False Teacher – Chuck Missler’s False Gospel Given On Coast to Coast AM

Chuck Missler last night was on Coast to Coast AM. He appeared to be a loving saved Christian, but then I noticed at one point where he was using Coast to Coast to preach, gave a typical Arminian gospel (which is a misleading one that leads people to Hell and makes them “twice a child of Hell as … you” to quote Jesus), which is “accept that Jesus died on a the cross for you” MINUS ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE YOU. As usual, Christian-hater and fundamentalist-hater George Noory, who hates to listen to Christian preaching, and who knows that most of his audience does too (and is successful because he twists, avoids, and marginalizes it, like Chuck Missler does), stopped his Christian guest short (Chuck) when Chuck was preach his version of the gospel. It is possible that Chuck was going to say after saying that you must accept the lord’s death, that you must also ask him for forgiveness, BUT Chuck had two hours to make that point and was not shy to take advantage of the show, and it’s a crucial part of the gospel, yet Chuck did not mention it. This is how Arminians are. Why? It’s because being that they believe that they have goodness in them, they have pride, pride that they can have eternal peace apart from God’s goodness produced by this goodness in them, so then, they believe that they don’t truly need God’s forgiveness for eternal peace or perfect peace, and they also believe in their own goodness so much, they can’t accept that God would hate anyone. They also no doubt to me believe that they don’t need God’s forgiveness, because, “God doesn’t hate anyone.” No doubt to me they also believe that God wouldn’t hate anyone, because he already took his anger out on Jesus (which if they believe, is truly twisted: because they are saying that God hated his own perfect Son, but not those who refuse to ask God to forgive them for disobeying him/being imperfect) or on the sins that Jesus suffered for (which would be nonsensical, because sins don’t feel pain, they are actions, not living, or “objects of wrath.”) They are also evil in that they can’t accept that God would even hate a person if they weren’t good. So for all those reasons, is why they stop short at “Jesus shed his blood on a cross for your sins” and some perhaps, won’t even mention that Jesus suffered, or will avoid it, because it’s “distasteful” to them or they can’t believe that God would deliberately make anyone suffer, or that Jesus needed to. Or, they may believe that Jesus volunteered to suffer, and therefore was punishing himself, not God, but because they don’t think the suffering was important, but rather the blood-shedding on a cross and for many, baptism (which many Arminians obsess on as being necessary for eternal peace). They also believe that they have a completely free will, which can’t be influenced (which is an insane belief since it goes against common sense). They believe this because they hate God and want to be his equal, which is why they call themselves “sovereign”, and so they also believe that God can’t destine anyone, avoid talking about the parts of the Bible that mention destiny, or miscontrue it as “election” (that God elects whom he will save because he saw in the future that they would do good), and hypocritically, though they acknowledge that God is sovereign, refuse to accept that God has the same “rights” they they believe he gave to them, that he can hate whom he wants to, and decide what the future of his life will be (which includes how the lives of others will be).

These teachings of theirs are contradictory, because they admit that they have disobeyed God, admit that it’s so bad in God’s eyes, admit that they must repent, and that sin angers God so much, that he punished his only begotten son, a perfect son, Jesus, who was also God, severely, and so severely that figuratively, God says that, “he became sin.” But despite that, Arminians repeatedly fail to say that we must ask God to forgive us. This explanation I have given, makes it clear that Arminians are prideful and self-righteous (and again, they admit that they are good apart from God, or can be).

And because of they refuse to acknowledge that they are evil, that they need God’s goodness done in them to be good, and Christ’s good life up to his sacrifice as an appeasement to God for our lack of a good life and none sacrifice and inability to sacrifice ourselves without it being never-ending, they refuse to accept what is logical and reject common sense, and so are prone to all kinds of other errors, and life all those who are unsaved, often make hypocritical compromises, which leads to them further contradicting their main beliefs.

Chuck also believes that all the saved Christians will be raptured into Heaven so that they don’t have to go through the tribulation, taking this verse out of context:

“in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.”

The context is made clear by Paul:

1Co 15:35 But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36 Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).
1Co 15:38 And God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but one kind of flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another of fish, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the glory of the heavenly is truly different, and that of the earthly different;
1Co 15:41 one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;
1Co 15:43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.
1Co 15:46 But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven.
1Co 15:48 Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones.
1Co 15:49 And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
1Co 15:50 And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed;
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

If you can’t tell what the context is: it’s the second resurrection. The first resurrection happens when Christ returns, destroys the anti-Christ, false prophet, beast, and hundreds of millions or billions of evil people, and reigns for a thousand years. That happens AFTER the tribulation, or completes it. Here is the reference in the Bible to this first resurrection: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.” – Revelation 20:6.

Chuck was also being a hypocrite when George Noory told him that he was concerned that Harold Camping’s false prophecies (or predictions or interpretations of the Bible about when the end of the world would be) would lead some to suicide, and Chuck said he was concerned that it would lead some to disbelieve the Bible and that atheists would use it to blaspheme God. Yet Chuck is doing little different by also giving a false timing for the rapture. What will all those Christians who go through the tribulation think, and how will they feel, without that stable goodness of God in them, when the anti-Christ bludgeons them and persecutes them, and Jesus doesn’t come to take them out of their worry or doesn’t affirm that their complacency is a good thing? Will the majority of them think, “Oh no, the Calvinists were right” or “The Baptists and Presbyterians were right?” No: they will “fall away” and “betray one another” and some or many will rationalize taking on the mark of the Beast because they can’t believe that God will have left them behind, and that as many of them believe I’m sure, the mark is really “a computer chip that is implanted into you”, and some will probably realize they were wrong, and out of greater hatred for God for not giving them there way, will take the mark in an attempt to harm God through such provocation. Some will probably disbelieve the Bible and commit suicide, seeing how bad the world gets or because of the severe persecution, and not having God in them to help to “not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28)

The Arminian’s Confusion Over The Will and Man’s Sovereignty

Many Christians and pseudo-Christians, like Mormons, are Arminians, or have Arminian-like beliefs. The Mormons no doubt have them because their founder, the narcissist sociopath Joseph Smith, knew of a major split between various Christians, that which was between those who believed in predestiny and those who believed that man was in control of his future and Joseph also believed that the U.S. Constitution, was divinely inspired, though it was really a creation of deists, perhaps influenced by what they learned from some Indian/Native American tradition or laws. The U.S. Constitution that mankind had “inalienable rights”. Inalienable means “Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” and repudiated in part, means, “reject as untrue”. And “right” in that context, means, “An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition, nature or God.” And the Deists believed that mankind had the right to liberty and to pursue a life of happiness. The Bible does teach that you have the option to attempt to have liberty, which means, “freedom from servitude, confinement or oppression” and to try to be happy, and that it is natural to be happy over certain things, but it doesn’t teach that liberty and happiness itself are something you will have in life, though it seems that most people get to experience being happy at least one time in their life, the exception being maybe babies that are born severely deformed or incomplete, or people who are always in severe physical pain. A confused person, like a narcissist might think that liberty and happiness was guaranteed to him by God and also a person who resents God’s authority and control over them, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise such people would obsess over their “rights”, and even turn them into major religious teachings like Arminus (the founder of Arminiasm) and Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith’s cult has their own fancy phrase for the will, calling it “free agency” in an attempt to make themselves sound wise and to distinguish themselves from other cults and the Christians (and which is a term that leads to further confusion). Joseph Smith even made his own attempted replacement or out-doing of the Bible, called “The Book of Mormon”, and stupidly included the words “rights” and “liberty”, repeatedly, and ended up sounding like a poor imitator of various speeches made by the “founding fathers”. The Book of Mormon ended up being littered with punctuation and grammar errors and major plagiarism from the Bible that he attempted to out-do. Joseph Smith also tried copying it’s literary style, and failed often due to his ignorance of Old English grammar. He even copied the italics in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, making it even more obvious that he wasn’t divinely inspired, but a forgetful and lazy idiot, and whose fatigue (caused by his making his long rambling work while sinning and desiring to sin), hindered him. And so again was fulfilled these verses: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) and “For the wisdom of this world is nonsense in God’s sight. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise with their own trickery’.”

As I’ve taught before, there is no conflict between “free will” and God destining everything he made. The confusion is over what “will” means and what it is, something which opinionators and God-haters keep misdefining. A will doesn’t mean “a thing which is free and makes choices freely without influence”, which is where the illogical term “free will” comes from. And if the will is free, then “free will” is a redundant phrase. But the will is a part of the human mind that makes choices, but choices which are influenced, and choices which aren’t always able to be fulfilled, and choices which God does not have to respect or love, if they are against what he says is good. And God can influence people perfectly, and doesn’t need to do so directly in all instances, for him to cause to happen what he wants to. He can get what he wants indirectly, in various ways. He designed the universe and gave it the direction he wanted, knowing what would happen, and what would happen when he permitted things and commanded things and directly intervened. So, he has pre-destined everything, and there is no getting around that. No scheme will change that, and no teaching will make it less true; God is sovereign, and his will never fails, and we are under his influence, in this universe, which belongs to him, not us.

Update: 5/20/2011, 11:20

George Noory has yet another Christian on named Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, who is also teaching the rapture is a non-judgment day event, who at 8:44 AM I just learned was most likely saved (I’ve been talking to her). She taught that the rapture happens after the tribulation as far as I can remember from the show, but I’m not sure. I’m trying to find out now.

Additional Information:

The Last Days Explained

Does the Bible Contradict Itself On Our Responsiblity for Our Actions and Free Will?

At 9:41 AM, I thought I had realized a new contradiction in the Bible (but it was actually brought up in the Bible itself over 2000 years ago in Romans 9:19). What I thought was: If God’s will is always done, than how can the Bible say we sin against him by going against his will? In other words, if whatever we choose to do was God’s will that we do so, how can we be sinning? Isn’t it like giving us permission to break his commands if he wills that we break them? Strangely and ironically I’ve not noticed any Free Will obsessed Christians (many of whom can be called Arminians) seeing this point as a contradiction. It reminds me of how atheists who oppose Christianity look for contradictions in the Bible, but because of their lack of concern for truth and opposition to truths that go against the will of their mind and desires of their heart, and so read the Bible in a shallow and sloppy way, don’t notice “contradictions” I can see. Also, some Free will obsessed Christians try to be knowledgeable about the Bible and understand it, but neglect having concern for the genuine truth about salvation and how it relates to free will, but these types of Bible-investigating Free will obsessed Christians, when they hear another Christian say that God’s will is always done, or that God forces creatures to do things that they don’t want to do, will become angry about that, and rather than reading the Bible carefully and noticing what might be contradictions in their beliefs or, like me, noticing what can appear to be contradictions in the Bible itself on that matter, are self-obsessed with justifying their beliefs, and so search for verses that “prove” them, and ignore ones that seem to them disprove them, or realizing that they do, but still ignoring them. And some, when a verse is shown to them that they cannot twist into a lie, will either stall (like studying the verse or pretending to be studying it) till the person who showed them that verse take their attention elsewhere, or will ignore that person, or say to them, “Well I believe the Bible has mistakes” or “contradictions”, which ironically when they say, is almost like making God the author of sin, which is an accusation they accuse Christians of accusing God of, who teach that God’s will is always done. In other words if a Free Willer hears a Christian say, “God’s will is always done,” they sometimes will accuse that Christian of teaching that God is the one who causes sin, who is responsible for it, and teaching that man doesn’t have to take responsibility for their sins. That may sound holy, reasonable and righteous for these Free Will Christians to say, but really they are either angry that someone has said something that is against their belief that God really isn’t God over them (because they hate being reminded that God is their highest master and punishes disobedience to his laws, but don’t realize it) and see, “God’s will is always done,” as false humility and so in their misunderstanding of it being false humility to teach such a thing, persecute those true Christians who teach it. Or, these Free Will Christians are instead jealous of Christians who teach such a thing, because it shows true humility and love for God (in combination with other obedient acts), and so it makes them look like false Christians, like liars and hypocrites, who instead of showing loving submission, are exposed as being self-centered and as being hostile towards God, and these Free will Christians will sometimes try to save face, and impulsively say in anger, basically say, “I’m more righteous than you you so called, ‘Christian’ because I take responsibility for my disobedience against God, but you blame him when you sin by saying, ‘His will is always done.'” And these Free will so called Christians, in their hatred, forget that we who say, “His will is always done,” also say, “His will be done,” which Jesus also commanded them to pray.

But back to what seems like a contradiction to me: If God’s will is always done, how can he accuse anyone of having sinned when they break one of his laws, or commandments? I may have heard this contradiction brought up around 1996 or 1997, on a radio network called Family Radio, but only remember hearing the response of the main host, Harold Camping, who gave a reply like, “There is God’s stated will and his unstated will,” and he was trying to say that we are to obey his stated laws, but not to try and go with his unstated will. Whether that was in response to what someone saw as a contradiction or who wanted clarity on the matter, I don’t remember, but that response wouldn’t to me, explain away the contradiction.

Here is a question that might clear up that there is no contradiction:

“If God willed a person to break a law he commanded them to obey justify or permit that person to break that law, or would they still be guilty of doing a disobedient act for breaking it?”

According to what the Bible implies, you would still be guilty. It clearly teaches God is in control of everything except the initial decision-making process of the mind, which makes a plan of action, a plan that can be as simple as, “I plan to drink this and not drink that,” but that God’s plans, even if they are against that person’s plans, will be what is done. So if someone plans to drink a glass of milk instead of water, but God has planned that they drink a glass of water, he will either make the milk unavailable, undesirable from it’s taste or smell, or prevent it from being accessed till the person drinks the water instead and/or he will change that person’s desires so that it causes them to change their mind/their plan.

In what seems to be rare instances to us who can’t see invisible things that go on, God will force a person to do what he wants them to do (there is even a figurative verse in which God almost directly says, “I will force you to drink this cup of wine”. The Bible seems to say that he uses angels to do such things, and in some cases one angel, and that that angel was actually Jesus, and not an angel at all. For example in the Bible, Israel would be about to be attacked by some other country, but God would stop the attack by putting fear overwhelming terror and confusion in the heart and mind of that army or turning it against some other army or immediately killing it somehow, like with a plague.

But, is there really a contradiction?: If God says, “Don’t hit any trees,” but wills that you do, even saying, “It is my will that you hit the trees in front of you,” and makes it so that you have such a strong desire to do so that you do hit them, have you done wrong by hitting those trees? Why would you not be guilty, or not have done wrong merely because God overwhelmed you with the desire to do wrong?

I think the difficulty for people in seeing that there is no contradiction may be due to the common problem in confusing the heart with the mind: God doesn’t change a person’s mind as in causing them to think, “I will disobey God by doing this,” and then somehow forces them to sin (and while writing that I remember the Bible even says that God doesn’t tempt anyone, but that they are lead astray by their own lusts), what he does is put them in a situation so that, just as I pointed out the Bible says, will commit a sin due to the lust in their heart, and the heart isn’t the mind, it isn’t the part that can commit a person to an act, that is what the mind does, and humans and other living things often if not most of the time (not including permanently forgiven Christians), let their mind commit to the decisions that their heart wants to commit to, but which can only do so through the mind, and the mind, unlike the heart, is able to analyze information and has instant access to it, whereas the heart is blind, which may have something to do with the saying, “Love is blind,” (and unfortunately, especially in these “last days”, the world justifies whatever it wants to do merely because that is what they have a love for, even if it’s abusing someone or themselves. So what people get confused over is thinking that God is forcing their mind to commit a sin, and therefore they are not guilty, but what happens is God manipulates their heart in some way, either directly, or by putting them in some situation where their heart will cause them to commit some sin. God also blinds the minds of people, that is prevents them from realizing certain information, and also puts them in situations so that they don’t or won’t have access to certain information, or puts them in situations where they have easy access to false information. But again, he does not force a person using their mind to commit a sin, because if he did, it wouldn’t be their will will that was acting, but him, suppressing it, like demons seem to do when they possess a person.

But if this is true, some might see a contradiction in what Calvinists (a type of Christian) teach, which is that no one can turn to God without God drawing them to Him, which Arminians (a kind of Christian that is in a way, opposite of Calvinists) take as meaning, “God forces the mind of a person to be sorry for offending him and to ask him for forgiveness to have eternal life one day.” But Calvinists don’t say force or imply it. John Calvin, hundreds of years ago, already made this clear in his short list of points on the condition of man and how God saves them, saying that God makes his grace (unearned love) “irresistible” to those that he wants to save, so that they will turn to him for eternal life (which means living in his presence forever with perfect obedience to his laws without any conflicts with Him). And irresistible in that a person’s HEART will cause their mind to change it’s view of God. But is that all God means by “draw”, just causing them to feel his love, or does it involve some sort of pulling, pushing or forcing against a person’s will, like as the evil anti-Calvinist Hank Hanegraaff might say, “what a rapist would do” (but which wouldn’t make God a rapist even if he were to do, since God’s love is not the “love” of a rapist, let alone a human one)? God does not say what he means exactly by draw, and in Strong’s Concordance it shows that the meaning of the word “draw” is similar to another Greek word, which means, “to take for oneself”. That word “draw” is also used in verse in which a Samaritan woman draws water from a well. So all that can be said that this drawing involves, is what I already mentioned the Bible teaches: manipulation of the heart, physical situational placement (which affect the physical senses of sight, smell, sound, touch, hearing, pain and pleasure) and information hiding and giving. Part of the confusion might also be due to the verse in which Jesus says to his disciples, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you…” (John 15:16) in which Jesus implies that he is talking about their choice to be saved and to do obey God (and also obey Him by showing only love for Him). Some who read that or hear a Calvinist say that might mistake that for meaning that God forces a person to choose, or negates their will and that they are then like a mindless computer, and there might even be some false Calvinists who teach that, or ones who mistakenly imply or teach that for a while or moment. But when Jesus said that he chose the disciples, he didn’t necessarily mean, “You don’t make choices, you are robots, you are mindless computers.”; he was in agreement with what this verse says:

“We love Him because He first loved us.” – 1 John 4:19

And I’m not ignoring a contradiction by merely saying, “Jesus agreed with this verse”, I know he was in agreement with that verse since one: Jesus said he spoke in riddles, and the Bible said he did this often, and his disciples even showed great relief according to one verse when he spoke plainly. And second, Jesus repeatedly said in various ways that man was responsible for his sins. But when it came to good deeds, Jesus made it clear that such “good” was only possible if God had love for that person, which you could say, is at least part of what 1 John 4:19 meant. Third, John, whichever one that wrote 1 John 4:19 (and it may have even been the same John that wrote John 15:16) was a Christian, and Christian means, “Christ-follower”, and John spoke as a Christian. No one argues that he did not, so it’s reasonable to say that John taught what Christ taught. So, again, I have no merely made the claim that Jesus wasn’t saying something insane, or contradicting himself.

I wish I could have made this explaination simpler and more clearer, but besides showing the world that neither I nor other Christians, or at least Calvinist Christians, are “one-sided” and are actually clearer on what could be seen as mistakes in the Bible, that for anyone who thought this was a contradiction, or might be, that there is no mistake there, and so no reason to not have faith in the Bible, or lose faith in it.free will paradox, free will contradiction, the Bible on free will, arminian vs calvinism, Arminianism vs Calvinism, Arminius vs Calvin, Arminians vs Calvinists, Calvin on free will, Arminius on free will, are we robots, are we computers, does free will exist, humanity and free will, what does the Bible say about free will, what the Bible says about free will, does God override free will, free will vs Calvinism, free will arguments, free will debate, free will discussion, free will subject, refutation of free will, refutation of Calvinism, refutation of Arminianism, refutation of Arminians, refutation of Calvinists, destiny and free will, destiny vs free will, contradictions in the Bible on free will, what did God say about free will, man’s free will vs