk for anyone who associates with him or works alongside him. Despite this, Glenn Beck has been featured alongside prominent Christian figures, including Joel Richardson, who has appeared on platforms where Beck is involved. This is problematic because it suggests a level of endorsement or toleration of Beck’s false beliefs. By aligning himself with someone who is openly hostile to the gospel, Joel Richardson and others risk compromising the integrity of their own ministries.

In conclusion, Glenn Beck’s Mormon beliefs stand in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormonism’s heretical doctrines about the nature of God, the person of Christ, the means of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and the potential for human deification are all incompatible with biblical Christianity. For a Christian to form alliances or engage in ministry alongside someone who rejects these fundamental doctrines is both dangerous and unbiblical. The Bible calls Christians to be vigilant in guarding the truth of the gospel (1 Timothy 6:20), and any attempt to find common ground with false teachings—whether Mormonism or otherwise—undermines the very foundation of the faith.

Chuck Pierce mantles Glenn Beck. (Chuck Pierce/Facebook)

Chuck Pierce, a prominent leader within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), has consistently aligned himself with controversial figures and promoted teachings that deviate from sound biblical doctrine. One particularly alarming incident occurred when Pierce offered Glenn Beck, the conservative media personality and self-identified Mormon, a “new mantle for the future” at a ceremony held at the Global Spheres Center in Corinth, Texas.

The Significance of the “Mantle” Ceremony

Chuck Pierce’s act of bestowing a “mantle” on Glenn Beck is not just a trivial gesture. In the charismatic and NAR circles, the concept of a mantle carries significant spiritual weight. It is often seen as a symbolic act of transferring spiritual authority, an endorsement of the individual’s future role in ministry or leadership, and a sign of divine favour. By offering this mantle to Glenn Beck, Chuck Pierce was, in effect, publicly endorsing him as a key figure in the Christian sphere.

However, the move was immediately met with controversy. Beck, as many know, is a devout Mormon, a religion that fundamentally contradicts the core teachings of orthodox Christianity. Mormonism rejects the biblical gospel, promotes polytheism, and distorts the nature of Christ. Given these serious theological differences, Pierce’s decision to publicly honour Beck is deeply problematic for anyone who holds to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Chuck Pierce’s Response to the Debate

In response to the backlash surrounding the ceremony, Chuck Pierce addressed the controversy in a post, stating, “Glenn Beck is devoted to Israel. The mantle was given from Israel. Many Jews have never had salvation experiences. Many individuals in Methodist, Baptist, Catholic churches, etc. may have never had salvation experiences. However, one could bear witness to Glenn’s testimony. I look forward to him, like all of us, experiencing a new dimension of God’s Spirit and Grace. Blessings!”

While Pierce’s words may sound benign or even gracious on the surface, they reveal a troubling theological misunderstanding. Pierce claims that Glenn Beck’s devotion to Israel somehow qualifies him for spiritual endorsement, despite Beck’s rejection of the biblical gospel. The idea that devotion to Israel, regardless of one’s faith, can somehow lead to salvation is a dangerous teaching that has led many astray. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is only found through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12), not through works, national identity, or even an affinity for Israel.

The Dangers of Chuck Pierce’s Teachings and Associations

Chuck Pierce is not an isolated case in this regard. He is a key figure in the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement that has been widely criticised by biblical purists for its unbiblical doctrines and dangerous affiliations. Pierce’s involvement with Glenn Beck is just one example of how NAR leaders have blurred the lines between the true gospel and false teachings.

By aligning himself with Beck, a Mormon who does not adhere to the biblical gospel, Pierce is endorsing a theology that contradicts the very foundation of Christianity. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is not the eternal Son of God but a created being who is distinct from God the Father. This is in direct opposition to the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

Furthermore, Pierce’s rhetoric about “salvation experiences” in different Christian denominations, including Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics, undermines the exclusivity of the gospel. While it is true that people in every denomination may have different expressions of faith, the Bible teaches that salvation is not about belonging to a particular church or group, but about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10). Pierce’s comments imply that anyone who is “devoted” to Israel or has a positive “testimony” is somehow closer to salvation, which is a clear misrepresentation of the gospel message.

The Broader Impact of Chuck Pierce’s Ministry

Chuck Pierce’s influence extends far beyond Glenn Beck. He has consistently associated himself with individuals and movements that promote unbiblical teachings, leading many astray in the process. For example:

• The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR): This movement, with which Pierce is heavily involved, is known for its emphasis on “apostles” and “prophets” who claim to have new, authoritative revelations from God. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible’s clear teaching that the canon of Scripture is closed (Revelation 22:18-19), and that no new revelations will come after the completion of the New Testament (Jude 1:3).
• Todd Bentley: Chuck Pierce has been associated with Todd Bentley, a controversial figure in the Charismatic movement. Bentley is known for his so-called “healing revivals” and claims of supernatural manifestations, but his teachings and practices have been widely criticised for their lack of biblical foundation and their promotion of false signs and wonders.
• C. Peter Wagner: Pierce has worked alongside C. Peter Wagner, one of the key figures in the NAR, who has promoted the idea of “dominionism”—the belief that Christians are called to take control of societal institutions and bring about a theocratic rule. This idea is foreign to the teachings of Scripture, which make it clear that the Kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36) and that Christians are to be faithful in their witness, not to establish earthly dominion.
• Support for False Doctrines: Pierce has also aligned himself with leaders who promote the “prosperity gospel,” a teaching that distorts biblical principles for personal gain. The prosperity gospel suggests that God wants all believers to be wealthy and healthy, a concept that has led countless people into financial ruin and spiritual confusion.

The Unholy Alliance: Why There Can Be No Unity

Chuck Pierce’s actions in endorsing Glenn Beck, along with his associations with false teachers and unbiblical movements, demonstrate why such alliances are not only dangerous but also unscriptural. The Bible clearly teaches that believers are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers or those who promote falsehoods (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Beck’s Mormonism, with its rejection of the biblical gospel, is fundamentally incompatible with the true Christian faith. To offer him a mantle of spiritual authority is to endorse a false gospel and mislead others into believing that there is some sort of common ground between true Christianity and Mormonism.

Pierce’s ministry, therefore, stands as a cautionary example of how dangerous it can be to align oneself with those who hold to unbiblical teachings. The influence of leaders like Pierce is far-reaching, and their ability to lead others astray is a serious concern. As Christians, we are called to test everything against the Word of God (1 John 4:1), and when leaders like Chuck Pierce promote alliances with false teachers and unbiblical movements, it is our duty to speak out and warn others of the danger. There can be no unity between the true gospel of Jesus Christ and false teachings, no matter how well-intentioned the efforts may seem.

Exposing the Dangerous Alliances and False Teachings in Joel Richardson’s Endorsements

Dave Hunt’s Berean Call rightly highlights the concerns surrounding Chuck Pierce’s recent actions, particularly his act of “mantling” Glenn Beck, a devout Mormon. Pierce’s actions raise significant red flags, especially given the doctrinal implications. As The Berean Call rightly points out, Pierce’s actions stray far from sound biblical teaching. Pierce claims that Glenn Beck, much like the biblical figure Cyrus, has a “voice to change this nation.” However, this comparison is flawed. While Cyrus did indeed issue a decree allowing Israel to rebuild the temple, he did not transform the spiritual landscape of Israel. To claim that Glenn Beck, a Mormon, could be a force for spiritual change is not only theologically misguided, but it also diminishes the exclusive role of the gospel in transforming hearts and nations. Moreover, Pierce further promotes a vision where “prophets” (but not biblical prophets) supposedly foresee a revival within the Mormon religion—this is deeply troubling. Mormons do not follow the Christ of Scripture, but a distorted version of Christ introduced by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received a new gospel from an alleged angel. The Apostle Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8 is clear: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

This brings us to the broader issue of Joel Richardson’s alliances, which raise concerns about his theological stance. Richardson, while known for his work on Islamic eschatology, has connected himself to a troubling network of false teachers and organizations, many of which promote unbiblical teachings. Among those Richardson has endorsed or associated with are figures like Jim Bakker, Sid Roth, Mike Bickle, Walid Shoebat, Paul Wilbur, and prominent TV networks such as TBN, Daystar TV, and CBN News. These names have consistently been linked to prosperity gospel teachings, unbiblical prophecy, and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) doctrines that distort the gospel message.

Key Figures in Joel Richardson’s Network

1. Chuck Missler (CFR): Chuck Missler is perhaps one of the most concerning figures in Richardson’s endorsement list. Missler is known for his unbiblical teachings on subjects like the Nephilim, UFOs, and the Book of Enoch, along with promoting quantum mysticism. Missler has also endorsed Rick Warren, a pastor associated with the Purpose Driven Life movement, which has been criticized for its theological shallow approach and ecumenical leanings. Furthermore, Missler’s involvement with Promise Keepers and God TV, known for prosperity gospel teachings, further complicates his doctrinal stance. His association with the Club of Rome’s Justo Lacunza-Balda only adds to the concern.
2. Sid Roth: Sid Roth, known for his TV show It’s Supernatural!, regularly features guests who promote unbiblical dreams, visions, and experiences. Notably, Roth has given air time to figures like Patricia King and Todd Bentley, both of whom have been widely criticised for their teachings on “signs and wonders” that do not align with Scripture. Roth’s connections to TBN and other false teachers like Joel Richardson further blur the lines between truth and error.
3. Joseph Farah: Joseph Farah is a proponent of the “quantum mysticism” ideas propagated by Chuck Missler and other fringe Christian teachers. Farah’s support for Jonathan Cahn and his controversial book The Harbinger is also troubling. Farah has used his platform to promote Cahn’s claims that hidden prophecies in the Book of Isaiah foretell America’s doom. Farah’s leanings towards Dominionism, a belief in Christian political control, also reflect a dangerous misunderstanding of Scripture’s teachings on the kingdom of God.
4. Daniel Juster: Daniel Juster, a key figure in the Messianic Jewish movement, has been associated with IHOP (International House of Prayer) and figures like Mike Bickle. Juster’s ecumenical views are also concerning, as he has endorsed the idea of a “One New Man” theology that seeks to blend Jewish and Gentile believers into one group without acknowledging the distinct roles and identities within the body of Christ. His support for IHOP and Bickle, known for their controversial teachings within the NAR, only adds to the problematic nature of Juster’s theological stance.
5. Billy Humphrey (IHOP): Billy Humphrey, a key leader in IHOP Atlanta, has been endorsed by Mike Bickle and has made significant connections with other NAR figures. IHOP itself is widely criticised for its mystical and experiential approach to spirituality, focusing heavily on continuous worship and prayer rather than sound biblical teaching. Humphrey’s involvement with IHOP and his endorsement by figures like Bishop Wellington Boone, a known supporter of the prosperity gospel, raises concerns about the theological implications of such affiliations.

The Broader Concern: A Distraction from Rome’s Real Agenda?

A troubling question arises when considering the alliances and endorsements of Joel Richardson: Why is so much focus placed on the Islamic Antichrist, while Rome’s own agenda is often overlooked or downplayed? The Catholic Church has long been a source of concern for those who adhere to the gospel, given its promotion of works-based salvation, Marian devotion, and other unbiblical doctrines. Yet, many within the Christian world, including Joel Richardson, seem preoccupied with the idea of an Islamic Antichrist, potentially distracting from the more immediate threat posed by Rome’s ecumenical ambitions.

By endorsing figures like Chuck Missler, Sid Roth, and others associated with unbiblical movements, Joel Richardson not only risks leading others astray but also contributes to the broader confusion within the body of Christ. These teachings—ranging from prosperity gospel to ecumenical unity with false religions—undermine the core truths of the Christian faith and distract from the urgent need for true discipleship and biblical discernment.

The Call for Discernment

The Bible repeatedly warns against false teachers and those who lead others astray (Matthew 7:15-20, Acts 20:28-30). As Christians, we must exercise discernment when evaluating the ministries and teachings of those we choose to support or follow. Joel Richardson’s associations and endorsements raise serious theological concerns and highlight the importance of standing firm on the gospel, rather than being swayed by unbiblical ideologies, false prophecies, and ecumenical alliances. Let us not be distracted by false teachings or conspiracies but remain focused on the truth of Scripture, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the call to faithful witness in a world increasingly hostile to the truth.

The teachings and affiliations of Joel Richardson raise serious concerns, particularly regarding his involvement with groups and individuals that promote doctrines contrary to Scripture. Richardson’s association with individuals and movements that embrace heretical beliefs is alarming, as these figures are leading many people away from sound biblical doctrine. The alliances and teachings Richardson supports are indicative of a larger trend within the charismatic and emergent movements, where biblical truth is often compromised for mysticism, experiential spirituality, and ecumenical unity at the expense of doctrinal purity.

IHOP: A Dangerous Embrace of Contemplative Prayer and New Age Practices

The International House of Prayer (IHOP), led by Mike Bickle, has long been a controversial movement within the charismatic church. One of the major theological issues with IHOP is its promotion of contemplative prayer, a practice rooted in mysticism and New Age spirituality. This form of prayer often involves silent meditation, visualization, and emptying the mind—practices that are eerily similar to occult techniques. Contemplative prayer is not grounded in biblical principles, but rather in the ideas of Catholic mystics like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, as well as other New Age practitioners.

IHOP also embraces practices and teachings that blur the lines between Christianity and the occult. The use of visualization and meditation techniques, which are part of the contemplative prayer movement, invites the same type of spiritual experiences that are often sought in New Age and occult circles. Furthermore, IHOP is closely associated with the Latter Rain Movement, a movement that pushes for extreme spiritual experiences and a dominionist view of the kingdom of God, where Christians are expected to take control of the world before Christ’s return. Bickle’s IHOP Forerunner Bookstore, for example, stocks books like John Crowder’s Miracle Workers, Reformers, and the New Mystics, which promotes an unbiblical understanding of the supernatural and the work of the Holy Spirit. Crowder’s teachings and the books sold at IHOP reflect a distorted version of Christianity that prioritises personal spiritual experiences over biblical truth, leading many astray from the gospel.

Paul Wilbur: An Ecumenical Charismatic with Dangerous Doctrines

Paul Wilbur, a prominent figure in the Messianic Jewish movement, is another individual whose teachings and affiliations raise concerns. Wilbur is not only known for his charismatic influence but also for his support of the Davidic dominionist doctrine, which teaches that the church must raise up a “David’s tabernacle” in preparation for Christ’s return. This theology dangerously blurs the line between the Old and New Covenants and misrepresents the church’s role in God’s redemptive plan.

Wilbur is also deeply involved in ecumenical activities, which include partnerships with the Catholic Charismatic group Community of Jesus, which organises international and interdenominational praise and worship conferences. These conferences, where Wilbur often speaks alongside individuals like Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Mike Bickle, Don Moen, Martin Nystrom, and Tommy Tenney, further promote a form of Christianity that compromises biblical truth in favour of experiential and mystical worship. These events are often dominated by a focus on supernatural signs and wonders, leaving little room for sound biblical teaching.

Furthermore, Wilbur’s involvement with IHOP and Promise Keepers—two movements that have faced strong criticism for their unbiblical doctrines and practices—raises questions about his theological convictions. By associating with these organisations, Wilbur helps promote a brand of Christianity that prioritises spiritual experience and mystical encounters over doctrinal integrity.

Dr. William Kilpatrick: A Catholic Endorsement

Dr. William Kilpatrick, a former professor at Boston College, is another troubling figure in Joel Richardson’s circle of endorsements. Kilpatrick is a known Catholic apologist with ties to the Jesuit order, an institution with a long history of promoting doctrines that contradict biblical teachings. Boston College, where Kilpatrick taught for many years, remains committed to its Jesuit and Catholic mission, which includes a focus on intellectual and religious formation rooted in Catholic tradition. The Jesuit order itself has been known for its promotion of ecumenism, mysticism, and a works-based salvation that directly contradicts the gospel of grace.

Kilpatrick’s endorsement by Richardson raises significant concerns, as it signals a tacit approval of Catholic teachings, many of which undermine the sufficiency of Scripture and salvation through faith alone. Richardson’s willingness to associate with a man who has spent his career promoting Catholic doctrine calls into question his commitment to biblical truth.

James W. Goll and John Crowder: Dangerous Allies

James W. Goll, a leader within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), is another individual whose teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity. As the president of Encounters Network and director of Prayer Storm, Goll promotes a brand of spirituality that combines elements of prophetic ministry with a heavy emphasis on mystical experiences and intercession. Goll has also been a vocal supporter of John Crowder, whose teachings blend New Age concepts with Christianity. Crowder, known for his advocacy of “drunken glory” and other aberrant practices, has been praised by Goll for his ability to blend historical Christian orthodoxy with modern spiritual experiences. This is a dangerous mixing of truth and error, as it seeks to reconcile Christianity with teachings that are rooted in occult and New Age spirituality.

The fact that Goll, a prominent figure in the NAR, has aligned himself with figures like Crowder further demonstrates the troubling nature of the movements with which Joel Richardson is associated. These movements, which often emphasise signs, wonders, and spiritual experiences over sound doctrine, have led many astray from the core message of the gospel.

Joel Richardson’s Compromised Doctrine

Joel Richardson’s involvement with individuals like Paul Wilbur, Dr. William Kilpatrick, James W. Goll, and others raises significant concerns about his theological stance. These associations are not incidental but are indicative of a broader theological framework that prioritises spiritual experience and mystical encounters over the clear teaching of Scripture. Richardson’s endorsement of these individuals and movements signals a willingness to compromise biblical truth for the sake of unity with those who promote unbiblical doctrines.

It is important to note that these teachings and alliances are not just theological disagreements; they have real-world consequences. They lead people away from the essential doctrines of the Christian faith—salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the centrality of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. The mixing of truth with error, as seen in Richardson’s associations, creates confusion and misleads those who seek to follow Christ.

The Call for Discernment and Separation

As Christians, we are called to exercise discernment and avoid partnerships with those who promote false teachings (Romans 16:17-18). Joel Richardson’s alliances with individuals and movements that embrace mysticism, unbiblical prophecy, and ecumenism should be a cause for concern. These teachings and practices are not harmless; they lead people away from the gospel and create confusion within the body of Christ.

It is strongly advisable that Christians distance themselves from anyone who is closely associated with Joel Richardson until he publicly renounces his affiliations with these heretical teachers and movements. The stakes are too high to ignore the doctrinal compromises being made by those in his circle. We must stand firm on the gospel, reject false teachings, and remain vigilant against the influence of those who seek to lead the church astray.

   

The men you’ve mentioned—Paul McGuire, Mike Hoggard, Joel Schimmel, and others—have, through their associations, teachings, and endorsements, been connected to various occult practices and unbiblical spiritual movements. Below are examples of how occultism has appeared in their ministries or associations:

1. Paul McGuire

Paul McGuire’s associations with figures involved in occultic teachings, New Age spirituality, and mysticism are significant indicators of occult influence.

• Jonathan Cahn: McGuire’s connection with Jonathan Cahn, particularly his endorsement of Cahn’s “The Harbinger” book and its interpretations, raises alarms. Cahn’s teachings often draw on Kabbalah (an ancient Jewish mystical tradition) and the occult. He promotes the idea of hidden, mystical messages within Scripture that are not revealed to ordinary readers, but rather to a select few with special spiritual insight—this mirrors occult ideologies where secret knowledge is passed down to the initiated.
• Cindy Jacobs: Cindy Jacobs, another figure with whom McGuire associates, is a leader within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). NAR leaders often engage in mysticism and practices such as “prophetic acts” (which can include rituals and symbolic gestures to summon spiritual forces), spiritual warfare, and the invocation of angelic beings in ways that are reminiscent of occult practices. The NAR’s embrace of “signs and wonders” often blurs the line between spiritual gifts and the manipulation of supernatural forces, a key characteristic of occultism.
• Walid Shoebat and Catholicism: Walid Shoebat, a supporter of Catholicism and a proponent of ecumenism, is involved in promoting beliefs that align more with New Age thought than biblical Christianity. McGuire’s partnerships with Shoebat suggest an openness to the Roman Catholic teachings that blend elements of idolatry (such as veneration of saints) and mysticism (such as contemplative prayer) into Christian worship. These practices have been heavily influenced by occult traditions that blend different spiritualities.
• Promoting Mysticism: McGuire’s involvement with figures like Pat Boone (who supports the Catholic Charismatic movement) shows an endorsement of mystical experiences that are characteristic of New Age practices. Boone’s advocacy for interfaith experiences and ecumenism aligns with spiritual practices that mix various occult teachings under the guise of Christianity.

2. Mike Hoggard

Mike Hoggard has been a controversial figure within the prophecy movement, often associated with teachings and practices that have occultic roots.

• Occult Symbolism and Numerology: Hoggard has been known to delve deeply into numerology, a practice that is rooted in the occult. Numerology assigns mystical or spiritual significance to numbers and has been used by occult practitioners to predict future events or decode hidden meanings in the universe. Hoggard’s use of this kind of speculative method aligns with occult thinking and divination.
• Elijah List and Mysticism: Hoggard’s association with The Elijah List, which promotes “prophetic” messages that often delve into spiritual experiences, dreams, visions, and mystical encounters, is concerning. Many of these messages do not rely on Scripture but on personal revelation and spiritual experiences, an approach that mirrors the occult. In occult practices, visions and dreams are often viewed as a means of contacting the divine, bypassing the authority of written Scripture.
• False Prophetic Movements: Hoggard’s involvement in conferences with people who support the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) also links him to a movement that incorporates occultic spiritual practices, including spiritual warfare and invoking angels, practices that are commonly associated with witchcraft and mysticism.

3. Joel Schimmel

Joel Schimmel, known for his discernment ministry, has been criticized for partnering with individuals whose teachings can be linked to occult and New Age ideologies.

• Failure to Disassociate from Occult-Inspired Leaders: Schimmel’s participation in conferences with figures like Paul McGuire and Mike Hoggard raises significant concerns. These individuals have connections to movements and people promoting practices that have roots in mysticism, the occult, and New Age spirituality. Schimmel’s failure to separate himself from these leaders allows occult ideas to be introduced into his ministry by association.
• Promotion of Spiritual Warfare and Mysticism: Schimmel has shared platforms with leaders who promote spiritual warfare practices, which often involve attempting to bind or manipulate spiritual entities. These practices, although often presented as part of the Christian faith, have significant overlap with occult traditions where individuals attempt to control or summon spiritual forces for personal gain or power.
• Ecumenism and Occult Practices: Schimmel’s alliances with ecumenical figures (those who work to unite all faiths, regardless of their doctrinal differences) suggest an endorsement of a worldview that seeks spiritual unity at the expense of biblical truth. The acceptance of ecumenism, particularly with Catholic mysticism and practices like contemplative prayer, blends spiritualities in a way that is reminiscent of occult practices where the boundaries between religions are dissolved.

4. General Occultic Themes in Their Ministries

• Mystical Teachings and Special Knowledge: All of these men, in one form or another, have associated with leaders who promote Gnosticism (the belief that secret, mystical knowledge is the key to salvation) or mystical encounters with the divine. Gnostic teachings are rooted in the occult and often emphasize secret or hidden knowledge that is only accessible to the spiritually enlightened. This reflects the ancient occult belief in a higher truth that is hidden from the uninitiated and only accessible to those with special insight.
• Spiritual Warfare and Divination: The frequent use of spiritual warfare in their ministries, particularly with groups like NAR and the Elijah List, often crosses into the realm of divination and occult practices. In occult traditions, divination is used to gain hidden knowledge, often from supernatural or spiritual sources. The application of spiritual warfare techniques, such as “binding” or “loosing” spirits or attempting to influence supernatural forces, closely mirrors occultic rituals and practices.
• Occult Symbolism: Many of these leaders, either directly or through their associations, promote the use of occult symbols in their ministry, such as the third eye, hexagrams, or other signs that are found in witchcraft, New Age practices, and the occult. These symbols are often presented as “spiritual” or “prophetic,” but they have deep occult roots, and their use in a Christian context blurs the lines between true faith and false spirituality.

Paul McGuire and Chuck Pierce: A Closer Look at Their Controversial Roles in Promoting Unbiblical Practices

Paul McGuire and Chuck Pierce are two figures that have gained significant attention in the charismatic and prophetic movements. However, their influence and teachings have also been surrounded by controversy due to their associations with questionable practices and figures. In particular, Chuck Pierce’s role in the restoration of Todd Bentley’s ministry, and his involvement with other controversial leaders, deserves closer scrutiny, especially for those seeking to understand the theological and doctrinal implications of their ministry.

Chuck Pierce’s Role in Promoting Todd Bentley and the Prophetic Movement

Chuck Pierce, a prominent figure within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), has long been involved in the charismatic prophetic movement. Pierce, along with other key figures in this movement, has been a vocal advocate of so-called “apostolic authority,” a concept that assigns a special level of spiritual authority to certain leaders in the church, similar to the apostles of the early church. This idea, although not supported by biblical doctrine, has been used to justify some of the controversial activities of the NAR, including the promotion of unbiblical teachings and practices.

One of the most significant and troubling examples of Chuck Pierce’s influence is his involvement with Todd Bentley, a leader whose ministry has been marred by scandal and allegations of false teachings. Bentley, known for his role in the Lakeland Revival, gained a massive following during the mid-2000s, only to be disgraced by personal scandals, including a divorce and subsequent adultery. Despite these moral failings, Bentley was restored to ministry, largely due to the support and endorsement of figures like Chuck Pierce.

After his divorce, which occurred amidst accusations of infidelity, Bentley publicly married the woman with whom he had committed adultery. However, instead of facing proper disciplinary action according to biblical standards of repentance and restoration, Bentley was not only welcomed back into ministry but was also affirmed by key leaders within the prophetic movement—Chuck Pierce among them. Pierce, along with C. Peter Wagner and others, played a significant role in re-establishing Bentley’s place within the charismatic community, which raises serious questions about the biblical validity of their actions.

In fact, Chuck Pierce’s endorsement of Todd Bentley can be seen in a public video where Pierce calls himself an “apostle” and refers to Bentley as being under his spiritual covering. Pierce’s actions stand in stark contrast to the biblical mandates for church discipline and repentance, which call for a person to prove the genuineness of their repentance before being restored to ministry. By embracing Bentley back into the fold without addressing the underlying issues of his moral failures and lack of accountability, Pierce and others in the NAR movement have set a dangerous precedent that undermines the seriousness of sin and repentance.

The Problem of ‘Apostolic Authority’ and Restoration in NAR

Pierce’s role in the restoration of Todd Bentley is particularly concerning when considered in the broader context of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). NAR teachings often emphasise the restoration of the fivefold ministry (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers) and give undue authority to modern-day apostles like Chuck Pierce. However, this unbiblical view of apostolic authority often leads to the elevation of leaders who operate outside of Scriptural bounds, resulting in a lack of accountability, unchecked authority, and questionable decisions regarding leadership.

By claiming apostolic authority, figures like Chuck Pierce place themselves in a position where they are seen as having the power to overrule Scripture and make decisions that seem to be based more on personal vision or revelation than on the sound doctrine of the Bible. This unbiblical approach to authority allows figures like Pierce to publicly support individuals like Todd Bentley, despite their moral failures, and perpetuate a narrative that downplays the seriousness of sin within the church.

In the case of Todd Bentley, his moral failures should have resulted in a period of serious repentance and accountability, as prescribed by biblical standards. Instead, Chuck Pierce and other leaders, including C. Peter Wagner, chose to restore Bentley’s ministry prematurely, without addressing the underlying issues. This raises significant concerns about the authenticity of their restoration process and the motivations behind it. Was this truly a process of repentance, or was it driven by a desire to maintain Bentley’s influence and reputation within the movement?

Chuck Pierce’s Influence on the Charismatic Movement

Chuck Pierce’s influence within the charismatic movement and his involvement in the restoration of leaders like Todd Bentley are part of a larger pattern of behaviour that reflects the dangers of unaccountable leadership within the NAR. As a leader who claims to hold apostolic authority, Pierce has played a central role in promoting practices and ideologies that are not in line with traditional biblical teachings. His involvement in the endorsement of controversial figures and his willingness to publicly support individuals who have demonstrated unrepentant sin is troubling and raises questions about the integrity of his ministry.

Furthermore, Chuck Pierce’s teachings on topics like prophecy, apostolic authority, and spiritual warfare have contributed to the spread of unbiblical practices within the church. Many of these teachings align more closely with New Age spirituality and occult practices than with the principles found in the Scriptures. The NAR’s embrace of these ideas has led to a blurring of the lines between true Christian doctrine and unbiblical, mystical practices that have no foundation in the Bible.

The Importance of Discernment and Accountability

In light of Chuck Pierce’s actions and associations, it is essential for believers to exercise discernment and carefully evaluate the teachings and practices of those they choose to follow. The restoration of Todd Bentley and the promotion of unbiblical ideas within the charismatic movement highlight the dangers of embracing unaccountable leadership and following individuals who fail to adhere to biblical standards of conduct.

Restoration in the church must be handled with great care and must always be rooted in Scripture, with a clear process of repentance, accountability, and genuine change. The actions of Chuck Pierce and others in the NAR have demonstrated a lack of commitment to these biblical principles, instead prioritising personal influence and charismatic power over adherence to God’s Word.

For those who are concerned about the direction of the charismatic prophetic movement, it is crucial to remain vigilant and discerning. The promotion of Todd Bentley, the elevation of unbiblical teachings, and the failure to hold leaders accountable for their actions should serve as warnings about the dangers of unchecked spiritual authority and the need for careful evaluation of those we choose to follow.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Chuck Pierce’s role in the restoration of Todd Bentley and his associations with other controversial figures should raise serious concerns for those involved in or following the charismatic and prophetic movements. His embrace of individuals who have failed morally and doctrinally, and his promotion of unbiblical teachings, demonstrates a lack of discernment and accountability. For those seeking to follow sound biblical teaching, it is essential to carefully examine the lives and ministries of those we allow to speak into our lives. The restoration of leaders like Todd Bentley should be a reminder of the importance of biblical discipline and the need for accountability within the church.

Cindy Jacobs, Paul Mcguire, R. Loren Sandford and Hubert Synn (AKA Hubie Synn).

---

1. Cindy Jacobs – False Prophecy and NAR Connections

• Admittance of False Prophecy: Cindy Jacobs has admitted to making false prophecies that did not come to pass. In one instance, she prophesied about the election of a specific candidate in the 2012 US presidential election, which did not happen. Despite this, she continues to present herself as a prophet, disregarding the biblical standard outlined in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, where God warns that false prophets should be rejected.
• Involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR): Jacobs is a key figure in the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement that promotes unbiblical practices like Dominionism and modern-day apostles and prophets. She is closely aligned with C. Peter Wagner, one of the key founders of NAR, and has worked to spread its theology of reclaiming dominion over all aspects of society before Christ’s return.
  • Reference: Charisma Magazine (2017), “Cindy Jacobs: ‘I Know My Prophetic Words Are Real’” – Cindy Jacobs claims that her prophecies are valid despite past failures.
  • Source: “Apostles & Prophets: The NAR Movement and the Modern Church” – This article exposes Jacobs and her connection to the NAR’s dangerous theology of extra-biblical authority.

---

2. Paul McGuire – Ecumenical Ties and False Prophecy

• God TV and Ties with False Teachers: Paul McGuire has appeared on God TV, alongside figures like Jonathan Cahn and Cindy Jacobs. Jonathan Cahn, a prominent figure in mystical interpretations of Scripture, claims to uncover hidden prophecies from the Bible, which are often based on numerology and code-breaking, not solid biblical exegesis. McGuire’s appearance on God TV and partnership with such individuals exposes his alignment with false teachings.
  • Reference: God TV (2019), “Paul McGuire: The Coming Global Crisis” – McGuire’s teachings on end-times prophecy align with Dominionism and the promotion of extra-biblical prophecy, alongside unbiblical figures.
  • Source: “The Harbinger: Jonathan Cahn and the Dangerous Rise of Christian Numerology” – McGuire’s endorsement of Cahn further ties him to this misleading and mystical approach to Scripture.
• Association with Word of Faith: McGuire’s ties to the Word of Faith movement, which teaches prosperity and health as guaranteed rights for Christians, are evident in his partnerships with figures like Cindy Jacobs and Rick Warren. This theology distorts the biblical message of suffering and the eternal inheritance of believers, focusing instead on temporal success.

---

3. R. Loren Sandford – Prophetic Extremism and NAR Connection

• Promotion of Prophetic Extremism: Sandford is known for his teachings on prophetic ministry that emphasize subjective experiences over the objective truth of Scripture. His views align closely with the NAR’s teaching that modern prophets hold equal or greater authority than the Bible itself, and their prophetic words should be taken as divinely authoritative.
  • Reference: “The Elijah List” (2016), “R. Loren Sandford: The Role of Prophets Today” – Sandford promotes the idea that contemporary prophets must have the authority to govern the church, an idea that contradicts the biblical pattern.
  • Source: “Apostolic Prophetic Ministry: The NAR and its End Times Theology” – This resource highlights Sandford’s involvement in pushing unbiblical prophetic structures.
• Teaching Subjective Revelation: Sandford encourages Christians to seek personal experiences and subjective visions as part of their spiritual lives. This approach undermines the sufficiency of Scripture and turns subjective, personal revelation into a basis for doctrine.
  • Reference: “Prophecy and the NAR: The Dangers of Subjective Revelations” – This article warns about Sandford’s teachings and the dangerous subjective approach to prophecy that has led to a shift away from biblical teaching.

---

4. Hubert Synn (Hubie Synn) – A Less Known but Dangerous Figure

• Mystical Christianity and False Experiences: While Hubert Synn (Hubie Synn) does not have as extensive a public presence as Jacobs or McGuire, his involvement with figures like Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer (IHOP) indicates his affinity for the mystical and experiential Christianity promoted within the NAR.
  • Reference: “The Rise of Mysticism in the Church: A Review of Hubie Synn’s Involvement in Mystical Practices” – Synn’s teaching often focuses on personal encounters with God and visions, which are often promoted over scriptural authority. This type of spirituality, though popular, has no biblical grounding and can be linked to dangerous practices within the NAR.
  • Source: “The IHOP Movement and its Influence on Modern Christian Mysticism” – This resource exposes Synn’s affiliation with IHOP, a movement with mystical elements that detract from the true gospel message.

---

Exposing the Ecumenical Agenda

All four individuals—Cindy Jacobs, Paul McGuire, R. Loren Sandford, and Hubert Synn—promote a form of ecumenism that seeks to unite Christians with non-Christian ideologies, often overlooking or outright ignoring essential doctrines.

• Ecumenism with False Teachers: Their connections with other false teachers and heretical movements, such as the Roman Catholic Church (with figures like Pat Boone and Walid Shoebat) and the Word of Faith movement, demonstrate their lack of biblical discernment.
  • Reference: “Ecumenism and the NAR: How False Unity is Formed” – This article explains how these figures, through their ecumenical views, compromise biblical doctrine in favour of unity with heretics.

Conclusion: The Need for Discernment

The examples and references provided show that Cindy Jacobs, Paul McGuire, R. Loren Sandford, and Hubert Synn are promoting teachings and practices that lead Christians away from biblical truth and into the realm of false prophecy, mysticism, and ecumenical compromise. Christians are urged to test the teachings of these individuals against Scripture (1 John 4:1), as we are called to protect ourselves from those who distort the gospel and undermine God’s word.

The biblical principle for dealing with false teachers is clear in Galatians 1:8-9: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

This is a warning that should not be taken lightly.

Exposing Cindy Jacobs and Her Role in the NAR

In this online apologetics piece by Ken Silva, we continue to sound the alarm on the growing syncretism within mainstream evangelicalism, particularly regarding the dangerous influence of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).

Cindy Jacobs: False Prophet and Key Figure in NAR

Cindy Jacobs is a well-known false prophet who is heavily involved in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement that promotes extra-biblical authority and unbiblical teachings about the role of modern-day apostles and prophets. Jacobs is a regular speaker at Jesus Culture events, which should raise serious concerns for anyone who values sound doctrine and biblical truth.

Jesus Culture itself, which originates from Bethel Church in Redding, California, under the leadership of Bill Johnson, is rooted in the heretical teachings of the NAR. This group promotes prosperity theology, signs and wonders, and other dangerous, unbiblical teachings. Despite being a hyper-charismatic group, Jesus Culture has been increasingly embraced by mainstream evangelical leaders, such as John Piper and Beth Moore, at events like Passion 2013, which has further legitimised this heretical movement.

Cindy Jacobs’ Role in the Heretical Movement

Jacobs’ involvement with Jesus Culture is deeply troubling. She is not only a regular speaker at their events but also actively endorses their teachings, contributing to the spread of syncretism between biblical Christianity and unbiblical, mystical practices. This syncretism blurs doctrinal lines, leading many astray by confusing the gospel with false signs and wonders and spiritual experiences that have no basis in Scripture.

One particularly concerning example of Jacobs’ false teachings comes from a video where she claims to have raised a child from the dead by commanding the spirit of death to leave the child. Such acts of self-glorification and spiritual manipulation are characteristic of the NAR’s dominion theology, which elevates human authority over the divine in a way that is completely contrary to biblical teachings. The Bible teaches that only God has the power over life and death (Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Samuel 2:6).

For those whose spiritual discernment is not properly grounded in Scripture, Jacobs may seem like a legitimate spokesperson for God. However, her unbiblical practices and false prophecies reveal her true nature as a false prophet. As Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

Jesus Culture’s Compromised Influence

Kim Walker-Smith, a key figure in Jesus Culture and a worship leader from Bethel Church, has also contributed to this movement. Her reported encounter with God the Father and Jesus Christ—which is presented as an extraordinary spiritual experience—is typical of the NAR’s emphasis on subjective experiences over biblical truth. These experiences, however, are often contradictory to Scripture and elevate personal visions and revelations above the authority of the Bible.

This pattern of extra-biblical revelations and spiritual experiences is dangerous because it shifts focus away from God’s Word and onto human experiences. The Bible is clear that we are to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), and if an experience or prophecy contradicts Scripture, it is to be rejected.

Collaboration with Heretics: The Growing Ecumenical Movement

Cindy Jacobs’ involvement with Louie Giglio and the Passion 268 Generation further demonstrates her ecumenical stance, as she has shared platforms with individuals who, though prominent in evangelicalism, have compromised sound doctrine by aligning themselves with NAR figures. This growing trend of collaboration with false teachers makes it difficult for ordinary Christians to discern who is truly teaching the Word of God.

Banning Liebscher, a leader within Jesus Culture, is seen frequently collaborating with Jacobs, even referring to her as “one of our dear friends.” This close relationship underscores the troubling reality of how these heretical movements, including Bethel Church and the NAR, are becoming more mainstream. Liebscher himself has been complicit in the promotion of unbiblical practices, which only serves to further validate Jacobs and her dangerous teachings.

The Danger of Endorsing False Teachers

When leaders like John Piper, Beth Moore, and Louie Giglio lend their credibility to groups like Jesus Culture and Bethel Church, they unintentionally endorse a false gospel that is centred on personal experiences and mystical encounters, rather than on the true gospel of Christ. The Bible warns us not to be unequally yoked with those who teach falsehoods (2 Corinthians 6:14), yet these leaders continue to partner with figures who promote false teachings and lead others into spiritual deception.

As Ken Silva rightly points out, these doctrinal differences should matter. When biblical truth is obscured by experiences, subjective revelations, and false signs and wonders, we risk leading people away from the gospel and into a dangerous spiritual realm.

(source)

The Dangerous Influence of Cindy Jacobs, Banning Liebscher, and the Jesus Culture Movement

In yet another revealing example of the deeply troubling New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) connections within mainstream evangelicalism, Banning Liebscher, a prominent leader in the Jesus Culture (JC) movement, openly acknowledges Cindy Jacobs as a significant influence. In his own words, Liebscher states that Jacobs has “become a real mom to our movement” and has “spoken a ton [of prophetic word] into what we’re doing.” This should raise immediate red flags for anyone concerned about sound biblical doctrine.

Liebscher’s remarks about Jacobs reflect a dangerous endorsement of someone who operates as a false prophet, according to biblical standards. Her role in the Jesus Culture movement highlights just how far the NAR’s influence has reached, even into widely accepted evangelical circles. For Liebscher to elevate Jacobs in such a manner demonstrates a profound lack of discernment, as it is a well-established fact that Jacobs promotes teachings that are entirely out of line with orthodox Christian faith. To refer to Jacobs as a “spiritual mother” to the movement is not only concerning but dangerous. It reveals a complete disregard for biblical warnings against false prophets (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1-3).

Jesus Culture and Bethel Church: A Heretical Extension of Bill Johnson’s Influence

For context, the Jesus Culture movement is an extension of Bethel Church (BC), led by the heretical pastor Bill Johnson, whose teachings about the nature of God, the power of believers, and modern-day apostleship fall far outside orthodox Christianity. Johnson’s prosperity theology, emphasis on miraculous signs and wonders, and teachings about the ‘new breed’ of apostles and prophets have been widely criticized for distorting the gospel. The Jesus Culture worship group, while sounding spiritually appealing to many, is inherently tied to these same heretical doctrines.

To understand just how spiritually obtuse the leadership of Bethel Church and Jesus Culture is, it is critical to consider their uncritical promotion of Cindy Jacobs, a self-proclaimed prophet who regularly claims to speak on behalf of God. Jacobs is known for her outlandish prophecies and false declarations, including instances where she has claimed the ability to raise the dead and heal the sick through her own power. This dangerous theology, built on subjective spiritual experiences rather than biblical truth, is at the very core of the NAR movement. Yet, Jesus Culture continues to promote and validate her, despite the overwhelming evidence that Jacobs’ teachings contradict scripture.

In a video shared by Liebscher, it’s clear that the relationship between Jesus Culture and Jacobs is not merely a casual association but a deeply rooted partnership. Liebscher even suggests that they have learned a great deal from Jacobs, which is both spiritually reckless and deeply concerning. For Jesus Culture—a ministry that has significant influence over young Christians and worship leaders—to endorse someone like Cindy Jacobs speaks volumes about their doctrinal compromise and the dangerous direction in which they are leading many people.

The Heresy of R. Loren Sandford and His Influence on Paul McGuire

As if this were not troubling enough, another figure associated with Paul McGuire is R. Loren Sandford, a well-known NAR figure. Sandford has been publicly endorsed by The Elijah List, a key platform for promoting NAR leaders and false prophets. The Elijah List is infamous for elevating dangerous teachers who claim to be modern-day prophets, including the likes of Cindy Jacobs, Bill Johnson, and Todd Bentley. McGuire’s connection to Sandford—who is firmly entrenched in the NAR—further solidifies McGuire’s alignment with heretical teachings and false prophecy.

The NAR’s influence is pervasive, as evidenced by Paul McGuire’s participation in conferences with figures like Sandford, who teaches that the Church must usher in the Kingdom of God through spiritual dominion and power. Sandford’s teachings focus on revivalism and an exaggerated sense of apostolic authority, claiming that Christians must take dominion over the world and its systems in preparation for Christ’s return. This Kingdom Now theology is not only unbiblical but also completely undermines the biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God.

Just like Cindy Jacobs, R. Loren Sandford and Paul McGuire are spreading dangerous ideas that elevate human authority over God’s will, and distort the nature of the gospel. Their teachings focus on building earthly kingdoms through personal power, signs, and wonders, rather than preaching repentance and faith in Christ alone for salvation.

Conclusion: The Dangers of Associating with False Teachers

In conclusion, the involvement of Cindy Jacobs, R. Loren Sandford, and the Jesus Culture movement in Paul McGuire’s conferences is not only alarming but spiritually dangerous. These individuals are part of a larger movement—the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)—that promotes unbiblical teachings and practices, such as self-glorification, dominion theology, and false prophecies. Their unholy alliances with one another reveal a deep spiritual compromise and an unwillingness to adhere to biblical truth.

It is crucial for believers to be aware of the doctrinal deviations being promoted through these connections. Those who continue to follow and support these individuals are being led further away from the truth of the gospel. Scripture warns us to avoid false teachers and to keep our focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Bible (Galatians 1:8-9). The spiritual dangers of partnering with figures like Cindy Jacobs and R. Loren Sandford should not be taken lightly. Christians must remain vigilant, discerning, and grounded in God’s Word to avoid being led astray by the false teachings of the NAR.

Background Information

R. Loren Sandford, the eldest son of John and Paula Sandford, has a deeply entrenched background in the charismatic renewal and prophetic ministry. The Sandfords are recognised as pioneers in these movements, especially within the context of inner healing and deliverance ministries. Loren Sandford himself has been involved in full-time ministry since 1976, making him a prominent figure in charismatic circles for several decades.

He is the founding pastor of New Song Fellowship in Denver, Colorado, a church that serves as a significant point of influence in the charismatic and prophetic movements. Sandford is also the pastoral coordinator for the western region of Partners in Harvest, an ecumenical church affiliation that traces its roots to the Toronto Blessing—a controversial charismatic revival that started in the 1990s and is associated with Toronto Airport Vineyard. The Toronto Blessing is widely criticised for its unbiblical manifestations, such as falling under the power (the so-called “slain in the Spirit”), laughter revival, and other bizarre spiritual phenomena, all of which have little to no scriptural backing.

Sandford is also the author of books such as “Purifying the Prophetic: Breaking Free from the Spirit of Self-fulfillment,” “Understanding Prophetic People: Blessings and Problems with the Prophetic Gift,” and “The Prophetic Church: Wielding the Power to Change the World.” While his writings claim to offer insight into prophetic ministry, they come from a theological framework rooted in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement that distorts biblical teachings about prophecy and the role of the Church in the present age. The NAR teaches that modern-day apostles and prophets possess the same authority as the early apostles, a doctrine that is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 22:18-19).

The Influence of Partners in Harvest and Its Ecumenical Ties

Partners in Harvest is another deeply problematic organisation with ties to ecumenism and the broader charismatic movement. It grew out of the Toronto Blessing and is closely associated with figures such as John Arnott and Randy Clark, whose ministries played a key role in the Toronto outpouring. The church affiliation is known for its emphasis on unbiblical charismatic manifestations, and many of its leaders, including Sandford, teach a “kingdom now” theology, which asserts that believers are called to usher in the Kingdom of God through signs, wonders, and miracles.

This ecumenical movement seeks to blur the lines between orthodox Christianity and unbiblical practices, calling for unity among all Christians, regardless of doctrinal soundness. The resulting partnerships between members of the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations, and the charismatic movement have led to an increase in syncretism—a blending of truth with error.

The promotion of charismatic revival over doctrinal purity has allowed figures like Sandford to gain a platform, despite their involvement in movements that regularly operate outside of biblical boundaries. The dangerous theology espoused by Partners in Harvest, along with the unchecked promotion of figures like Sandford, poses a serious threat to biblical truth.

Loren Sandford’s Legacy and Influence on the Church

Loren Sandford’s legacy is largely defined by his embrace of a subjective spiritual experience that often replaces sound doctrine with personal revelation and prophetic utterances. His books and teachings promote a spiritual environment where prophetic voices are elevated to a position of ultimate authority, and emotional experiences are prioritised over the faithful study of scripture.

While Sandford’s works attempt to address the blessings and problems with prophetic gifts, his understanding is inherently flawed, as it operates under the premise that such gifts are for all Christians in the modern age and should be sought after and revered. This teaching contributes to the distortion of biblical prophecy, leading many away from the clear, written Word of God.

His deep involvement with Partners in Harvest and his promotion of the Toronto Blessing further compounds the problem, as it ties him to an influential group that encourages false revivals and emotional manipulation. This not only misrepresents the work of the Holy Spirit but also detracts from the true purpose of prophecy: to confirm the truth of God’s Word, not to elevate individuals or build ministries of personal power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, R. Loren Sandford’s theology and ministry are embedded in the New Apostolic Reformation and ecumenical movements, which propagate a variety of unbiblical teachings. His long-standing connection to Partners in Harvest and his involvement in the Toronto Blessing revival demonstrate his commitment to a charismatic theology that is both unbiblical and uncontrolled. His teachings on prophecy and spiritual gifts distort the biblical understanding of these gifts, promoting personal power over doctrinal truth. For Christians seeking to remain faithful to scripture, it is essential to avoid Sandford’s teachings and those from ministries associated with his brand of prophetic theology.

Click on image to enlarge.

Herbert (Hubie) Synn is an influential figure in the charismatic and ecumenical movements, particularly known for his book The Tales of a Wandering Prophet. His involvement with various networks and groups reflects a broader trend within the charismatic renewal that emphasises ecumenism — the belief in uniting believers across denominational lines, regardless of doctrinal differences.

One of the primary goals of these networks, including those that Hubie Synn associates with, is to create a sense of unity under the broad banner of Jesus Christ, often at the expense of clear doctrinal boundaries. These movements attract a diverse range of people from different denominational backgrounds, including Catholics, Baptists, and Anglicans, who come together in an effort to experience revival or share in the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. While such unity sounds appealing on the surface, it can often lead to serious theological compromise, as it encourages believers to downplay the doctrinal differences that are meant to be safeguarded within the body of Christ.

The core issue with the ecumenical movement promoted by figures like Hubie Synn is that it can dilute essential truths of the Christian faith. In the pursuit of unity, doctrinal integrity can be compromised, and unbiblical practices or teachings may be allowed to flourish within otherwise sound Christian communities. In many cases, this leads to the acceptance of false teachings and the promotion of heretical movements.

Synn’s book The Tales of a Wandering Prophet contributes to his reputation as a spiritual guide within the charismatic and prophetic circles, often pushing a narrative that aligns with experiential spirituality rather than biblical truth. His teachings, like those of others within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), place a strong emphasis on personal prophetic experiences and revelation, sometimes leading to practices that are far removed from the clear teachings of Scripture.

The Dangers of Ecumenical Charismatic Networks

The charismatic revival that Synn participates in is often associated with practices that are unbiblical or at best extra-biblical — practices such as prosperity gospel, “slain in the Spirit”, manifestations of uncontrolled behaviour, and unverified prophecies. These movements often promote personal spiritual experiences above the careful study of Scripture, which opens the door for dangerous teachings and practices to infiltrate the church.

The issue becomes even more concerning when these networks actively partner with groups outside of traditional evangelical or Protestant faith communities, including those with unbiblical theology such as the Catholic Church or Word of Faith movements. While the goal of unity might seem admirable on the surface, when it involves compromising on core doctrinal truths, the result is often spiritual confusion and a weakening of the Christian witness in the world.

By promoting unity at all costs, figures like Hubie Synn and others within the ecumenical movement are contributing to a syncretism — the blending of conflicting religious ideas. This dilutes the core of the gospel message and makes it difficult for believers to stand firm in biblical truth. It’s crucial for Christians to be aware of these movements and consider the spiritual dangers they pose.

The Importance of Doctrine in Unity

Biblical unity is not about disregarding doctrine for the sake of a shared experience. True Christian unity is founded on shared beliefs in the core tenets of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, His atoning death and resurrection, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the authority of Scripture. When believers unite under false pretenses, or worse, under a bland, watered-down version of Christianity, they are compromising their testimony to the world and putting their own spiritual health at risk.

While figures like Herbert “Hubie” Synn may have good intentions in trying to promote unity within the body of Christ, their approach — particularly when it involves unbiblical alliances and unverified spiritual experiences — is fraught with dangers. True Christian unity, therefore, should always be rooted in sound doctrine, not emotional or experiential encounters that may lead people astray. As believers, we must always prioritise the truth of God’s Word above all else, no matter how appealing the experiences or alliances may seem.

Hubie Synn and Jonathan Cahn: Unbiblical Partnerships

Hubie Synn’s connections within the charismatic and ecumenical movements raise significant concerns, especially in light of his association with Jonathan Cahn, a controversial figure known for his promotion of prophetic teachings and end-times speculation. Cahn’s partnership with figures like Kenneth Copeland — a leader within the Word of Faith movement — is widely known for advancing a prosperity gospel and teachings that stray far from biblical orthodoxy.

Jonathan Cahn’s Partnership with Hubie Synn

Jonathan Cahn, who is perhaps best known for his book The Harbinger, wrote the foreword to Hubie Synn’s book The Tales of a Wandering Prophet. This is an important detail because it links Synn directly to Cahn’s controversial teachings and theological positions. Cahn’s presence in the foreword of Synn’s book is not merely an endorsement of a personal relationship, but an alignment of their theological views and ministries. Cahn is known for his prophetic interpretations that often lean heavily on allegorical readings of Scripture and focus on prophecies about America’s future, which many within the biblical discernment community have criticised as unbiblical and speculative.

Cahn’s promotion of mystical experiences and his appeal to unverified prophetic words tie him into the broader New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) network, where extra-biblical prophecy and experiential spirituality are highly valued. This brings us to a critical point: Cahn’s connection with Synn — a man already tied to the NAR and ecumenical movements — raises serious red flags about the theological direction that both men represent.

Jonathan Cahn and Kenneth Copeland: Prosperity Gospel Ties

Jonathan Cahn’s association with Kenneth Copeland, a well-known figure within the Word of Faith movement, is particularly troubling. The Word of Faith movement has been widely criticised for its prosperity gospel teachings, which claim that faith can be used to claim health, wealth, and success. This doctrine is not only unbiblical, but it distorts the gospel message by prioritising material wealth over spiritual growth and godliness.

Kenneth Copeland is notorious for his extreme interpretations of faith and prosperity. He has promoted the idea that Jesus Christ Himself was a failure on the cross and that God’s plan for believers is to live a life of material abundance. Cahn’s decision to partner with Copeland indicates a disregard for the clear doctrinal differences between orthodox Christianity and the heretical teachings of the Word of Faith movement. This partnership compromises the gospel message and misleads believers into thinking that financial prosperity and personal success are signs of God’s favour, rather than a faithful walk with Christ.

The Ecumenical Trend and Dangerous Alliances

What is especially troubling about Cahn, Synn, and their associations is the ecumenical spirit that underpins their collaborations. Both men have been involved in cross-denominational partnerships that blur the lines of biblical orthodoxy. Ecumenism in this sense is the attempt to unite believers across different faith traditions, sometimes disregarding doctrinal differences for the sake of unity. In this case, the focus is less on biblical truth and more on creating a shared platform for spiritual influence.

For example, as mentioned earlier, Hubie Synn has been associated with various charismatic networks and churches, including those that draw together Catholics, Baptists, and other faith traditions. This type of union often leads to doctrinal dilution where core issues such as the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone can be overlooked for the sake of shared spiritual experiences.

Cahn’s relationship with Kenneth Copeland and his endorsement of people like Synn further promotes this ecumenical approach, which neglects sound biblical doctrine in favour of experiential encounters and prophetic revelations that can be disconnected from the true teachings of Scripture.

The Dangers of Spiritual Compromise

The ecumenical alliances formed by figures like Jonathan Cahn and Hubie Synn should raise serious concerns for Christians who are committed to biblical truth. Theological compromise is one of the biggest dangers that these alliances present, as they often lead to the watering down of the gospel and the undermining of sound doctrine.

When individuals like Cahn and Synn form unbiblical alliances with others who promote prosperity gospel, false prophecy, or mystical experiences, they not only tarnish their own ministries but also lead others into spiritual confusion. The cross-denominational partnerships they encourage may appear to be inclusive or unifying, but in reality, they promote a false unity that compromises the core message of the gospel.

For the sake of spiritual integrity and biblical truth, it is critical that Christians remain vigilant and discerning in the face of these misleading alliances. The doctrines promoted by Cahn, Synn, and their like-minded associates are not only unbiblical but are also leading many astray from the foundational truths of the Christian faith. Christians must be aware of these dangerous partnerships and ensure they are not influenced by those who prioritise experiential spirituality over biblical truth.

Kenneth Copeland to the left of Pope Francis

It is indeed not surprising that Jonathan Cahn is supported by Paul McGuire, given their shared affiliations with heretical teachings and unbiblical alliances. The connection between these two individuals reveals a concerning trend within certain charismatic and prophetic circles, where false prophecy, end-time speculation, and prosperity gospel teachings are widely promoted and embraced.

Paul McGuire: A Controversial Figure in Prophecy Circles

Paul McGuire, known for his involvement in prophetic ministry and his promotion of end-times prophecy, has long been associated with unbiblical teachings. McGuire is a frequent speaker at conferences and on television broadcasts that promote fear-based apocalyptic messages while attempting to stir up revivalist emotions. His teachings are often aligned with the same speculative theology that places a heavy emphasis on prophecy and personal encounters that are not grounded in biblical truth.

McGuire’s support of Jonathan Cahn underscores his endorsement of a prophetic worldview that is highly suspect. Cahn, as mentioned earlier, is known for his mystical and unbiblical interpretations of scripture, especially regarding the end times, and has been criticised for using symbolic prophecies about the nation of Israel and the United States that have no foundation in sound biblical exegesis. By supporting Cahn, McGuire is aligning himself with someone whose teachings blur the lines between biblical prophecy and extra-biblical speculation, leading many to believe in false prophecies and spiritual experiences that do not adhere to biblical doctrine.

The Common Denominator: Syncretism and False Teachings

Both Cahn and McGuire are part of a larger movement within charismatic Christianity that promotes a syncretistic approach to the faith, mixing unbiblical teachings with elements of mysticism and experience-based spirituality. This syncretism creates an environment where doctrinal purity is often set aside in favour of emotional experiences and prophetic words that are not rooted in Scripture.

McGuire’s support for Cahn is significant because it highlights the growing acceptance of individuals who, despite their questionable theology, are given a platform within mainstream evangelical circles. This partnership sends a troubling message to believers who may not be discerning enough to recognise the dangers of following such individuals. The shared message between Cahn and McGuire—one of end-times urgency, prophetic declarations, and mystical spirituality—is appealing to many but ultimately leads to a distorted gospel.

The Impact of Their Partnership

The partnership between Jonathan Cahn and Paul McGuire is indicative of the broader ecumenical and syncretistic trends within the charismatic movement, where theological boundaries are often blurred to promote a more inclusive and emotionally driven faith. These alliances have the potential to lead believers away from sound doctrine and into an unbiblical spiritual experience, where the authority of Scripture is replaced by personal revelations, visions, and prophecies that are not supported by God’s Word.

For instance, Cahn’s focus on national prophecies about the United States and Israel has led many to embrace a form of Christian nationalism that is not consistent with biblical teachings on the kingdom of God and the role of the church in the world. McGuire’s support for such teachings only amplifies the problem, leading people to embrace speculative and divisive ideas that have little foundation in the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why This Is a Serious Concern

The key issue here is that the doctrines promoted by Jonathan Cahn and Paul McGuire have the potential to mislead and deceive believers. False prophecy, particularly in the context of end-times teachings, can distort the understanding of God’s Word and lead people into fear-based decision-making rather than faithful obedience to Christ. Furthermore, their shared emphasis on experience-based spirituality places personal feelings and visions above the infallible authority of Scripture, which is a dangerous practice that can ultimately lead people away from true biblical faith.

In short, Jonathan Cahn’s support of Paul McGuire serves as a warning sign for Christians to be vigilant in guarding against false teachings and unbiblical alliances. This partnership highlights the growing influence of mysticism, speculative prophecy, and ecumenical compromise within certain sections of the church. As such, it is essential for believers to exercise discernment and ensure that their faith is grounded in the truth of God’s Word, rather than in the shifting sands of false prophecy and doctrinal confusion.

The Problem with Paul McGuire and the Alliance with NAR Figures

It is troubling to see prominent figures like Joe Schimmel, Jacob Prasch, and Moriel Ministries aligning themselves with individuals such as Paul McGuire, who has deep ties to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). McGuire’s support of false teachers, his involvement in ecumenical alliances, and his questionable affiliations with figures like Bill Johnson and Benny Hinn raise serious concerns about the credibility of those supporting him.

Paul McGuire’s Controversial Connections

Paul McGuire is a senior pastor at Paradise Mountain Church International and has been involved with various ecumenical ministries. His endorsement by figures such as Jack Hayford, Benny Hinn, and Tim LaHaye signals a disturbing alignment with the prosperity gospel and charismatic excesses. Notably, Hayford’s connection to Benny Hinn is particularly concerning, as Hinn is widely regarded as a promoter of false healing ministries and prosperity gospel teachings that are far from biblical truth.

McGuire’s own statements about being “discipled” by Jack Hayford, who himself has longstanding ties to figures in the NAR and the charismatic movement, further underscore McGuire’s alignment with problematic theological systems. Hayford’s friendship with Benny Hinn is a red flag, considering Hinn’s promotion of unbiblical prophecies and miracle-working ministries that are highly controversial and not in line with the sound doctrine of Scripture.

Bill Johnson and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)

At the heart of the concern is McGuire’s enthusiastic support for Bill Johnson and Bethel Church in Redding, California—both prominent figures and institutions within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Bill Johnson’s teachings are deeply rooted in gnostic and new age mysticism, which should be a major red flag for any Christian who values sound doctrine. Johnson’s views on healing, prophecy, and kingdom now theology stray far from traditional biblical teachings, and his endorsement of personal experiences and prophetic words often takes precedence over the authoritative Word of God.

McGuire’s demonstrated enthusiasm for Bethel Church and Johnson’s ministry is not just concerning; it is dangerous. By aligning with such a spiritually errant institution, McGuire is promoting a theology that blends Christianity with mysticism, embraces unbiblical practices, and encourages a focus on experience over the truth of Scripture. This makes his support for figures like Johnson and his active participation in NAR activities deeply troubling for any believer who desires to uphold biblical orthodoxy.

The Problem with Moriel Ministries and Good Fight Ministries’ Alignment with Paul McGuire

It is especially perplexing and disturbing to see Moriel Ministries and Good Fight Ministries—ministries that have previously been known for their stance on biblical discernment—partnering with someone like Paul McGuire. Jacob Prasch and Joe Schimmel have publicly shown support for McGuire, with Prasch calling him “our friend Brother Paul McGuire.” This raises several questions regarding their ability to discern truth from error.

Supporting Paul McGuire and other NAR-affiliated figures is a compromise of biblical truth. When prominent ministries like Moriel and Good Fight promote or even associate with people like McGuire, they risk undermining their credibility and leading believers astray. This is particularly concerning because these ministries are known for their warnings about false teachings—yet they are now in partnership with someone who is closely aligned with the very heretical teachings they once warned about.

What Does This Alliance Say About Their Discernment?

The fact that Prasch and Schimmel have allied themselves with McGuire and are not taking a firm stand against his associations with figures like Bill Johnson and Benny Hinn casts a shadow over their commitment to biblical discernment. If they are willing to overlook McGuire’s clear connections to the NAR and his promotion of false prophets, this raises a red flag about their ability to distinguish between biblical prophecy and deceptive teachings.

Supporting McGuire, who openly embraces the NAR and its leaders, is a betrayal of the biblical mandate to guard against false teachers. The Bible warns Christians to be vigilant and to avoid those who promote a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9), and McGuire’s alliances with individuals like Bill Johnson and Benny Hinn certainly point to a gospel that distorts the truth of God’s Word.

The Call for Discernment and Faithfulness to Scripture

It is imperative for believers to hold their leaders and teachers accountable to the standard of Scripture. The connections between Paul McGuire and Bill Johnson’s NAR, as well as his associations with Benny Hinn and others who promote prosperity gospel and unbiblical prophecy, should not be ignored. Jacob Prasch, Joe Schimmel, and other prominent figures must reconsider their alliances and ask themselves whether they are truly upholding the truth of Scripture or allowing compromised teachings to creep into their ministries.

For those of us who seek to remain faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we must be careful about who we partner with, knowing that bad company corrupts good character (1 Corinthians 15:33). Ministries like Moriel Ministries and Good Fight Ministries should not be so quick to endorse those whose teachings align with the dangerous theology of the NAR. It is time to hold these ministries accountable for their lack of discernment and encourage them to return to a firm stance on the gospel that is free from compromise.

 

The associations and teachings surrounding Paul McGuire raise significant theological concerns, particularly in regard to his connections with heretical and New Age ideologies. McGuire’s alliances with influential figures, including Jacob Prasch, Jack Hayford, and Benny Hinn, and his controversial teachings, align him with New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and prosperity gospel movements, further compounding the danger posed by his ministry.

Paul McGuire’s Unsettling Associations

McGuire himself has placed Jacob Prasch alongside other highly questionable figures, indicating a disturbing theological landscape. In McGuire’s own words, he has met, worked with, or interviewed leaders such as Jack Hayford, Tim LaHaye, Chuck Smith, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, and Benny Hinn—all individuals who have either propagated or associated with teachings at odds with orthodox Christianity. Prasch’s inclusion in this list is particularly concerning, as he has been a known critic of those in the NAR and of false prophetic movements, yet his association with McGuire complicates the credibility of his discernment.

Jack Hayford’s Ecumenical Involvement

Jack Hayford, whom McGuire cites as one of his major influences, has been a figure of concern in many Christian circles due to his ecumenical associations. Hayford has participated in interfaith dialogues, such as the 1989 Billy Graham/Lausanne II conference, and has endorsed figures like Robert Schuller, known for his prosperity gospel and “self-help” theology. Hayford’s participation in conferences alongside figures like John Wimber, who founded the Vineyard Movement, further complicates his theological stance, as Wimber was involved in promoting a signs and wonders theology that tends to blur the lines between biblical Christianity and mystical experiences.

Furthermore, Hayford has openly supported Richard Foster, the head of the ecumenical organization Renovaré, which is known for its advocacy of contemplative spirituality and practices like guided imagery and visualisation—techniques widely associated with New Age spirituality rather than biblical Christianity.

The “Fourth Dimensional” Heresy in McGuire’s Teachings

Paul McGuire’s teachings on “Fourth Dimensional DNA” and his alignment with New Age mysticism are deeply troubling. In one article, McGuire ties the concept of Nephilim and a “Fourth Dimensional war” to the genetic manipulation of humanity, an idea that originates from the occult and New Age philosophies. According to McGuire, beings from the Fourth Dimension—a concept commonly associated with astral travel and the occult—came to earth and began interbreeding with humans, creating the Nephilim, a hybrid race. This narrative entirely misrepresents the biblical account of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden and the subsequent curse of sin.

His teachings, such as the claim that human DNA was reprogrammed by these interdimensional beings, and that a cosmic war began as a result, are entirely unbiblical and not found in Scripture. These ideas reflect gnosticism and New Age mysticism, and they dangerously distort the message of the Gospel. McGuire’s focus on parallel universes, spiritual keys, and the “invisible realm” echoes the teachings of Quantum Mysticism, which is a blend of New Age philosophy and scientific terminology, but it lacks any grounding in biblical truth.

The Dangerous Path of “Cosmic Warfare” and Mystical Power

McGuire’s emphasis on cosmic warfare and the idea of changing reality through “spiritual weapons” bears striking resemblance to New Age practices and is eerily similar to the NAR’s focus on “spiritual dominion”. His claims about “keys of the kingdom” that supposedly allow believers to access and manipulate supernatural forces in the “Fourth Dimension” for global change is a direct departure from the biblical Gospel and is instead rooted in mysticism and the occult.

Such teachings draw upon Hollywood sci-fi narratives and mystical practices that have no place in biblical Christianity. The notion of believers being able to control spiritual forces through personal access to a parallel universe or the “Fourth Dimension” is foreign to Scripture. Christianity does not teach that believers can manipulate spiritual realms through mystical keys or control cosmic forces to affect the physical world in this way.

Paul McGuire’s involvement in conspiracy theories, New World Order (NWO) rhetoric, and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) teachings continues to draw criticism for its unbiblical nature and its dangerous influence on the church. McGuire’s connections with figures like Jack Hayford, C. Peter Wagner, and others in the NAR and his promotion of teachings like Spiritual Mapping and “cosmic warfare” underscore his alignment with unorthodox, mystical, and even occult-like ideologies. This association brings serious questions about the discernment of ministries and individuals who support him, including Joe Schimmel.

The Problem with McGuire’s Teachings

McGuire’s use of Scripture, especially his distortion of Luke 19:13 (“Occupy until I come”), is one example of how he wrests biblical texts out of context to support his agenda. The passage is part of a parable where Jesus tells His disciples to carry on business faithfully during His absence. McGuire, however, twists this into a justification for “cosmic warfare”, spiritual dominion, and the manipulation of unseen forces, none of which have any foundation in the actual meaning of the text.

This misinterpretation of biblical prophecy to promote Dominionism and spiritual warfare is prevalent in many circles associated with the NAR. The idea that believers can change reality, control spiritual realms, and engage in a “cosmic battle” is fundamentally at odds with biblical teaching, where spiritual warfare is more about resisting evil and standing firm in the truth of the Gospel (Ephesians 6:10-18), rather than manipulating powers to bring about earthly change.

The Endorsements and Associations

McGuire’s endorsements by figures like Jack Hayford and C. Peter Wagner, both of whom have promoted questionable teachings, further indicate the dangerous nature of his ministry. Hayford’s support of Spiritual Mapping, a practice that asserts that specific geographical areas can be spiritually claimed or “freed” through prayer, is another example of how these teachings deviate from biblical truth.

In particular, Hayford’s introduction of C. Peter Wagner—who popularised Spiritual Mapping and led efforts to expand the NAR—and his uncritical acceptance of Paul McGuire signal troubling theological alliances. McGuire’s New World Order conspiracy theories, which mix apocalyptic rhetoric with Illuminati and Federal Reserve theories, have no biblical grounding and divert attention from the true mission of the Church: proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Joe Schimmel’s Involvement

Joe Schimmel’s participation in conferences alongside Paul McGuire and his endorsement of McGuire’s teachings raises serious concerns about his own theological stance. Schimmel, who has been a voice of discernment in other areas, seems to overlook the heretical implications of McGuire’s ideas. By associating with someone who endorses NAR teachings, spiritual mapping, and cosmic warfare, Schimmel risks compromising his credibility and the discernment that he has built in the evangelical community.

The red flags associated with Paul McGuire—his promotion of mystical practices, conspiracy theories, and heretical doctrines—should prompt believers to carefully reconsider any partnership or alignment with him. True biblical prophecy is grounded in Scripture and focuses on the hope of Christ’s return, not on manipulating spiritual forces or pushing worldly agendas.

This situation raises serious questions about the commitment to biblical discernment within ministries like Good Fight Ministries (GFM), particularly regarding Joe Schimmel’s participation in conferences with individuals like Paul McGuire and Clyde Rivers. While GFM positions itself as a discernment ministry, the decision to participate in conferences where false teachers are present, without publicly denouncing their teachings, speaks volumes about the potential lack of consistency in their practice of discernment.

The Role of a Discernment Ministry

A true discernment ministry should boldly expose false teachings and not simply associate with or ignore them, especially when those teachers are actively leading others astray. In this case, Paul McGuire’s teachings on “cosmic warfare,” “Fourth Dimensional DNA,” and New World Order conspiracies have been widely critiqued as blasphemous and unbiblical (source: Herescope Blog, “Lucifer, Nephilim and the Fourth Dimensional DNA War” [2013]). The fact that Joe Schimmel has shared a platform with McGuire in the past, and will continue to do so, sends a troubling message to their audience.

Adding to the concerns is the fact that Clyde Rivers, who is scheduled to appear alongside Schimmel and McGuire, is closely associated with Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s controversial Unification Church (commonly known as the Moonies). Rivers is part of the Inter-Religious and International Federation for World Peace, which is a Moonie-affiliated organisation (source: Moonies Watch, “Clyde Rivers: A Moonie Connection”). The Moonies hold teachings that are contrary to traditional Christianity, and their beliefs have been condemned by many Christian groups (source: Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, “Unification Church”).

The Problem with Justifying Sharing Platforms

The excuse that Schimmel or other speakers have “nothing to do” with controversial figures, or that they were simply invited to speak at the same event, is often used as a justification for sharing platforms with false teachers. This argument, however, doesn’t hold up when a ministry is supposed to be committed to biblical discernment.

If you know a speaker holds heretical views, then appearing alongside them should not be excused. Christian leaders and ministries are responsible for setting examples of truth and clarity when it comes to biblical teaching. By appearing alongside false teachers without any public acknowledgment or stand against their blasphemous doctrines, ministries like GFM risk compromising their own credibility and confusing their audience about where they stand on essential doctrines. This is especially troubling when the people defending these actions attempt to shift the criticism as “character assassination” rather than engaging with the substantive theological concerns raised.

A Lack of Accountability

Tony Palacio’s statement about GFM being a “discernment ministry” rings hollow in this context. If GFM were truly committed to discernment, it would have taken steps to publicly call out teachers like Paul McGuire and Hoggard, as well as individuals like Clyde Rivers and his Moonie connections, not just explain away the decision to share platforms with them. There should be clear statements of accountability when it comes to the people and events they associate with. Instead, GFM’s silence on these issues suggests a reluctance to take a stand on controversial topics, which is exactly what a discernment ministry should be doing.

The Bigger Question: Why No Public Statement?

It is concerning that GFM has yet to address Paul McGuire’s teachings publicly on their website, especially after hearing that people within the No-pre trib group acknowledge McGuire’s blasphemous teachings (source: No-Pre-Trib Facebook Group). If GFM truly believes that these teachings are false and dangerous, they should be using their platform to speak out about them. Their lack of public rebuke on the issue only raises further doubts about their commitment to biblical discernment.

Likewise, Clyde Rivers’ affiliation with the Unification Church and his Moonie connections should be something that GFM addresses publicly, especially if they are truly committed to guarding the flock from false doctrines. Rivers’ involvement in a Moonie-related group directly conflicts with biblical Christianity, and yet his participation in these events is largely ignored by ministries like GFM.

Joe Schimmel’s Continued Involvement with Paul McGuire and Clyde Rivers

It’s troubling that Joe Schimmel will be appearing at another conference alongside Paul McGuire and Clyde Rivers, whose beliefs are not aligned with biblical Christianity. Rivers, as a member of the Moonie group and advocate for Moon’s New World Religion, should be a major red flag for any ministry that claims to uphold biblical truth. Sharing a platform with someone so closely affiliated with a false religion is not something that can be justified as simply “happenstance” or a matter of being “invited.” These associations should not be ignored by ministries that claim to have a discerning voice on matters of truth and error.

Conclusion: A Call for Greater Discernment

The lack of public clarity and accountability from GFM concerning Paul McGuire, Clyde Rivers, and other heretics must be addressed. A true discernment ministry must be willing to take strong stands on the issues of false teaching, and not simply attempt to justify associations with problematic figures. As the Body of Christ, it is our responsibility to protect the truth of the Gospel and to expose anything that distorts or diminishes it. Ministries like Good Fight Ministries must not remain silent in the face of error, but rather take active steps to guard the flock against the dangers posed by unbiblical teachings.

---

References:

1. Herescope Blog, “Lucifer, Nephilim and the Fourth Dimensional DNA War” [2013]. Available at: http://herescope.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/techno-dimensional-prayer-combat.html
2. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, “Unification Church”. Available at: https://carm.org/unification-church
3. Moonies Watch, “Clyde Rivers: A Moonie Connection”. Available at: https://www.moonieswatch.com/clyde-rivers
4. No-Pre-Trib Facebook Group, discussions on Paul McGuire’s teachings, 2025.

1. Inter-Religious and International Federation for World Peace (IRFWP)

• The IRFWP is an organization that has strong ties to the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon. The IRFWP was created to promote peace, interfaith dialogue, and global unity—key goals of Moon’s religious teachings.
• Clyde Rivers has been involved in IRFWP events, serving as a speaker and participant in various interfaith dialogue forums. These forums are often linked to Moon’s vision of religious unification under his teachings.

For more information on the IRFWP’s history and its affiliation with Moon’s Unification Church, you can refer to:

• “Inter-Religious and International Federation for World Peace” entry on various religious and critique sites, including Apologetics Index: IRFWP on Apologetics Index
• “The Unification Church and its affiliates” on Watchman Fellowship: Watchman Fellowship: Unification Church

2. Universal Peace Federation (UPF)

• The Universal Peace Federation (UPF), another Moon-affiliated organization, also has strong ties to Clyde Rivers. Rivers has participated in UPF-sponsored events and conferences, and these organizations share many of the same goals of global unity and interfaith dialogue that Moon established.

Information on UPF’s connection to Moon can be found in these resources:

• “Universal Peace Federation and Its Ties to Sun Myung Moon” from Watchman Fellowship: Universal Peace Federation and Moon

3. Clyde Rivers’ Role as a Peace Ambassador

• Clyde Rivers’ involvement in these interfaith peace movements has been documented on various websites that track his participation in Moon-related events. Although Rivers has not explicitly identified himself as a member of the Unification Church, his active role in organizations tied to Moon makes his association with the Moonie movement clear.
• A reference to Rivers as a peace ambassador working with Moon-affiliated organizations:
  • “Clyde Rivers’ Peace Diplomacy” on The Family International (formerly known as The Children of God): Clyde Rivers Peace Ambassador

4. Critiques and Articles about Clyde Rivers’ Associations

• Several articles have examined Clyde Rivers’ ties to organizations such as IRFWP and his role in Moon’s global efforts. These critiques often point out the apparent contradictions between his Christian beliefs and his involvement with Moon’s religious framework.
• Heritage Ministries has written extensively on such controversial associations:
  • Heritage Ministries article on interfaith dialogue and the Moon connection: Heritage Ministries Critique

5. Books and Articles about Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church

• To further explore the core tenets of Moon’s beliefs and their impact, particularly on organizations like IRFWP and UPF, several books delve into the nature of the Unification Church and the way it has established numerous front organizations to propagate Moon’s teachings.
  • “Moon’s Messiah Complex” by Dr. Gary L. Gilley, an analysis of Moon’s influence on the religious and political world: Gary L. Gilley on Moon’s Messiah Complex

6. Public Events and Conferences

• There are public records and videos of Clyde Rivers participating in events, many of which were hosted or co-hosted by Moon-affiliated organizations such as IRFWP and the UPF. For example, Rivers’ speeches at Peace Conferences frequently included Moon-related figures, some of whom are key leaders in the Moonie movement.

1. 1. Tony Palacio’s Defence of the Red River Prophecy Conference Hosts

   Tony Palacio, in his defence of the Red River Prophecy Conference, refers to the organisers as “good, God-fearing men with a passion for truth”. While this may be well-intentioned, such a statement is disingenuous and fails to take into account the questionable history and associations of the conference. Scripture teaches that only God is truly “good” (Luke 18:19), and such definitive labels should be used cautiously. Even if the organisers themselves have genuine intentions, their choice of speakers and the content promoted at such events deserves critical scrutiny.

   It’s crucial to examine both the theological stances and the affiliations of the individuals involved, as the Bible admonishes us to be discerning, particularly when it comes to teachers and ministries. 2 Timothy 4:3 warns of a time when people will gather teachers who say what they want to hear, and we must be careful not to fall into that trap. Therefore, calling the organisers “good” without examining their theology and associations undermines the very caution and discernment we are called to practice as believers.

   2. Berean Approach to Discernment

   The Berean approach (Acts 17:11) advocates for carefully examining the teachings and doctrines of others. The Bereans did not just accept Paul’s preaching blindly but searched the Scriptures daily to confirm that what he taught was in line with God’s Word. In the same way, the speakers at the Red River Prophecy Conference, including Joe Schimmel and Mike Hoggard, should be evaluated not just by their reputation or popularity, but by their faithfulness to biblical teaching.

   To compromise on doctrinal issues or to gloss over potentially dangerous teachings because someone is seen as a respected figure or preacher is a disservice to the body of Christ. If we fail to scrutinise their teachings, we risk allowing harmful doctrines to spread. The Berean model compels us to test everything, ensuring that all that is taught aligns with biblical truth and does not deviate from the gospel.

   3. Mike Hoggard and the Red River Prophecy Conference

   Mike Hoggard is deeply embedded in the Postmodern Prophecy Paradigm (PPP), which is a term used to describe a collection of speculative, often bizarre, teachings concerning prophecy and spiritual warfare. The Red River Prophecy Conference, where Schimmel spoke, has been associated with PPP leaders such as Hoggard, Paul McGuire, Tom Horn, Chuck Missler, L.A. Marzulli, and others. These figures regularly promote doctrines that stray far from biblical orthodoxy and can lead believers into dangerous, unbiblical practices.

   One of the central elements of PPP is the idea of “hyper-spiritual warfare”—a belief that there is a battle against not only human sin but also Nephilim (the offspring of fallen angels and humans, according to some interpretations of Genesis 6), extraterrestrials, transhumanist monsters, and even pagan gods. This cosmic spiritual warfare rhetoric distracts believers from the core gospel message and substitutes it with unbiblical fantasies about fighting supernatural forces that have no real basis in Scripture.

   This hyper-focus on extra-biblical ideas detracts from the gospel, making it unhealthy for believers to engage in and potentially causing them to be led astray.

   4. The Problem with Hoggard’s Teachings

   Mike Hoggard’s teachings are deeply concerning for several reasons. One of the most problematic statements Hoggard has made is that, “When you become born again, you have no sin in you, you enter into a state of sinlessness.” This claim is not only unbiblical but contradicts numerous passages in Scripture, such as Romans 7:18-25 and 1 John 1:8, where the apostle Paul and John explain that even believers still struggle with sin in this life. While Christians are declared righteous by God through faith in Christ, this does not mean they are without sin until their glorification at Christ’s return.

   This view of sinlessness goes against the biblical understanding of sanctification, which is a progressive process (2 Corinthians 3:18). Hoggard’s teaching would suggest that Christians do not need to deal with ongoing sin in their lives, which is not only dangerous but could lead people to avoid the necessary repentance and daily sanctification that the Christian life requires.

   Furthermore, Hoggard’s approach to interpreting Scripture can be described as private interpretation. He often ventures into areas of prophecy and spiritual warfare that are not clearly addressed in Scripture, adding speculative details that distract from the plain teaching of God’s Word. 2 Peter 1:20 warns against private interpretation, reminding us that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of its context and its authorial intent.

   5. Good Fight Ministries’ Lack of Discernment

   Good Fight Ministries (GFM), an organisation that claims to be a discernment ministry, has been questioned over its endorsement of individuals like Mike Hoggard and Paul McGuire. While GFM has done important work in calling out certain false teachings, their association with speakers at the Red River Prophecy Conference suggests a lack of true biblical discernment.

   A discernment ministry should not only warn about clear, overt false teachings but should also be committed to evaluating the doctrines and theological affiliations of all those they endorse. If they align with those who promote unbiblical teachings, their credibility is called into question. A ministry that is truly committed to biblical truth must be more than willing to speak out against false teachings, regardless of the popularity or influence of the individuals promoting them.

   By sharing platforms with individuals like Hoggard, GFM inadvertently endorses teachings that promote dangerous ideas and questionable theology. The fact that GFM has not publicly addressed or critiqued these issues, despite their association with these speakers, is a serious oversight for a ministry that claims to protect the body of Christ from doctrinal error.

   6. References to Mike Hoggard’s Unbiblical Teachings

   Several blogs and websites have critiqued Mike Hoggard’s teachings, highlighting the theological dangers he presents:

   • End Times Studies Blog: The article titled “Mike Hoggard: Are His Teachings Biblical?” explores Hoggard’s views and challenges their biblical validity. This resource raises serious concerns about his doctrinal positions. End Times Studies on Mike Hoggard
   • Bible Conundrums and Controversies Blog: A detailed critique of Hoggard’s views on sinlessness and salvation is available on this blog. It exposes the falsehood of his teaching that Christians enter into a state of sinlessness immediately after salvation. Bible Conundrums on Mike Hoggard

   7. Conclusion: Biblical Caution and Discernment

   In conclusion, the Red River Prophecy Conference has been associated with a range of theologically dubious figures and ideas that stray far from biblical orthodoxy. Joe Schimmel’s participation in this event, along with Good Fight Ministries’ apparent endorsement of it, raises significant concerns about their commitment to biblical discernment.

   For a ministry like Good Fight Ministries, which claims to be dedicated to biblical discernment, to align with individuals like Mike Hoggard and Paul McGuire suggests a failure to exercise sound doctrinal caution. Ministries and individuals who do not take the time to evaluate the theological implications of their associations may end up compromising the gospel message and misguiding believers.

   The Berean approach of checking everything against Scripture should be applied rigorously, particularly when dealing with teachings that may seem harmless but, upon closer examination, are found to be full of unbiblical ideas and speculative doctrines. It is vital that Christians be cautious and discerning, especially when confronted with ideas that are not grounded in the truth of God’s Word.

   1. KJV-Onlyism and Dismissal of Original Manuscripts

   Hoggard’s KJV-only stance is one of the most controversial aspects of his teaching. While it is true that the King James Version (KJV) has a rich history and is considered by many to be one of the most accurate English translations of the Bible, Hoggard’s insistence that it is the only trustworthy translation—and his outright rejection of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts—is not only an error but a misrepresentation of how Scripture should be understood.

   • Problematic View of the Originals: Hoggard claims that the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts cannot provide revelation, which is fundamentally unbiblical. In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul writes that all Scripture is God-breathed (in the original languages) and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. To claim that there is no revelation in the original manuscripts undermines the integrity and inspiration of God’s Word in its original form.
   • Failure to Understand Biblical Translation: The KJV translators worked with the original manuscripts to produce a faithful translation. Hoggard’s assertion that there is no revelation in the originals or that the KJV is the sole authoritative version would suggest a misunderstanding of how translation works. No translation, including the KJV, should be elevated above the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

   2. Numerology and Symbolism

   One of the most troubling aspects of Hoggard’s teachings is his obsession with numerology and hidden meanings in the Bible, which mirrors the approach of Harold Camping, who infamously predicted the end of the world through numerological calculations. Hoggard seems to believe that certain numbers and verse references are imbued with hidden significance that leads to special revelations.

   • Obsession with Numbers: Hoggard’s tendency to assign arbitrary meaning to numbers (e.g., the number “22” symbolising “revelation”) is problematic. The Bible does use numbers symbolically in certain contexts, but to make numerology the central method of interpreting Scripture is a dangerous misapplication of God’s Word. As you rightly pointed out, the chapter and verse numbers in the Bible were added by later editors and were not part of the original manuscripts. Therefore, building doctrines or hidden meanings based on chapter and verse numbers is a flawed approach to interpreting Scripture.
   • Avoiding Literal Interpretation: Hoggard often spiritualises Scripture and looks for hidden connections between passages that are not there. While the Bible does contain deeper meanings and layers of truth, its primary meaning is often literal and direct. Scripture should first and foremost be interpreted literally unless the context clearly indicates otherwise (e.g., parables, prophecy). Hoggard’s tendency to spiritualise the text leads to interpretations that stray from the plain meaning of the text, making the message of Scripture unclear.

   3. Occult and Supernatural Sources

   Your concerns about Hoggard’s fixation on the occult and his use of occult sources to interpret the Bible are deeply troubling. Christians are commanded to avoid any teachings or practices that come from unbiblical or occult sources (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Hoggard’s references to Atlantis and the occult understanding of the antediluvian world (pre-Flood world) as a source of revelation is not only speculative but also unbiblical.

   • Atlantis and the Book of Daniel: The idea that the ten horns of Daniel 7 represent ten kings of Atlantis is both absurd and unbiblical. There is no reference to Atlantis in the Bible, and to suggest that the book of Daniel teaches this is to engage in pure eisegesis—reading into the text ideas that are not there. Additionally, Hoggard’s assertion that Daniel remains sealed, yet still supposedly reveals these kinds of “special revelations,” undermines his credibility. The Bible is clear that Daniel contains prophecies that are open to understanding by those who seek God’s guidance (Daniel 12:4).
   • Danger of Mixing Occult with Scripture: Hoggard’s reliance on occult “knowledge” (e.g., the ten kings of Atlantis) instead of sound biblical theology is extremely dangerous. Scripture clearly teaches that we should avoid anything related to occult practices (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). By mixing occult sources with the Bible, Hoggard leads people to interpret Scripture through the lens of the world rather than through the lens of biblical truth.

   4. Spiritualizing Scripture

   As you mentioned, Hoggard is obsessed with hidden connections between various Scriptures, particularly focusing on numerology and spiritualising Old Testament passages. While it is true that the Bible is rich with connections between the Old and New Testaments, it is not biblically responsible to look for hidden meanings in every verse, especially where none exist.

   • Literal Meaning of Scripture: The literal interpretation of the Bible should be the foundation of our study. Hoggard’s tendency to neglect the plain, literal meaning of passages and focus instead on spiritualising them often leads to confusion and false teachings. The literal, historical, and grammatical context of the Scriptures should always take precedence over speculative interpretations.
   • Avoiding the Literal Meaning: There is a strong temptation to ignore the literal context of Scripture in favour of allegorical interpretations that suit one’s own views or assumptions. This is precisely what Hoggard does when he insists on making hidden connections in the text that may not be supported by the Bible itself.

   5. The Dangers of Following Hoggard’s Teachings

   The teachings of Mike Hoggard pose a serious risk to the spiritual health of believers. As you’ve rightly pointed out, spiritualising Scripture without sound reasoning and constantly searching for numerological significance is not only unbiblical, but it can also lead to distorted views of the gospel.

   • Deviations from Sound Doctrine: 2 Timothy 4:3-4 warns that in the last days, people will not endure sound doctrine, but will follow teachers who suit their own desires. Hoggard’s teachings, particularly his obsession with the occult, numerology, and spiritualising the text, deviate from the sound doctrine that should define Christian teaching.
   • Dangerous Obsession: Like Harold Camping and other false teachers who have made unbiblical predictions based on numerology and hidden meanings, Hoggard’s obsession with occult knowledge and speculative interpretations can easily lead his followers into error. It is crucial for believers to test all teachings against the clear teaching of Scripture (Acts 17:11).

1. Use of Tarot Cards

The reference to tarot cards in Mike Hoggard’s teaching, especially in his 1997 Prophecy Club presentation, is troubling. Tarot cards are widely recognised as a tool of occultism. The Bible explicitly warns against any practices that fall under occultic arts (Deuteronomy 18:10-12), which includes divination and other forms of seeking hidden knowledge through supernatural means.

• Why tarot cards?: It’s baffling that, in a teaching context where Hoggard supposedly promotes biblical truth, he would resort to using tarot cards to explain Biblical prophecy. This is a blatant contradiction to his insistence on KJV-onlyism, which is meant to elevate the Bible above all else. The Bible itself teaches that revelation comes from God’s Word, not occult practices (2 Timothy 3:16-17). To use tarot cards as a tool for understanding the Bible undermines the authority of Scripture and promotes unbiblical, occult practices. If he’s truly a teacher who believes in the sufficiency of the Bible, why resort to these occult sources?

2. The Prophecy Club and Its Issues

Your concerns about the Prophecy Club are absolutely valid, as the ministry has a long history of promoting unbiblical teachings, conspiracy theories, and sensationalism that are not rooted in the truth of Scripture. The issues include:

• Fear-Mongering: Many of the teachings coming from the Prophecy Club focus heavily on end-time scenarios filled with fear, speculation, and manipulation. The Bible warns about false teachers who manipulate fear to control people (Matthew 24:24). This type of fear-mongering is often rooted in emotionalism, rather than a sound, biblical understanding of prophecy.
• Unbiblical Teachings: Many speakers at the Prophecy Club have been known for promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, including the idea that the US government is part of a grand conspiracy and that America is “Mystery Babylon.” Such teachings have no basis in Scripture and have led many astray. The Bible teaches us to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), not to swallow sensational theories or baseless conspiracies.
• British-Israelism and Anti-Government Fear-Mongering: British-Israelism—a teaching that claims that modern-day Britons and Americans are the true descendants of ancient Israel—has no biblical support and is a form of misinterpretation of Scripture. This, coupled with anti-government rhetoric and calls for a Christian revolution, reflects a dangerous and unbiblical political agenda that promotes rebellion rather than submission to the legitimate authorities that God has placed over us (Romans 13:1-7).
• Gematria and Extra-Biblical Revelations: The use of Gematria (the Jewish practice of assigning numerical values to letters) and a belief in receiving extra-biblical revelation through out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, and so on, are all practices that have no foundation in Scripture. Christians are warned not to seek after signs or supernatural experiences that deviate from the sufficiency of God’s Word (Matthew 16:4).
• Problematic Speakers: The inclusion of speakers like Michael Rood and others with questionable theological views is a red flag. Rood’s conspiracy theories and unbiblical speculations about the end times are a poor foundation for anyone seeking to understand biblical prophecy.

3. The Error of Speculation Without Evidence

As you pointed out, speculation without evidence is a hallmark of false prophecy ministries like the Prophecy Club. This includes wild claims about future events and theological speculations (e.g., Atlantis, government conspiracies, and the alleged identity of Mystery Babylon). The Bible warns that false prophets will arise, promoting speculations that distract believers from the true gospel (2 Peter 2:1-3).

The emphasis on speculation often leads to the dilution of the gospel message and can create fear-based, manipulative environments that prey on the vulnerable. In contrast, biblical prophecy is meant to encourage hope, endurance, and the expectation of Christ’s return, not to fuel fear or political agendas.

4. Unbiblical Political Agenda

The political teachings promoted by the Prophecy Club and other similar ministries, such as the rejection of the rapture or calls for a Christian revolution, do not align with biblical doctrine. Christianity has always called believers to live in peace and submit to the governing authorities, recognising that God establishes all governments (Romans 13:1-7). Any attempt to align Christianity with political revolutions or to promote fear-based political activism is a distortion of the gospel message.

Other names are

Jim Ammerman	Dr. Bill Deagle	Berit Kjos	Samantha Smith
Dr. Mark Andrews	Dumitru Duduman	Rod Lewis	Fritz Springmeier
Gene Bacon	Stephen Dollins	Avi Lipkin	Hayseed Stephens
Jeffrey A. Baker	Norm Franz	Doc Marquis	Bill Still
Eric Barger	Les Garrett	Texe Marrs	Carl Thomas
Binjamin Baruch	Henry Gruver	Don McAlvany (CNP)	Tom Van Asperen
Larry Bates	Ted Gunderson	John McTernan	Kevin Van Der Westhuizen
Dr. Nick Begich	Jonathan Hansen	Stan Monteith (CNP)	Bob Wadsworth
Dave Benoit	Norio Hayakawa	Walt Myers	Dr. James W. Wardner
Pastor Dan Bohler	Len Horowitz	Al Neal	David Webber
Michael Boldea	Kent Hovind	Jeff Nyquist	David Wegener
Symon Boschma	Grant Jeffrey	Gen. Ben Partin	Gen. Ed Wheeler
Michael Bunker	Quenton Jessop III	Jim Phillips	Richard Wiles
Marvin Byers	Stan Johnson	Howard Pittman	Col. Speed Wilson
Paul Christopher	Leslie Johnson	Craig Roberts (CNP)	Wally Wood
Michael CoffmanCNP	Gary H. Kah	Michael Rood	Steven C. Wright
Terry L. Cook	Peter Kershaw	Tom Schumpert	Ted Wright
Rick Coombes	Cliff Kincaid (CNP)	David J. Smith	Ron Wyatt
Al Cuppett
These names were or are also listed in the Prophecy Club store 17
Dr. Cathy Burns	Michael Hoggard	Dr. Renny McLean	Daniel Rodes
Jim Caldwell	Eric Hovind	Victor Mordecai	Gaylon Ross
Lloyd Carpenter	Eric Hufschmid	Ken Peters	Rex Russell, MD
Bob Cornuke	Dr. Brey Keyton	John Mark Pool	Mike Sharman
Tom Deckard	Col Moshe Leshem	Debra Rae	Barry Smith
Kevin DeMerit	James Linzey	Yacov Rambsel	Pastor Mary Jean Stephens
David Dolan	Ed Lixey	Joyce Riley	James Sundquist
Harold Eberle	Milan Martin	Gale Riplinger	Laurence Tisdall
Ralph Epperson	Dr. Winston Mazakis	David Rivera	Rebecca Totilo
Bob Griffin

1. Jim Ammerman

Ammerman has promoted various right-wing conspiracy theories, often painting governments, especially the U.S. government, as instruments of Satanic control. While biblical teachings do suggest that governments can be used by evil in the end times (e.g., Revelation 13), focusing exclusively on this leads to an unbalanced theology. Instead of encouraging Christianity’s mission to spread the Gospel, he emphasises political warfare and anti-government sentiment, leading believers to focus on worldly powers rather than spiritual growth.

2. Dr. Bill Deagle

Deagle is notorious for promoting doomsday prophecies and biological warfare conspiracies. His teachings are based on speculative scenarios about pandemics and government conspiracies, which create an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than faith. The biblical response to fear is to trust in God’s sovereignty and be prepared spiritually, not by relying on anxious speculation. Instead of calling believers to focus on the eternal Gospel, his teachings distract with earthly fears, which can lead Christians to neglect evangelism and biblical obedience.

3. Berit Kjos

While Kjos’ critiques of societal trends and spiritual deceptions have merit, she often amplifies them into a paranoid view of modern culture, sensationalising issues like secularism, globalism, and Satanism. Her rhetoric sometimes veers into the realm of unverified speculation, promoting fear of influences in culture without practical, biblical application. Instead of urging believers to be salt and light in the world, her approach can make people withdraw from the world, abandoning engagement with society in favour of fear-based isolation.

4. Samantha Smith

Smith’s association with numerology and occult symbolism is troubling. She attempts to read secret codes into the Bible and manipulate Scripture to fit an agenda that aligns with personal or political motivations. This approach often leads to distorted interpretations that undermine the authority of the clear, written Word of God. Christians are called to study to show themselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15), not rely on mystical or esoteric interpretations of Scripture. This devalues the sufficiency of God’s Word and leads believers into dangerous territory.

5. Dr. Mark Andrews

Andrews teaches about hidden codes and numerological significance in the Bible, focusing on themes that speculate on the future rather than on the present, which leads people to chase mysticism instead of obedience. The Bible clearly teaches that we should seek understanding through the Holy Spirit and study the Scriptures with humility, rather than searching for secret codes and hidden knowledge (Deuteronomy 29:29). Such teachings distract from the core mission of sharing the Gospel and living out biblical principles.

6. Dumitru Duduman

Duduman’s prophecies about the future, particularly surrounding Russia’s role in biblical prophecy and the coming destruction of America, have led many into unhealthy speculation. His views, though intense, lead to a dangerous form of escapism, focusing on fear and destruction instead of encouraging Christians to live faithfully, engage with the world, and spread the Gospel message. While warnings about the future are biblically valid, we must remember that our primary calling is not to prepare for worldly catastrophes, but to share Christ and live out the Great Commission.

7. Rod Lewis

Lewis is notorious for his apocalyptic visions and theories about the New World Order, suggesting that global elites control world events. Such ideas, while intriguing, often lead to fear-based faith, where believers are more concerned with global conspiracies than with the sovereignty of God. The biblical mandate is to focus on loving God and loving others, not to be distracted by every political conspiracy that arises. His teachings encourage Christians to focus on earthly authorities instead of trusting in God’s sovereign rule over all things.

8. Fritz Springmeier

Springmeier’s Satanic conspiracy theories go beyond the bounds of Scripture, suggesting that a global elite is actively working to bring about the rise of the Antichrist. He uses a mix of historical speculation and wild theories to generate fear, making it easy for listeners to get distracted from the clear biblical teaching on spiritual warfare, which focuses on resisting the devil through the Word of God (James 4:7). His message shifts the focus from living in the light of the Gospel to becoming obsessed with dark conspiracies, which can undermine a Christian’s effectiveness in ministry.

9. Gene Bacon

Bacon is another figure who promotes conspiratorial thinking, especially regarding the Antichrist and government control. Such teachings, while sometimes based on a grain of truth, mislead Christians into focusing on worldly systems rather than biblical spirituality. The Bible makes it clear that believers are called to be witnesses to the Gospel, and should not spend excessive time on the speculations of man (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Bacon’s views distract from the Christian call to evangelise, disciple, and serve the world.

10. Stephen Dollins

Dollins’ teachings about Satanism and the demonic agenda often blur the lines between biblical doctrine and exaggerated speculation, fostering a fear-driven narrative rather than a faith-driven one. Instead of encouraging Christians to be strong in the Lord and put on the full armour of God (Ephesians 6:10-18), his teachings make believers fearful of everything from demonic forces to secular governments, making them ineffective in living out the Gospel in practical, loving ways.

11. Avi Lipkin

Lipkin is linked with political interpretations of prophecy, especially concerning Israel and the end times. While Israel certainly plays a significant role in biblical prophecy, Lipkin’s views often seem politically motivated and speculative. They can lead people to focus on worldly political events rather than on eternal salvation through Christ. Scripture teaches that our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20), yet Lipkin’s emphasis on earthly political scenarios can detract from a focus on God’s eternal kingdom.

12. Hayseed Stephens

Stephens promotes a focus on end-time paranoia and conspiracy theories, involving topics such as the New World Order and global control. While there may be some truth in his warnings about worldly forces, the Bible encourages believers to trust God and not to focus on every earthly conspiracy that arises. This unbalanced focus can discourage believers from pursuing spiritual maturity and proclaiming the Gospel, which should always be the Church’s primary mission.

The Core Issue with These Teachings

All of these individuals, whether by promoting fear of the New World Order, alien invasion, or hidden Satanic control, distract Christians from the primary mission of spreading the Gospel. The focus on speculative prophecy, doomsday scenarios, and conspiracies can lead Christians into a mentality of fear and isolation, causing them to focus on everything except their relationship with God and their mission in the world. This undermines the peace and assurance that come from knowing the sovereignty of God over all things.

Rather than focusing on God’s Word, these teachings lead to a hyper-focus on worldly events, creating confusion, fear, and division. Christians are meant to be discerning, yes, but the primary focus of a believer’s life should always be on loving God and loving others, making disciples of all nations, and being witnesses to the truth of Jesus Christ.

The Biblical Response

• Test everything: As instructed in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we are to test everything we hear, including teachings on prophecy and conspiracies, by comparing them to the clear Word of God.
• Focus on the Gospel: Rather than getting caught up in end-time speculation and fearful predictions, Christians should be focused on the salvation message of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16).
• Be alert but not afraid: Jesus said to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16), meaning Christians should be alert to the workings of evil in the world but should not be consumed by fear.

I would strongly advise people to give those who have been in the prophecy club a wide birth.

Mike Hoggard’s teachings often delve into highly speculative and controversial topics, which raise concerns about the theological and scriptural integrity of his ministry. These include concepts such as Nephilim, Space Alien DNA, Transhumanism, and “Alien Super Soldiers”, as well as the use of Bible Codes. Here’s an explanation of each of these topics and why they are problematic when considered from a biblical perspective:

1. Nephilim

The Nephilim are mentioned briefly in Genesis 6:1-4 as the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” The text is ambiguous, and interpretations of who the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” refer to vary. Some suggest that the Nephilim were fallen angels (or their offspring) interacting with human women, a theory that has been popularised by various writers. Hoggard, among others, takes this view further, often speculating on the Nephilim’s role in the End Times, sometimes linking them to alien encounters. This can lead to sensationalised and unbiblical interpretations, using modern pseudoscience to explain ancient mysteries.

While the Bible mentions the Nephilim in Genesis and later in Numbers, there is no direct biblical support for the idea that they were alien beings or that they have any ongoing influence on world events today. This speculative approach can lead to confusion and distract from the clear teachings of Scripture.

2. Space Alien DNA

The concept of “Space Alien DNA” is tied to the belief in extraterrestrial beings whose genetic material might somehow be intertwined with human history or even present in humans today. This notion often crosses into the realms of science fiction and New Age thought. Mike Hoggard, in his broadcasts, suggests that there may be a connection between alien life forms and human genetics, particularly in relation to biblical events like the days of Noah.

The Bible does not speak of any kind of extraterrestrial life, nor does it suggest that aliens have a role in human creation or in biblical prophecy. Such theories are based on conjecture rather than Scripture and can lead believers to look for hidden meanings that are simply not present in the biblical text. It also undermines the biblical doctrine of creation, where God created man in His image (Genesis 1:26-27), without any extraterrestrial interference.

3. Transhumanism

Transhumanism is the belief in the enhancement of the human body through technology, often through merging humans with machines or manipulating human DNA for the purpose of creating superhuman capabilities. This view has been increasingly popular among futurists and certain scientific communities, but Hoggard connects it to biblical prophecy, suggesting that Transhumanism may be part of Satan’s grand plan for the End Times.

While technology and human advancement are important topics, the Bible does not support the idea that humans should seek to transcend their natural limitations through technological means. Transhumanism, when framed within a biblical context, can be seen as an attempt to sidestep God’s plan for humanity, especially concerning the spiritual and physical death and resurrection that Scripture teaches. Moreover, this worldview risks turning human beings into something other than what God originally intended in creation.

4. “Alien Super Soldiers” and Parallels to the Days of Noah

Mike Hoggard also teaches about the idea of “Alien Super Soldiers,” drawing parallels to the “days of Noah” as described in Matthew 24:37. In this view, the “sons of God” who interacted with the daughters of men (potentially the Nephilim) created a race of hybrid beings, which are sometimes theorised to be “alien super soldiers.” Hoggard and others speculate that these beings will reappear in the End Times as part of a grand battle between good and evil.

This interpretation takes creative liberties with biblical prophecy and relies heavily on extra-biblical sources, including popular conspiracy theories and science fiction. While Jesus’ reference to the “days of Noah” in Matthew 24 does suggest that the world will become morally corrupt and violent before His return, there is no scriptural basis for the idea that “alien super soldiers” will play a role in fulfilling prophecy. This is a speculative and sensationalised interpretation that detracts from the true biblical understanding of the End Times, which focuses on Christ’s return, judgment, and the establishment of His eternal kingdom.

5. Bible Codes

Another controversial topic often promoted by Hoggard is the use of Bible Codes—the idea that hidden messages or patterns can be found in the Hebrew text of the Bible through a form of numerology or letter sequencing. Proponents claim that these codes reveal future events or divine knowledge, supposedly showing God’s hidden plan for humanity.

While the Bible does speak about the depth and mystery of God’s Word (Psalm 119:18), the use of Bible Codes is not supported by Scripture. The idea of hidden cryptic messages embedded in the text for modern-day revelation tends to distract from the straightforward teachings of the Bible. The Bible is clear in teaching that all Scripture is profitable for instruction and righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16), and God has revealed His will to His people through His Word, not through secret codes or speculative numerology.

Why These Ideas are Deceptive

Each of these teachings is speculative and lacks solid biblical support. They often rely on imaginative interpretations, modern conspiracy theories, or unproven ideas, which detract from the central message of Scripture: the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the definitive revelation of God’s will, and it is meant to guide believers in faith and practice. When individuals or ministries move beyond the clear teachings of the Bible into these speculative areas, it can cause confusion, division, and distraction from the true purpose of the Scriptures: to proclaim salvation through Jesus Christ and guide believers in living righteous lives according to His Word.

By chasing after hidden meanings, numerical patterns, or extraterrestrial theories, followers of such teachings may lose sight of the gospel’s simplicity and power. Instead of focusing on God’s clear and revealed truths, they may find themselves tangled in a web of conjecture and distraction, ultimately undermining the faith and the authority of Scripture. It is critical that believers approach all teachings with discernment, checking everything against the truth of God’s Word rather than jumping on sensationalistic or speculative bandwagons.

http://endtimesstudies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/mike-hoggard-are-his-teachings.html

Mike Hoggard teachings on spiritual warfare were promoted by cutting edge ministries,

Save $15 by buying this 2-DVD Set over buying them individually! Pastor Hoggard presents both the Godly and the Satanic sides in the never-ending spiritual battle in the Heavenlies.

• “The Seven Spirits of God” DVD reveals through a study of Revelation 1 that the spirit of Antichrist would manifest itself as the OPPOSITE of each of the seven spirits through lying spirits who seek to destroy lives. You will learn how to discern the manifestation of the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Antichrist in a person’s life. You will also be prepared to discern better the real Antichrist when he arises.
• “Where Dragons Live” DVD reveals through Revelation 12, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi how the demonic host can wreak severe spiritual damage on you and your family. Are you SURE you are saved? Are you SURE your loved ones are saved? Pastor Hoggard gives you the answer from Revelation 1:4! You will be greatly encouraged by this revelation. He poses the question of how we should see the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in our lives as he goes through each of the seven spirits and what they mean. Some say these should be manifested in signs and wonders, but Pastor Hoggard shows us the Biblical definition of these Seven Spirits of how they should be seen in a believer’s life. He also shows how the spirit of Antichrist would manifest itself as the OPPOSITE of each of the seven spirits through lying spirits who seek to destroy lives. You will learn how to discern the manifestation of the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Antichrist in a person’s life.

Great Spiritual Warfare study and you save money.

However, no ministry should gain profit from its materials. As soon as money enters into the equation, it opens up many issues. The only way a person should place books and materials for marketing purposes is not to make money, but to cover the publisher’s costs.

The whole issue on the subject of Spiritual Warfare has already been refuted by Bob DeWay in his article “False Spiritual Warfare Teachings: How the Church Becomes Pagan.” You can read it here: False Spiritual Warfare Teachings.

Mike Hoggard has received other concerns, one entitled “MIKE HOGGARD KING JAMES BIBLE CODE,” which says:

I first wrote about Mike Hoggard and various problems that I saw with his teachings back in March (and I have continued to update it as I heard more things), and that article can be found at Bible Conundrums and Controversy, but I decided that if I were going to be somewhat thorough, I had to take a closer look at Mike Hoggard’s King James Bible Code that he has created. Below I am going to put some of his quotes from his book, as well as some of his examples and show some of the problems. I will start by letting Hoggard tell you himself what this Bible Code is all about.

“If I had to describe the King James Code in a nutshell, I would do it this way. The King James Bible contains a system of numbers that are consistently linked with words or phrases in the scriptures. It is understood that the Bible can be comprehended on many levels. The more you study the Scriptures and become accustomed to them, the more you understand the Divine symbols of certain passages that you never saw before. These must always come as a product of Divine Revelation.”

The first issue that becomes clear is that this approach does not come from careful exegesis of the Word, through laying precept upon precept, but is presented as a product of Divine Revelation that cannot be had unless God grants you a special dispensation. While it’s true that the Bible is spiritually discerned (meaning that those who do not know the Lord as their personal Saviour cannot understand the deeper spiritual applications of the Word), the idea that only certain Christians will have access to this “special knowledge” is not supported in Scripture. The Bible teaches that any believer, if they study diligently, should be able to understand God’s Word.

Additionally, a concern has been raised about ministries like Good Fight Ministries (GFM), led by Joe Schimmel, promoting teachings like Mike Hoggard’s, including his use of tarot cards and Bible codes. GFM’s continued endorsement of such teachers, despite their evident errors, not only misleads followers but also damages the credibility of the ministry itself. When ministries refuse to acknowledge their mistakes or correct their teachings, it reflects poorly on their commitment to biblical truth.

Promoting such deceptive practices—whether through Bible codes or occult methods—can lead believers down a dangerous path. As the Bible clearly warns, we are to stay far from occult practices and false teachings (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). GFM’s promotion of such teachings brings them into disrepute and raises red flags about their commitment to sound doctrine.

As Christians, we are called to test everything against Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and any teacher or ministry that does not align with the full counsel of God’s Word should be approached with great caution.

Kirk Cameron: (please click on the blue links for source reference) Joe Schimmel in the past shared platforms with Kirk Cameron and Neo-Calvinist Francis Chan on May 6th 2006, Schimmel has featured Kirk Cameron on his website, who is an ecumenist Lordship Salvation promoter and supporters of the liberal and pro-abortionist organisation such as the Salvation Army along with an Ecumenist and compromise TBN host Kirk Cameron, who had involvement with Glenn Beck who is a Mormon, Kirk has not even spoken against Glenn’s Mormon Beliefs but received Glenn Becks seal of approval as well as inviting a former evangelical pastor who converted to Roman Catholicism to TBN to make the case for Santa Claus as Cameron promotes his new film “Saving Christmas,” which seeks to convince Christians who choose not to celebrate the holiday, he has even urged Christians to celebrate Halloween.

Ray Comfort: 

Joel Schimmel is a long-standing supporter of Ray Comfort, as evidenced by his appearances in Good Fight Ministries’ video trailer “Left Behind or Led Astray” and on their links page. Ray Comfort has endorsed Joe Schimmel and considers him a friend. Comfort is known for promoting the heretical doctrine of Lordship Salvation, teaching that “merely being sorry for your sins or confessing them to God won’t help you. You must turn from sin (repent).”

SOURCE: LIVING WATERS Ministry, Save Yourself Some Pain
http://www.livingwaters.com/save-yourself-some-pain

Comfort also misinterprets Matthew 7:21-23 to support his Lordship Salvation heresy, distorting the Scriptures. In The Evidence Bible, Comfort comments on Matthew 7:22-23, stating:

“These are perhaps the most frightening verses in the Bible. Vast multitudes of professing Christians fit into the category spoken of here. They call Jesus ‘Lord,’ but they practice lawlessness. They profess faith in Jesus but have no regard for divine law. They lie, steal, and commit adultery at heart, and will be cast from the gates of heaven into the jaws of hell.”

SOURCE: The Evidence Bible by Ray Comfort, p. 1197 (2003, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Orlando, Florida)

Comfort’s interpretation suggests that anyone living in deliberate sin will be excluded from heaven, implying works-based salvation. However, the correct understanding of Matthew 7:21-23 must include verse 21, which clarifies that entry into the kingdom of heaven is based on doing the will of the Father. The “will of the Father” is explained in John 6:40 as believing in the Son for everlasting life.

The group in Matthew 7:21-23 are unsaved because they rejected God’s will regarding salvation, not because they still struggled with personal sin. Every believer continues to sin, but that does not disqualify them from salvation. Ray Comfort’s misinterpretation of Scripture is harmful, leading followers astray with his false teachings.

Billy Graham popularised the doctrine of Lordship Salvation, often stating that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned, no matter what we do. Unfortunately, Graham’s authoritative persona rather than the Holy Spirit seems to influence audiences. If we compare his teachings to an unreliable GPS giving confusing and contradictory directions, it highlights the confusion in understanding salvation according to his doctrine.

Lordship Salvation (LS) teaches that to be saved, one must not only receive Christ as Saviour but also make Him the absolute Lord and Master of one’s life. This doctrine has no scriptural foundation and is a subtle attempt by Satan to add works to salvation, convincing believers that their actions must align perfectly with Christ’s lordship for them to be truly saved.

Distinctions of Lordship Salvation:

1. Faith and Repentance: Lordship Salvation teaches that genuine faith is inseparable from repentance, a turning from sin, which is not a human work but a divine grace. In contrast, easy-believism holds that repentance is merely a synonym for faith, with no requirement to turn from sin.
2. Salvation by God’s Work Alone: Salvation is solely the work of God. Even faith is a gift from God, not a work of man. Lordship Salvation teaches that true faith endures and cannot be lost, while easy-believism allows for the possibility of losing salvation.
3. The Object of Faith: True faith is not just intellectual assent to a set of facts but personal commitment to Christ Himself. Those who have genuine faith follow Christ and live in obedience.
4. A Changed Life: Real faith produces a transformed life. Those with genuine faith will live according to God’s Word, do good works, and continue in the faith, while easy-believism suggests that spiritual fruit may be invisible and that a Christian can live in a state of spiritual barrenness.
5. Eternal Life: God’s gift of eternal life includes both the judicial aspects of salvation and practical sanctification. Lordship Salvation teaches that sanctification is an ongoing process, while easy-believism treats sanctification as something secondary to salvation.
6. Unconditional Surrender to Christ: Salvation requires submission to Christ’s lordship. Those who truly believe will love and obey Christ, but easy-believism separates submission from salvation, reducing faith to intellectual agreement with the gospel.
7. Love for Christ: True believers will love Christ and obey Him, while easy-believism permits lifelong carnality without questioning one’s salvation.
8. Obedience as Evidence of Faith: Genuine obedience demonstrates that faith is real, but easy-believism allows disobedience and prolonged sin without challenging the reality of faith.
9. Perseverance in the Faith: Those who are truly saved will persevere in the faith. Turning away from the Lord is evidence that one was never truly saved, contrary to easy-believism which suggests that one can forsake Christ and still be saved.

Lordship Salvation, though seemingly biblical on the surface, often leads to self-righteous judgment of weak believers. It leaves many under condemnation for failing to live up to a standard of sinless perfection that the doctrine implies. This divisive doctrine also leads to the exclusion of those who do not subscribe to it.

While proponents of LS deny that they teach a works-based salvation, their emphasis on works as a sign of true faith suggests otherwise. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, as Scripture teaches. We are justified by faith, not by works.

In conclusion, Ray Comfort’s association with Lordship Salvation and his compromises with ecumenical groups raise serious questions about the teachings he promotes. His alliances with false teachers and liberal organisations further cast doubt on his credibility and the integrity of ministries like Moriel and Good Fight Ministries that endorse him. One must carefully consider whether these ministries are overlooking critical details about those they support and partner with.

1. Ravi Zacharias and the Ordination of Women

One of the more controversial aspects of Ravi Zacharias’ ministry involves his endorsement of women in roles that, according to some interpretations of scripture, are not appropriate. The ordination of women as elders, as seen with figures such as Margaret Manning and Jill Carattini, is presented as a direct violation of biblical teaching. The scripture most commonly cited in this argument comes from passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Proponents of this view believe that the role of an elder or overseer in the church should be reserved for men, based on this and other scriptures that seem to designate church leadership as a male responsibility.

Critics argue that by endorsing such practices, Zacharias is promoting a departure from traditional biblical doctrine. Furthermore, the fact that figures like Manning and Carattini are involved in teaching and leadership roles within the church raises concerns about their theological positions, particularly if they align with teachings that diverge from scripture. Manning’s role in advocating for Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) further complicates the issue, as it suggests a possible blending of Christian teachings with practices that some consider spiritually dangerous or unbiblical.

2. Contemplative Spirituality and Henri Nouwen

One of the more striking elements of the criticism of Ravi Zacharias is his admiration for Henri Nouwen, a Catholic priest and prominent figure in the contemplative spirituality movement. Contemplative prayer, which often involves silent meditation or the repetition of a sacred word or phrase, is seen by many as a form of mysticism rather than traditional Christian prayer. This practice, often associated with Eastern spirituality, has gained traction in certain Christian circles, but many are wary of its potential to lead believers into unbiblical practices.

Nouwen himself has been critiqued for his universalist theology. His belief that all people, regardless of their knowledge or acceptance of Jesus Christ, could still find their way to God is a significant point of contention. In a quote from Nouwen just before his death, he states, “Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not.” This statement stands in stark opposition to the gospel as outlined in John 14:6, where Jesus declares, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The article criticises Zacharias for endorsing a figure like Nouwen, whose theological views, in the opinion of the writer, compromise the exclusivity of Christ’s role in salvation. By calling Nouwen “one of the greatest Christian saints,” Zacharias appears to be endorsing not just his personal spirituality, but also his theological views, which critics argue are not in line with biblical orthodoxy.

3. The Endorsement of False Teachers: Joyce Meyer

Another example of Ravi Zacharias’ questionable associations is his praise of Joyce Meyer, a leader in the Word of Faith movement. The Word of Faith movement is known for its prosperity gospel teachings, which argue that God rewards faith with material wealth and success. This teaching is widely criticised by those who argue that it distorts the gospel for personal gain and misrepresents God’s will for His followers.

Joyce Meyer has been accused of teaching heretical doctrines, including the idea that Christians can speak things into existence (also known as the “name it and claim it” doctrine) and that Jesus’ death was not sufficient for believers, but that He had to go to hell to complete the work of salvation. Critics of Meyer argue that her teachings deviate from the clear gospel message, and her prosperity gospel undermines the biblical teaching of suffering for the sake of Christ. When Ravi Zacharias publicly called Joyce Meyer “such a great Bible teacher,” many saw it as an endorsement of these unbiblical views.

Furthermore, the fact that Zacharias appeared on live television with Meyer, alongside Ray Comfort, raises further concerns. Comfort himself has been involved in several controversial situations regarding his own doctrinal stance, but his willingness to associate with Meyer indicates a lack of discernment regarding the dangers of false teaching. The blending of such figures—often linked with prosperity gospel and other non-biblical teachings—casts doubt on Zacharias’ theological clarity and commitment to guarding the truth of the gospel.

4. Nicky Gumbel and the Alpha Course: Ecumenism and Roman Catholicism

Perhaps one of the most troubling associations for critics is Zacharias’ praise of Nicky Gumbel, the vicar of Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB) and the architect of the Alpha Course. The Alpha Course is a popular introduction to Christianity used by churches around the world, and it has attracted a significant following within the Anglican Church and beyond. However, Alpha’s ecumenical nature—its openness to collaboration with the Roman Catholic Church—has raised concerns.

In interviews, Gumbel has openly stated that he has no problem with Catholics participating in the Alpha Course and has even been quoted as saying, “I love Catholics.” His approach to ecumenism, in which he downplays theological differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics, has alarmed those who believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines contrary to biblical Christianity. Specifically, the veneration of Mary, the doctrine of purgatory, and the Catholic understanding of salvation are seen as incompatible with the gospel as presented in the New Testament.

The fact that Ravi Zacharias has publicly praised Gumbel and the Alpha Course raises concerns about his own theological stance on ecumenism. By endorsing a course that so readily embraces Roman Catholicism, Zacharias appears to signal a willingness to downplay essential doctrinal differences in favour of broader unity. Critics argue that this undermines the call to stand firm in the truth of scripture and to separate from teachings that contradict the gospel.

5. The Broader Theological Context

At the heart of these critiques is the belief that Ravi Zacharias, despite his eloquent speeches and global influence, has compromised biblical truth by aligning himself with figures and movements that promote unbiblical or heretical doctrines. For many, the concern is not about personal attacks or disagreements but about the doctrinal integrity of the Christian faith. The criticism centres on the idea that when leaders in the Christian community endorse figures like Joyce Meyer, Henri Nouwen, or Nicky Gumbel, they are implicitly endorsing teachings that distort the gospel message.

By promoting figures who hold universalist views, reject the exclusivity of Christ, or advocate for practices outside of scripture, Zacharias, in the eyes of his critics, has blurred the lines between truth and error. This, they argue, presents a dangerous example for young Christians and undermines the purity of the faith.

1. Ray Comfort and Lordship Salvation

Lordship Salvation is a doctrine that teaches salvation is granted only to those who surrender to the lordship of Christ in every area of their life. This view goes beyond simple faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and places an emphasis on works as evidence of true salvation. Proponents of this view argue that genuine faith will manifest itself in a changed life with a consistent commitment to following Christ, which includes obedience to His commands.

Critics argue that this doctrine distorts the gospel by adding requirements that go beyond simple faith in Christ alone. In essence, it conflates salvation by grace through faith with a form of works-based salvation, which many believe contradicts the teachings of the apostle Paul. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that salvation is a gift from God, received through faith and not by works, lest anyone should boast.

Ray Comfort’s promotion of Lordship Salvation is seen by many as a departure from the simplicity of the gospel, leading to confusion about what constitutes true salvation. While Comfort is known for his commitment to evangelism, his views on salvation are considered problematic by those who maintain that faith alone is sufficient for justification before God.

2. John MacArthur’s Views on the Blood of Jesus

Another area where Ray Comfort’s associations have been criticised is in his connection with John MacArthur, particularly regarding MacArthur’s controversial statements on the atoning blood of Christ. MacArthur has been quoted as saying that the blood of Jesus is metaphorical, which many consider to be a rejection of the clear teaching of Scripture.

The New Testament repeatedly emphasises the importance of Christ’s literal blood in the atonement for sin. In 1 Peter 1:18-19, the apostle writes that we were “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” To argue that this blood is merely symbolic undermines the doctrine of atonement and the very core of the gospel message. Hebrews 9:22 also says, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness,” making it clear that the physical blood of Christ was integral to His sacrifice on the cross.

MacArthur’s assertion that the blood is only a metaphor for Jesus’ sacrifice and death raises serious theological concerns. Critics argue that this view diminishes the sufficiency of Christ’s literal sacrifice and distorts the atonement’s true meaning. By accepting or promoting such views, Comfort is seen as compromising on key doctrines that are foundational to the Christian faith, especially concerning the nature of the atonement.

3. Ray Comfort’s Association with Prosperity Preachers and False Prophets

Ray Comfort’s involvement with individuals who have been widely labelled as false prophets or prosperity gospel preachers is another significant point of contention. Notably, Comfort has shared platforms with preachers such as John Avanzini, Jesse Duplantis, Mike Murdock, and Rod Parsley, who are all prominent figures in the Word of Faith movement.

The Word of Faith movement teaches that faith is a force that can be used to attain wealth, health, and success. This doctrine is in direct conflict with the biblical teaching on suffering, humility, and the understanding that God’s will is not always to make His followers prosperous in material terms. The movement is widely criticised for distorting the gospel to promote self-centered theology and for promoting a false view of wealth and prosperity as evidence of divine blessing.

Comfort’s willingness to associate with such figures has led many to question his discernment. The concern here is that by sharing platforms with these individuals, Comfort is lending credibility to their teachings and thereby compromising his own theological integrity. As a result, his message—while it may contain elements of truth—becomes tainted by his associations with those who espouse a different gospel.

4. Ecumenical Connections and Hypocrisy

Ray Comfort’s lack of discernment in ecumenism has also been a significant issue for many critics. Despite his vocal stance on certain theological matters, Comfort has been associated with figures like Pat Robertson, who is widely regarded as an ecumenist and holds beliefs that are incompatible with biblical Christianity. Robertson has been known for his attempts to bridge the gap between Protestants and Roman Catholics, even suggesting that there is little difference between the two groups when it comes to matters of salvation.

This ecumenical approach, which seeks unity at the cost of doctrinal purity, is seen as problematic by those who believe in biblical separation from false doctrine. The Bible clearly commands Christians to avoid fellowship with those who teach a false gospel (2 Corinthians 6:14-18), but Comfort’s associations with individuals like Pat Robertson suggest a willingness to compromise these biblical commands in the name of unity.

The quote Comfort referenced from Charles Spurgeon on discernment further highlights the hypocrisy of his actions. Spurgeon famously said, “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.” Comfort’s associations with individuals and movements that are “almost right” (but ultimately wrong) suggest a lack of true discernment, leading some to question whether he is faithfully applying Spurgeon’s principle in his own ministry.

5. The Discrepancy Between Ray Comfort’s Teachings and Actions

The glaring contradiction between Ray Comfort’s stated principles and his actions is perhaps the most troubling aspect of his ministry. While Comfort often speaks out against false doctrine, he is compromising his own position by continuing to endorse and associate with figures whose teachings deviate from biblical truth.

It is easy to criticise the false teachings of others from a distance, but the real test comes when one’s own associations are scrutinised. Comfort’s failure to apply the biblical standards of discernment to his relationships with figures like MacArthur, Robertson, and the prosperity preachers undermines his credibility as a teacher and preacher of God’s Word.

Ray Comfort Says “For our partnership with the Salvation Army.”

Published on 7 May 2012 Ray Comfort & Stuart Scott are in Hollywood with The Salvation Army open-air preaching on the corner of Hollywood and Vine.

Director/UK Apologetics Library 2025

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS | More