Francis Chan: Furthering Apostasy and Promoting Doctrinal Heresy
Francis Chan, once an evangelical preacher, has now embraced Roman Catholic doctrine, furthering the apostate agenda and promoting doctrinal error. Years ago, I warned against Chan’s increasing alignment with Catholic mysticism, Gnostic practices, and monastic teachers. Now, his acceptance of Roman Catholic dogma, including its teachings on the Hypostatic Union, confirms his departure from biblical truth.
Looking back, signs of his compromise were already evident. As early as Together 2016 in New York, Chan was advocating for unity with the Roman Catholic Church, participating in an event that sought to blur the theological distinctions between Protestant evangelicals and Rome. This movement was not about genuine biblical revival but rather an ecumenical effort to erode the doctrinal foundations of the Reformation and bring evangelicals under Rome’s influence.
This event featured numerous prominent figures in contemporary Christian music and evangelical leadership, including Hillsong United, Kari Jobe, Lecrae, Passion, Crowder, Kirk Franklin, Ravi Zacharias, Jeremy Camp, Andy Mineo, Michael W. Smith, Lauren Daigle, Christine Caine, Mark Batterson, Tony Evans, Matthew West, Jo Saxton, Mike Kelsey, Casting Crowns, John K. Jenkins Sr., Josh McDowell, Luis Palau, Tasha Cobbs, Lacey Sturm, Trip Lee, Samuel Rodriguez, Jennie Allen, Christine D’Clario, Matt Maher (a devout Roman Catholic), Sammy Wanyonyi, Lindsey Nobles, and others.
Most notably, Chan celebrated the participation of Roman Catholic leadership, including Pope Francis, alongside Southern Baptists, Hispanic organisations, and African-American churches. This reveals his willingness to set aside vital theological distinctions for the sake of superficial unity—something Scripture repeatedly warns against (2 Corinthians 6:14-17, Galatians 1:6-9).
Chan’s trajectory mirrors the broader ecumenical agenda that seeks to undo the work of the Reformation, rejecting the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). By aligning with Rome, he is leading countless believers away from the true gospel and into a system that, at its core, denies the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work on the cross.
This is not mere theological error—it is an abandonment of biblical truth. Those who still follow Francis Chan must recognise the gravity of his departure and the spiritual danger of embracing Roman Catholicism’s false teachings. The call for unity at the expense of doctrine is a deception that ultimately serves the Counter-Reformation agenda, which aims to bring evangelicals back under Rome’s authority.
Rather than following men who compromise truth, we must stand firm on Scripture, contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
The purpose of the event was centred around the following vision: “As we were planning this vision, the prayer was always: ‘We want to have the largest Jesus gathering in America’s history.’”
I have previously warned that such movements could lead to an insurgency, shifting people away from the authority of Scripture and promoting traditions that diverge from the Bible’s teachings. This journey often leads many evangelicals towards Roman Catholicism. The ultimate aim is to encourage acceptance of the Catholic Eucharist, which is central to the Roman Catholic faith, and anyone opposing this is frequently marginalised, labelled an extremist, or accused of committing idolatry.
This has resulted in individuals like Francis Chan, who has accepted the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This only supports my argument that evangelicalism today is dangerously misguided, as at its core is corruption from those seeking positions as pastors and church leaders of various types.
In a recent statement, Francis Chan declared, “I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years everyone saw Communion as the literal body and blood of Christ.” This is historically inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding about the Mass, a teaching that was not accepted until Pope Julian I, and was reinforced by the Roman Catholic Church Fathers—not the Early Church Fathers. His attempt to cherry-pick support for the Roman Catholic dogma of the Eucharist ignores the historical truth. For more details on the history of the Eucharist, refer to my article on Transubstantiation.
Francis Chan seems to have forgotten how the Roman Church treated dissenters and heretics, often condemning them to death by burning for rejecting the Eucharistic dogma and regarding Christ’s Last Supper as a symbolic memorial rather than a literal act.
A core issue arises when churches adopt socialist positions rooted in Karl Marx, instead of biblical principles. This emphasis on charitable works over sound doctrine results in a departure from the essential truths that bind us to Christ through His teachings in the Bible, not in the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. If our faith is subject to the Mass—the central tenet of Roman Catholicism—there can be no assurance of salvation. The biblical teaching of assurance is undermined, and we are left to accept all religious teachings as equally valid to the Bible itself.
I recently received an email attacking me personally without providing clear examples of any errors on my website, other than defending the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The email came from a dubious source, which I suspect was created solely to avoid an honest discussion. It read as follows:
Servant of Jesus
abcd@hotmail.com
5.173.144.9
Dear Sir or Madam,
Why do you claim to help people escape dangerous sects while promoting idolatrous names on your website? The mantra powering your site is nothing more than praise to Hare Krishna, a person (not God), and is also used by Masonic lodges and New Age movements. Is this carelessness or hypocrisy?
I have never promoted anything related to the Hare Krishna movement or Freemasonry, and such accusations are baseless. The charge of hypocrisy is contradictory within the same message.
The “About” section of my website clearly rejects ecumenism, multi-faith positions, and non-evangelical forms of Christianity, while also rejecting any doctrines that stray from biblical authority. Most conservative evangelicals would agree with this stance. However, it seems this person, likely a Roman Catholic, has taken offence at it, which can only be seen as a positive thing.
Further, this individual insists that if one is not obedient to the Roman Catholic Church, one is independent of the truth. They believe the Holy Spirit resides only within the Roman Catholic Church, where forgiveness comes solely through the sacrament of confession. However, this perspective is steeped in tradition, not biblical doctrine.
The passage they reference from John 20:23, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained,” is often misused. The context of this verse shows that Jesus was speaking to the disciples, but it is not about granting forgiveness through a priest. Rather, it shows that forgiveness was already accomplished by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and the priest cannot offer forgiveness that has already been granted by Jesus alone.
The individual’s further claim, drawing on the words of Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s exorcist, that Satan resides outside the Roman Catholic Church, is deeply troubling. Father Amorth may have made bold statements about the Devil’s presence in the Vatican, yet this same church continues to deceive many by holding them captive to its traditions.
The Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the sole institution established by Jesus Christ is simply not true. The church existed long before the Vatican ever did, as evidenced in the book of Acts. The idea that salvation is exclusively tied to one institution is false, and this type of teaching prevents people from realising the truth that salvation is only through faith in Christ alone, not by the works or merits of any religious system.
The body of Christ has always existed in many forms, with diverse doctrinal views, and still functions as one Church. Denominations may differ, but those born again are all part of the same body of Christ.
In conclusion, salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross. It is dangerous when anyone seeks to steal God’s glory by enslaving others in their religious systems, keeping them trapped indefinitely. If you are in a system that does not align with Scripture, I urge you to seek the truth and come to Christ, not through religious rites or works, but through faith in His finished work.
This critique of Roman Catholic doctrine is not an attack on the individual, but a call to return to the pure gospel, which is based solely on Scripture, not traditions or man-made systems.
The claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church founded by Christ is rooted in error. Christ established His Church, but it is a spiritual entity, not a hierarchical institution. This individual is not a servant of the Biblical Christ, but of the Roman Catholic Church.
We must remain vigilant against those who corrupt the gospel, like Francis Chan, and avoid giving heed to those who seek to deceive, whether knowingly or unknowingly. We are to follow Christ alone, through the teachings of Scripture, not through man-made doctrines or traditions.
Theological Errors in the Teachings of Francis Chan: A Biblical Critique
Francis Chan, a prominent contemporary Christian pastor and author, is widely known for his best-selling books such as Crazy Love and his influential ministry, We Are Church. His teachings have had a significant impact on Christian communities worldwide, particularly among those seeking a radical, passionate approach to following Christ. However, while Chan’s enthusiasm and emphasis on loving Jesus and living authentically are commendable, his theological positions, particularly in certain areas, raise significant concerns. This article seeks to examine Francis Chan’s teachings from a non-Calvinist theological perspective, critiquing his stance on salvation, the nature of the church, and spiritual authority, among other issues.
1. Salvation and the Nature of Faith
Chan’s teachings on salvation often emphasize the importance of a life radically transformed by Jesus, with the assumption that such transformation must be evident in behavior. While a changed life is certainly a biblical fruit of true conversion, Chan’s frequent emphasis on works can potentially obscure the gospel’s core message—that salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), not by works.
In his book Crazy Love, Chan frequently stresses the need for Christians to live radically for God, often suggesting that those who do not demonstrate significant signs of spiritual transformation might not be truly saved. This runs the risk of leaning towards a works-based salvation—a misunderstanding of the Apostle Paul’s clear teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9, where he affirms that salvation is a gift from God, not the result of human effort. Additionally, Chan’s tendency to point to visible evidence of salvation, such as radical life changes or outward behaviors, can create confusion and insecurity in the lives of Christians, potentially leading them to question their assurance of salvation.
2. Assurance of Salvation
The assurance of salvation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith and is a key element where Chan’s teachings are particularly concerning. Chan often emphasizes the necessity of living radically for Jesus, but his focus on the external evidence of faith may inadvertently undermine the believer’s assurance of salvation. The Bible presents a different view of salvation: one rooted in God’s promises, not in the fluctuating feelings or performances of the believer (John 10:28-30; 1 John 5:13).
While works and a transformed life are evidence of a genuine faith (James 2:14-26), they are not the foundation upon which salvation is built. The danger in Chan’s approach is that it leads believers to rely on their own performance and feelings to determine their salvation, rather than solely on the finished work of Christ. A more balanced approach, in line with Scripture, would emphasize that salvation is secured by faith in Christ alone, with works as evidence of a living faith, not a precondition for salvation.
3. The Church and Its Authority
Chan’s teachings on the church also raise concerns from a biblical perspective. In his book Letters to the Church, Chan advocates for a “radical” return to early Christian practices and suggests that much of modern church structure is a distortion of the biblical model. While the desire to reform the modern church and restore its biblical purity is noble, Chan’s radical approach to church structure could lead to unhealthy conclusions about the role of leaders and the congregation. He advocates for what he calls “house churches” and expresses dissatisfaction with traditional forms of church leadership, suggesting that leadership structures today often hinder the full expression of the body of Christ.
While there are certainly biblical criticisms to be made about the modern church and its practices, Chan’s solution, which seems to minimize traditional church authority in favor of informal house groups, may be equally problematic. A biblical understanding of church leadership, from a non-Calvinist standpoint, affirms the role of elders and pastors as shepherds and overseers who are responsible for teaching sound doctrine, leading, and protecting the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4). The apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) demonstrate the importance of biblical leadership and sound doctrine. While house churches can certainly be a valid expression of community, they must still be accountable to sound teaching and proper biblical leadership.
4. The Role of the Holy Spirit
Another area of concern in Chan’s teachings is his sometimes vague or unbiblical handling of the role of the Holy Spirit. Chan has emphasized the importance of being led by the Spirit, often encouraging believers to seek a powerful, emotional encounter with God through the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit does empower and transform believers, it is essential that any emphasis on the Spirit remain in alignment with Scripture.
From a non-Calvinist viewpoint, the role of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth (John 16:13), convict of sin (John 16:8), and empower them for service. However, Chan’s focus on seeking emotional experiences can sometimes overshadow the more ordinary but equally important roles of the Holy Spirit—such as illumination of the Scriptures, conviction, and sanctification. The Scriptures are clear that the Spirit’s work is not to exalt feelings or experiences above the Word of God but to point believers to Christ and bring them into deeper knowledge of the truth.
5. Prosperity and Theological Concerns
Though Chan does not explicitly endorse the prosperity gospel, certain aspects of his teachings inadvertently flirt with the idea that material blessings or radical sacrifice can somehow earn favor with God. This can be particularly dangerous when it leads believers to equate faithfulness with material success or the lack thereof. Scripture teaches that blessings come from God but warns against equating material wealth with spiritual success (Matthew 6:19-21; 1 Timothy 6:6-10). A biblical understanding of prosperity recognizes that believers are called to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13) and that true spiritual riches lie in knowing Christ, not in material gain.
6. The Call to Radical Discipleship
A final concern in Chan’s ministry is his call to radical discipleship. While the call to follow Jesus wholeheartedly is a central aspect of the gospel, there is a danger in presenting discipleship in such a way that it becomes a burden or a checklist to measure one’s salvation. The Bible does indeed call believers to count the cost and follow Jesus, even to the point of radical sacrifice (Luke 14:27-33), but the focus must always be on God’s grace. Radical discipleship should not be portrayed as an unattainable ideal, but as a response to the grace of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Titus 2:11-14).
Conclusion
Francis Chan’s teachings undoubtedly encourage many Christians to take their faith seriously, but they also present several theological concerns when examined in light of Scripture. From a non-Calvinist perspective, his emphasis on works, the radical nature of discipleship, and the apparent undermining of the believer’s assurance of salvation can lead to confusion and spiritual instability. While the desire to see the church purified and believers living authentically is commendable, it is essential that such teachings remain rooted in the biblical truths of salvation by grace through faith and the proper understanding of the church’s role in nurturing believers.
Christians must be cautious when engaging with teachings that emphasize radical external acts of faith as a measure of salvation. Instead, the Bible calls believers to a balanced, grace-filled approach to discipleship—one that emphasizes faith in Christ, the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, and the importance of sound doctrine in the life of the church.
Key Biblical Passages:
Matthew 6:19-21 – The dangers of seeking material wealth as a measure of spiritual success.
Ephesians 2:8-9 – Salvation is by grace through faith alone.
John 10:28-30 – Assurance of salvation is grounded in Christ’s work, not human effort.
1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 – The biblical qualifications for church leadership.
John 16:13 – The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding believers into truth.
Comprehensive Conclusion and Call to Action
Summary of Key Arguments
In examining Francis Chan’s theological shifts and his growing engagement with Catholic practices, it is clear that his teachings diverge from foundational Protestant doctrines. This article has critically evaluated his embrace of Transubstantiation and sacramental theology, highlighting the substantial theological differences between Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Eucharist. While Chan’s early ministry emphasized radical discipleship and biblical preaching, his more recent doctrinal positions raise serious concerns about his commitment to the gospel of grace alone.
- Transubstantiation and Sacramental Theology: Chan’s shift toward supporting the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, particularly the doctrine of Transubstantiation, represents a critical departure from the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic memorial of Christ’s body and blood. The Bible makes clear that the Eucharist is an act of remembrance, not a mystical transformation of the elements (Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The elevation of the Eucharist to a sacrament that confers grace upon the believer contradicts the sufficiency of Christ’s work and the biblical principle that salvation is not mediated through sacraments but through Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:24-28).
- Sola Scriptura and the Authority of Tradition: Another significant concern is Chan’s growing reliance on Catholic tradition alongside or even above Scripture. In embracing Roman Catholic practices and the authority of the Church’s teachings, Chan seems to undermine the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. The Protestant Reformation was built on the conviction that Scripture, as divinely inspired and sufficient, should guide the life of the believer, and that tradition, while valuable, must always be subject to Scripture. The shift toward elevating tradition risks leading believers into doctrinal error and a weakening of biblical authority.
- Works-Based Salvation: The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith and works presents a stark contrast to the biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone. In Catholicism, sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist are seen as necessary for the process of salvation. By endorsing these practices, Chan’s theology risks confusing the nature of salvation, leading people to believe that their relationship with God is mediated through sacraments and human efforts. The New Testament, however, teaches that salvation is a free gift of God, received solely by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 1:7). Any move away from this truth toward a sacramental, works-based system compromises the gospel and potentially leads individuals into spiritual bondage.
Final Exhortation to the Church
The church must stand firm in its commitment to biblical orthodoxy, especially in an age where theological compromise is increasingly tolerated in the name of unity. The pursuit of unity should never come at the expense of truth, particularly when core doctrines of the Christian faith are at stake. The Bible warns against the dangers of false teachers who distort the gospel and lead people astray (Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians 1:6-9). Francis Chan, though well-meaning in his desire for unity and revival, has made theological choices that warrant serious scrutiny.
In response to Chan’s teachings, the church must hold fast to the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and the sufficiency of Scripture alone. As believers, we are called to reject any teaching that undermines the clarity and purity of these doctrines. The Apostle Paul urges the church to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), and this means resisting any doctrine that threatens the integrity of the gospel message.
The Role of the Church in Discernment
Discernment is critical in today’s theological landscape. The church must be diligent in maintaining sound doctrine and protecting the flock from false teachings. This involves careful biblical study, prayerful engagement with Scripture, and a commitment to theological integrity. The body of Christ must be vigilant, as there is an ever-present danger of doctrinal shifts that lead away from the gospel.
As Francis Chan continues to influence the evangelical world, the church must respond not with condemnation but with a spirit of biblical correction and love. The call to engage with teachings critically does not negate the importance of unity within the body of Christ but affirms the need to preserve doctrinal purity for the sake of the gospel. It is vital that Christians are equipped to discern truth from error and that they stand firm on the teachings of Scripture.
The Necessity of Biblical Faithfulness
Ultimately, the most profound danger in Chan’s teachings is the potential to distort the gospel message itself. The Bible makes it clear that there is no other gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), and believers are warned against embracing a “different gospel” that is not truly gospel at all. The call for the church today is to remain anchored in the truth of God’s Word, to uphold the gospel as it has been revealed through Scripture, and to reject any teaching that veers from the central tenets of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
We must also remind ourselves that the gospel is not only a set of doctrinal beliefs but a message of freedom. To misrepresent the gospel by introducing a system of works-based salvation or a reliance on sacramental mediation is to undermine the power of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Salvation is a gift, freely given to all who trust in Christ’s finished work (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10). This is the good news that the church is called to proclaim, and it is the foundation upon which all Christian faith stands.
Conclusion: The Call to Uphold the Gospel
The church faces a critical juncture in the ongoing discussion about doctrinal purity and the preservation of the gospel. While Francis Chan’s influence on the church has been undeniably positive in many ways, particularly in his initial calls for radical discipleship and passionate faith, his recent theological shifts pose serious concerns. The embrace of Roman Catholic practices, particularly the sacramental view of the Eucharist, undermines core Protestant doctrines and threatens the gospel message itself.
It is incumbent upon the church to respond with clarity, conviction, and biblical faithfulness. We must hold fast to the doctrines of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and the authority of Scripture alone. The gospel message is not negotiable—it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). Let us, therefore, reject any teaching that diminishes or distorts the gospel and remain faithful to the truth that has been entrusted to us.
In the final analysis, the Christian faith is not a matter of works or rituals; it is a matter of grace. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, and the grace He offers are sufficient for all who believe. Let us guard this gospel with all diligence and be ever watchful against those who would seek to pervert it.
Updated by Miguel Hayworth 2025