John Rich is a well known multi-platinum award winning American country song writer and performer, having spent his entire adult life in the entertainment industry in the country genre. Riches honky tonk music has always been of the country/rock n' roll genre (he clearly loves rock and roll evident by his affection of rock groups like Jon Bon Jovi), not God-honouring music, and rather quite the opposite (for instance, writing and singing songs such as "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy"). Rich boldly claims to be a professing Christian (boldly preaching to Carlson, and Jordan Peterson, and others), but appears to have never repented of or publicly rejected his ungodly country music, or shut the door to his ungodly alcohol binging establishment (Bar), or turned from his evil and destructive influence upon people with the whiskey that he personally branded and sells at his bar (and advertises publicly) and gives away at his home (source), among many other ungodly elements in his life. Consider the whiskey alone, that he brands and sells. How many homes and lives have not been utterly ravished and destroyed by the devils drink? Innumerable. In our article, Total Abstinence Society (of Alcohol) is the Only Remedy, we cover explicit and crucial reasons why alcohol should never be found in the company of Christians. Rich does not abstain but actually produces the devils drink, indulges in it, and then serves it to his neighbour, while God says, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also..." (Hab 2:15).
Rich appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Twitter (now X) show in the month preceding the 2024 Presidential election, also the reason for his appearance on the show, having been a strong Trump supporter since his appearance on Trumps "Apprentice" television show. John Rich left the mainstream music industry as he allegedly embraced Christ, but the music itself or the worldliness never actually left Rich. The said interview focuses on Riches song and music video “Revelation,” and the book of Revelation from the Bible. Carlson has expressed interest in studying the Bible and the subject of Revelation, another reason for the interview, though he is being corrupted from the truth by the prayer app Hallow (amongst other things), which he and his wife have been listening to a lot, which is a prayer app for Catholics, with Advent prayer meditation, but Catholicism with its ungodly and damnable doctrines is extremely heretical and leads to eternal damnation.
Before I was converted to Christ, I listened to John Riches country music. I am ashamed now of that affection to worldly and lustful things. Like Rich, I have always been a cowboy and love the salt of the earth hardworking country lifestyle, but country music and the ungodly, worldly lifestyle it comes with, is unBiblical and historically been so. I have no doubt he is a likeable guy and I would undoubtedly enjoy conversing with him, but many of the things he stated as gospel truth cannot be ignored for they are egregious, unscriptural and dangerous, and demands a public rebuttal. I believe one of his objectives was to be a witness to Tucker Carlson, in line with what he has also done on other shows such as Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, but I believe he failed spectacularly at this. Underlying seems to be a subtle shame of Christ (which would naturally be the case seeing his unholy, ungodly and unrighteous lifestyle, all of which runs in complete contradiction to the true grace of God and Biblical Christianity, Ti 2:11-13). Though Rich appears to have a visible zeal for what is right and good, the overall Bible illiteracy and mishandling and misuse of scripture and then the obvious hypocrisy (but apparently not obvious to him) was evident during the 1.5 hour interview. I am ashamed of him promoting God when he lives nothing like a true Christian. John is the son of Jim Rich, a pastor and evangelist for most of his life, presently pastoring Old Paths Mission Church in Tennessee. By the sounds of it, even as the name of his church suggests, the father would not and did not approve of his son’s worldly and unBiblical lifestyle (even asking John to leave their home) but as for what he believes now in contrast or similitude with his son, I cannot answer affirmably.
Rich gets some things right while completely in error in other areas, and the things he says and promotes tells me he is not getting his doctrine from scripture but from the writings of men who represent an admixture of beliefs and practices. By all appearances, he is obtaining his views and opinions from evangelical and reformed Calvinist books, such as John MacArthur and others. Based upon his beliefs as articulated in the interview, Bible version (ESV), and emphasis on certain doctrines and his spiritualizing of Scripture (corrupting God's method of literal interpretation), his misunderstanding of God's sovereignty, we believe he is almost entirely influenced by Reformed Theology and its many heresies that are running rampant through evangelicalism (which is already laden with heresies, damnable heresies, worldliness and false Christianity).
One of the biggest reasons apostasy has occurred and is occurring at a prolific rate is observed in this interview, which is a spiritual reason. Rich can talk doctrine (though much of it was corrupted and unsound), but the slide away from true doctrine comes because of a potent combination of spiritual issues that were displayed in this interview. It is a mixture of a carnality problem (the flesh), world problem, and love problem that reveals itself in a different mood and look to what is considered orthodox Christianity. Neo-evangelicals, contemporary professing Christians such as Rich have fought for its worldly, fleshly stuff, because it really loves itself and a lot of the world’s stuff, noted alone in the music that Rich creates and loves. At the same time, the world knows it doesn’t have to give up what it loves to be a “Christian.” And everything keeps moving to where the church is either with or just behind the world, putting up with things the world itself wouldn’t have accepted not long ago.
It is a serious matter to pervert the truths of Scripture and to not warn the people, thus the trumpet must blare lest I be guilty of transgressing the 9th commandment in concealing the truth or holding undue silence in this just cause (Rom 16:17; Ju 1:3; Lev 5:1; Ac 5:3, 8-9; 2 Tim 4:6), or holding my peace when error calls for reproof (Pr 24:23-25; 28:23; Ti 2:15; Lev 19:17) and complaint to others (Is 59:4; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:11), to preserve and promote the truth between men (Ze 8:16), to stand for the truth (Pr 31:8-9; Ju 1:3; 1 Cor 16:13; Ezk 3:17) and contend against corruption of God's Word (Ju 1:3; 2 Pet 2:1; Rom 16:17).
In a mostly chronological order in harmony with the interview, the most glaring issues related by Rich but not confined to Rich are explored in this case study on the apostasy of evangelicalism, reflecting a well travelled road to full blown apostasy.
Inspiration of Scripture, Authorship, History and ExtraBiblical Revelation.
1. Biblical Authorship and Inspiration and the Bibles Importance. On a few occasions the authorship of Revelation was asked by Carlson (though not disputed), and not ever at any point did Rich make it clear that the words penned by John or Paul or anyone else in scripture were actually the very words of God, fully inspired of Him and given to man by Him down to the jot and tittle. And this in light of the fact that Rich claims that God somehow spoke to him about writing a song, which would be considered extrabiblical revelation.
I believe there is a reason why Rich would leave out one of the most important doctrines of scripture, if not the most, which is that of the inspiration and preservation of Gods Word, and yes they go together. He does not hold to the King James Bible anymore (I believe his dad still does, and thus assume he would have grown up with the KJV; surprisingly he uses the KJV for the quote out of Rev 12:10-11 at the end of his music video "Revelation"), evident by his quoting from the ESV, which even further collaborates his journey into Reformed Calvinism. My guess is his doctrine in large part comes from the John MacArthur Study Bible, which is an ESV with MacArthur study notes. The ESV is bad and corrupt, the product of unbelief and Textual Criticism.
I do not believe that Rich believes God inspired Scripture. In his introduction to Revelation, Rich tells Carlson that,
"John was receiving visions and prophecies and he wrote down what he saw. And a lot of what he saw you gotta remember he only had his life experiences to kinda describe what it was he was seeing in these prophecies. . . . He is trying to describe it to us in the terms he was familiar with."
If Rich believed in the inspiration of Scripture, this is not what he would say. The writings of John were not confined to the intellect and experience of John. John did not write down what he experienced and then God labelling the articulation as inspiration. That is not how God inspired the words in His Word. What Rich appears to believe in, or very closely, is the ungodly liberal Intuition Theory of Inspiration, which is the theory that the Biblical writers had a natural endowment and were religious geniuses who produced highly elevated religious literature based merely upon their own intellect and experience. This is false.
The Bible gives several characteristics for the inspiration of Scripture, which set the parameter for the doctrine of inspiration. The Word of God is of Divine Origin. God, not man, is the source of the inspiration of Scripture. It originated with the will of God, not man’s will. The Holy Spirit’s moving on man is inexplicable (2 Pet 1:21) and mysterious. The result of inspiration is the autographa. Every single word down to the jot and tittle were given to the human author by God, breathed out by God, even as Scripture tells us:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim 3:15)
"Inspiration of God" is translated from the Greek theopneustos, which means to be divinely breathed by God or breathed out by God, which is the very physiological process of speaking. When God told John to write, John didn't have to rely on his own experiences and knowledge to know what to write down. God gave Him every word to jot onto paper or parchment. The authors of the Bible were Divinely guided. The Holy Spirit, God the Spirit, guided the writers of Scripture to remember the eyewitness accounts that He wanted inscripturated, and gave them words of things they did not know. Inspiration is the process whereby the Holy Spirit moved the holy men of God to write accurately, perfectly, to the jot and tittle, the product of which was the Word of God. This ended in the 1st century with the book of Revelation (Ju 1:3). That God inspired every word down to the jot and tittle doesn't mean God set aside the personalities, lives and experiences of the human writers. He did not merely use them as passive penman, like robots, which is the false Dictation Theory held to by some. The writings that God breathed out were in the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT), and some Aramaic (OT). Those were what He inspired.
The inspiration of God's Word extends to all of the words in God’s Word and is “verbal” (words) and "plenary" (all, full). Every word is inspired including nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, etc, in all portions of Scripture in the 66 books, including the historic, poetic, scientific, narrative, and doctrinal sections — all are equally inspired. Again, Paul emphatically states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16). The Psalmist states that “the words of the Lord are pure words” (Ps 12:6), emphasizing the words spoken by the Lord. Paul asserts the the Holy Spirit spoke in words to the writers, including himself (Col 2:13). God the Son promised that all His words will be the standard by which man will be judged (Jn 12:48-50). The Bible is replete with statements that the Lord used words to give special revelation, and also that the revelation of God's Word was complete with the book of Revelation. What John Rich claimes he received from God, was not from God. He is both self and demonically deceived.
The inspiration of God's Word is limited to the canonical books of the writers, and doesn’t extend to all of the writings of these writers. For instance, David penned numerous portions of the OT, as indicated in 2 Sam 23:1-2, yet not all of his writings were the divine manifestation of the Lord speaking through his tongue, as evidenced in his letter to Joab about the murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:14-15). The Holy Spirit did not inspire this ungodly letter by David, but He did inspire the recording of this letter. There are lies of the Devil in the Bible, which are the recorded inspired words of God, but obviously the Devil was not inspired of God (e.g. Gen. 3). Paul wrote a letter to the church at Laodicea (Col 4), but it wasn’t the product of the inspiration of God. Paul also wrote other epistles to the Corinthians besides the two in the Word of God (1 Cor 5:9), which would have been written pre-first canonical epistle, but it wasn’t inspired of God. To the porto-First Corinthians (non-canonical) the Corinthians responded with questions about the married state in the first inspired epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:1). Paul answered those questions in the first canonical inspired epistle. Consequently Paul wrote other epistles to the converts and churches, yet God only inspired and persevered Paul’s canonical epistles, the Pauline epistles. The autographa are inspired, not the writers of the autographa.
This is the doctrine of inspiration and its critical in the acknowledgment of the inspired, inerrant, infallible and preserved words of God, which is embraced and truly believed by every single true born again believer. Those that don't are false "believers." Counterfeits. Rejectors of God's Word and absolute truth. You cannot claim to be a Christian while rejecting the words that Christ gave.
The importance of Scripture was regularly undermined, and towards the end, dangerously omitted at a critical juncture. Carlson asks Rich how someone can have discernment and not be deceived, since there are so many diverse and opposing voices in the world today, most of which are readily available at one's fingertips. The answer Rich gives is extremely concerning: "Prayer" (which concurred with Carlsons rhetorical and concomitant reply). Prayer is important obviously, but Scripture is the golden standard. Everything must be measured by the yardstick of God's Word, and that also requires a true and proper Biblical text, a crucial subject covered in this article.
2. ExtraBiblical Revelation. When Carlson asks him how it came about that he decided to write a song about the book of Revelation, "a book of the Bible which most Christian creatures don't want to talk about," Rich answered without hesitation:
"I did not decide to write this song. Because first of all, how do you sing whats in Revelation? . . . Last November I'm at my house in Nashville, I wasn't thinking about writing a song, and out of nowhere it felt like a hammer hit me in the back of the head, boom like that, like what is going on, what's this feeling, and this melody, and these lyrics, 'oh revelation, I can feel it coming, like a dark train running, oh get ready, the King is coming, the King is coming back again,' popped into his head, "and I said, 'ok I hear ya, grabbed my guitar of the wall . . . in about sixty minutes the entire song had come out." He says he was listening to what he had just recorded "over and over and the hair was raising up on my arm."
When Carlson asks whether this is a normal process for him in writing songs, Rich answers,
"No, the only other song I ever wrote was a song called Earth to God, that I wrote a few years ago. That was the same experience, with that, but this one was more intense than that. You know when He hits ya you know it, you cannot mistake when the Lord slaps you upside the head with something, you have a physical reaction to it. I did. It doesn't happen very often, its a very rare occurrence. but when it happens . . . this message is beyond [the normal song writing process] and it is incredible that it hit me when it did this period of time."
Carlson then asks,
"So you felt like you were channeling this?"
This is New Age language ("channeling"), which we know Carlson is exposed to through various means including the prayer app him and his wife listen to ("..."), but Rich never opposes what Carlson says, and rather concurs,
"I felt like he was slamming it right through me. . . . the hairs raising up on my arm, I remember looking out the window and looking up, I said, 'what do you want me to do with this, what do you want me to do? And the message I felt coming back to me was, 'take it all the way to the matt.' Thats the phrase that hit me, meaning make the audio as great as you can with the skillset, make the video as compelling as you possibly can, and when you get those things done, tell as many people as you can. Slam it out there with no fear as hard as you possibly can and let this thing be heard. That is your job, go do it."
Carlson interjects at this point,
"You are describing a creative process, where you are [chuckling] not driving the train at all."
Rich:
"At all. No, no, I didn't come up with this song. . . . I was given instructions as to what to do with it."
Who gave Rich instructions to do this? He says he didn't come up with the song on his own or what he should do with it. Well, it wasn't God either, that much we know. When discussing the popularity of the song placing somewhere high on secular music charts, to Carlsons amazement, with no "music machine" behind it and only a twitter (x) post and a few sentences about the song bringing "courage to the saved, conviction to the lost and fear to the wicked," Rich shrugs and states,
"It's got the bosses hand on it. He gave it to me. He told me to write it, so I did. He told me to go put it out there, so I did, it's on Him now."
In another place of the interview he states,
"Man, if he is going to hit me with this song, and trust me it makes me nervous . . . if he is going to task me with that."
Carlson,
"So you've basically have said you didn't write this song, the song came through you."
Rich:
"Thats correct. That may sound some kinda weird thing for people to hear, but that is exactly what happened. I am not capable of writing lyrics like that, first of all they are not really lyrics, they come right off the pages of the book man, I just made them rhyme."
God didn't give it to him. Period. God's hand wasn't on it. He didn't hit Rich with this song. God did not inspire this song, period. Rich is dreaming of something fictitious and mythical and is terribly deceived. God also doesn't glorify in sacrilegious sanctimonious acts of "piety." To say that Rich got words breathed out or given by God would be to say that God breathed out new Words after the completion of the canon (in contradiction to Rev 22:18-19). That is false bibliology. Scripture doesn't say that and it's always false teachers that claim extraBiblical revelation.
Later in the interview Rich claimed that the timing of the song "Revelation" given to him by God was not coincidental. He says it's timing was inline with what would occur to Donald Trump a few days later (the first assassination attempt) and with the trending "spiritual warfare" online, amongst other things. If this were true, then John Rich is receiving extraBiblical revelation, but since the canonization of God's Word is complete, John Rich is a false prophet.
Its very telling that Rich asks the rhetorical question,
"What are we supposed to be doing in response to that? Just yell at it, scream at it, disgusted by it? You can do all those things, but you must take action."
This is quite the statement to make for someone that alleges to be a Christian. He doesn't know what the believers response is to the evil of the world?!? Wow. And this in spite of quoting Eph 6 immediately after this, which speaks of battling spiritual warfare with spiritual weaponry, passages that appear meaningless to Rich. Basic Christianity 101 very clearly tells us the right and true response, that which will actually change the lives of an audience, even if most reject the message. The rejection really doesn't matter as God's way is always the best and only true way, and faithfulness is not predicated upon another persons response. In no particular order, at least these things you can do: (i) Preaching the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to every creature at every opportunity, which is "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom 1:16), and thus the only "channel" of permanent change to the lives of people and glorifying God. (ii) Judge the wicked by reproving their wickedness by the Word of God: "These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them." (Pr 24:23-25). (iii) Fight spiritual warfare with spiritual weaponry, and not with the carnal weaponry advocated by Rich: truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, the Word of God, prayer and boldness (Eph 6:10-19). (iv) Separating from the world, from the culture of the world, from the idolatry of sports and entertainment, from false worldly "Christians," just as Scripture commands and demands, and truly saved people do, since it occurred at salvation:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor 6:14-18).
3. Skewed History. Carlson asks Rich why it is that Revelation is so hard to read, grasp and understand, to which he responds:
"So for thousands of years the prophecies in Revelation, and Daniel and in other places seemed like such science fiction to people, they couldn't understand how these things could even be possible, including my own Dad whose been preaching since he was about 19 . . . He said yea John I could never see how these things were possible, for instance the mark of the beast . . ."
I do not believe this to be true at all. This testimony of Revelation seeming like science fiction might be true in the world of harlot churches of the great whore, which are neo-evangelical, protestant, reformed calvinist, and other contemporary bastions of heresy and worldliness, where truth appears to be more of an enigma than a reality, but it certainly hasn't been true in the world of true churches which has been reflected in the Baptists/ Anabaptists, the true stream of persecuted, weak, humble, doctrinally sound churches that have existed alongside the massive mustard tree with its countless branches loaded with demonic birdies.
Men that I have read and heard of from the last five centuries and beyond have fully believed in the prophecies of Revelation, Daniel, and all other places of Scripture, even if they couldn't fully understand or comprehend how some of these things would come to pass, such as the Antichrist ruling the world with the mark of his beast or other prophecies (not mentioned by Rich), such as, how could all people in the world visually witness in real time (Rev 11:9) the two preachers/prophets of God that preached in Jerusalem during the seven year Great Tribulation and subsequently killed by the beast (Rev 11:1-10)? Whether it's comprehensible or not, it is true, not science fiction, and will certainly come to pass because the Word of God is absolute, infallible and inerrant truth in every word, jot and tittle.
The Mark of the Beast Allegoricalized.
One of the major causes of apostasy is denying the absolutivity and sole necessity of Scripture as truth, doctrine and Christian living. False professors are not content with God's Word, so they look for extraBiblical revelation, 'God speaking to them,' 'God giving them a vision or dream,' 'God giving them a song to write', etc. These are looking for signs, an indicator of an evil and adulterous generation, not a regenerate people. These same people will almost always, if not always, spiritualize or allegoricalize the Word of God, given it some convoluted meaning without contextual or rightly-divided Scriptural support. Rich does that with the mark of the beast.
He allegoricalized the mark of the beast, creating great confusion for anyone that has ever heard of or read the subject in Revelation:
"It says you won't be able to buy or sell unless you have the mark of the beast. You can replace the word beast with system. . . . When you go back and look that up in the Hebrew, it's talking about the global power thats in place at that point, the system thats in place."
Carlson asks, "What is the beast?"
"The beast is whatever entity, a group of nations it speaks of, that will set into motion, we always talk about the globalists, and the globalist agenda and all these things, it will be a globalized stranglehold on the population . . ."
There will be a global power in place, but that is not the mark of the beast; that is the Antichrist system that actually brings in the mark of the beast. The "beast" is a literal person, one of the three persons of Satan's unholy trinity (the other two being the Antichrist and the false prophet), not some world system or "group of nations", which would be an allegoricalization of these passages. The Bible describes two beasts in Rev 13, the second (vv. 11-18) of which is the False Prophet (Rev 19:20; 20:10), and both are listed in Rev 16:13. The second beast, the false prophet, causes the world to worship the first beast. The "mark" of the beast will be a literal mark in the forehead or hand which without you will not buy or sell, that reflects the beast, a literal individual and member of the Satanic trinity.
When the Apostle John penned the words of Rev 13 and 14, two chapters that highlight the works of the Antichrist in the Great Tribulation, he did not leave the reader without a literal understanding. At no point is anything in Revelation, or elsewhere in Scripture for that matter, to be spiritualized or allegoricalized except if the context clearly indicates otherwise for that to be the case. And in the few instances where this does occur, the context very clearly describes the literal explanation of the allegory. Case in point, the two olive trees, two candle sticks standing in Jerusalem and preaching for the first half, 3.5 yrs, of the 70th week of Daniel, in Rev 11. Though they are called two olive trees and two candlesticks, they are described as two literal men who literally preach and prophesy in Jerusalem and are literally killed by the literal Antichrist's literal beast at the mid point of the literal seven year Great Tribulation, aka., The 70th Week of Daniel, and then literally taken up, raptured, to heaven, all of which is the literal fulfillment of the allegory prophesied in Zec 4, of "the two olive trees, and the two candle sticks standing before the God of the earth." (Rev 11:4).
The spiritualization didn't end there. Later in the interview Rich allegoricalizes what happened to Trump in the first assassination attempt, wondering whether "this near death experience might be an analogy of what is about to happen to the United States of America." Its not. This is extraBiblical revelation. God's plans and purposes are not based around America, though He has blessed the nation greatly, and the rest of the world through America. But its not any sort of prophetic fulfilment, nor is it found anywhere in Scripture. Rich is however correct on his comments about God's wrath on America due to the blasphemous and wicked things that have come out of her. This is true but its true of any Gentile nation that rebels against God's Word and truth and turns away from Him.
I have no doubt that Rich spends considerable time spiritualizing Scripture, beyond what was briefly stated in the interview, which is the eisegetical and disgraceful nightmarish doctrine of allegoricalism, a corrupted practice of interpreting Scripture, and its exceedingly dangerous, producing confusion, contradiction, disgrace, and false doctrine. This is a form of interpretation of Scripture that does not take scripture literally and that does not glorify God, nor does it derive from the Spirit of God, Who is the Teacher of Truth (1 Jn 2:20-21, 27). It’s a rejection of the plain meaning of the text for some convoluted symbolic interpretation or highly subjective spiritualized meaning that doesn’t even exist in the text, context or elsewhere in Scripture. The principles of sound hermeneutics are abandoned and another explanation is given, a “deeper” or more “spiritual” or “hidden” one supposedly, without concern over the objective truth of the text, object or number.
This is a literary device and a narration of Scripture in which events, actions, characters, settings or objects represent specific abstract ideas either not taught in God’s Word or not connected in any way to a given text. They are given a fanciful symbolic meaning, meandering in the paths of out of control imagination and mental gymnastics, in contradiction to what the passage, context and the rest of Scriptures rightly divided teaches, which results in corruption and destruction of truth and of sound doctrine, which dishonours God. Objects are deposed as being simply objects, spiritualized and given a meaning that God never gave. Although allegorizing is dependent upon symbolism, the presence of symbols in a literary work does not make it an allegory. This literary device is most commonly heard in OT teaching and the Book of Revelation. A subjective approach, symbolic allegoricalization is meant to bring out some hidden meaning but actually allows the interpreter to make a text mean whatever they want. They might start with what they’d like the Bible to say or perhaps defend their own thinking by finding a passage to say it. This changes God's Word as much as adding or taking away from the Words (Rev 22:18-19), maybe worse. Though we have all the correct words in the KJV (in the English language), we shouldn’t treat them like play-doh.
Forced interpretation (eisegesis) by spiritualizing, attempts to overthrow many plain texts because of conclusions derived from allegorical typology. While the Bible does establish predictions that employ the literary device of symbols, they cannot be twisted to signify whatever one wishes: Scripture has only one correct interpretation (2 Pet 1:20), and the Bible explains the significance of the symbols it employs. Thus we must, to give the text a true meaning, interpret these texts literally—that is, the symbols represent what other passages of Scripture define them to mean. It is not possible to take the prophecies or symbols of any chapter and make them mean whatever one wishes—the Bible defines its symbols and definitively specifies its meaning. Correct interpretation is not speculative, but exegetical—it comes from evaluating the plain declarations of the text, not reading into it what it does not say to create “predictive prophecy” or spiritualizing of scripture. Taking the text for what it says, the reader discovers that God has made amazing predictions and revealed incredible truths.
This highly subjective interpretation methodology was created at the heretical and apostate school of Alexandra, Egypt, which was established only a few centuries after the passing of the last apostle (in the 3rd century), predominantly by the apostates Clement and Origin, two hero “Church Fathers” of evangelicals and reformed-Calvinists, and then progressed further in the following centuries by the horrible heretic Augustine. This ungodly, apostate school became the headquarters for the allegorical method of interpretation. These men also embraced massive amounts of other false and blasphemous doctrine, since Egypt was a place where false teaching proliferated in the early centuries after Christ, including “Christian” paganism, purgatory, universalism (with even the devil saved in the end), baptismal regeneration, rejection of Christ’s Deity and the Spirit’s Deity, rejection of the inspiration of the Bible, universal church, and of course this false methodology of Bible interpretation, and more. They were also the unofficial originators of Roman Catholicism, and Rome took advantage by using the same corrupted tactic to read into the Bible many new doctrines and false dogmas, which then consequently flowed out with the heretical Protestant Reformers (such as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli), along with other Roman heresies including baptismal regeneration and persecution of dissidents and critics, many of which teachings still stand strong as a bulwark in Reformed Calvinist and Protestant churches.
Allegoricalism causes massive problems in that truth fails to retain absolutism and Scripture is wrested. It is the death knell of sound hermeneutics (biblical understanding and interpretation of the Bible). Spiritualizing, allegoricalizing, Scripture is not of God. It is not how the Holy Spirit of God teaches truth ever to those He indwells. It’s a product of fables and the motivation of ear ticklers and (mostly) unregenerate souls who do not understand Scripture, so they interpret them in such a manner they are only capable of.
The Bible is not a Book to be trivialized. It is God’s inspired and inerrant Word. To misrepresent or change the meaning of the words inspired by the Holy Spirit in any way is a serious matter even if it is done with the best of intentions. It is not necessary to embellish Scripture with fiction to increase the impact of the message, something done repeatedly by Rich not only concerning this subject but also throughout the interview. The simple literal interpretation of God’s Word, when preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, will have more impact than any spiritualizing drama. It is the Holy Spirit’s work to convince of sin, righteousness and judgment, and lead and edify His people in the truth, and since He chose the words of Scripture we should expect that His words literally interpreted will be the most convicting and helpful.
Essentially anyone that interprets Scripture in this manner, with very very few exceptions, is unsaved. Unregenerate. Lost. Unredeemed. Absent of the indwelling Spirit of God. Claiming otherwise denies God's Word (Pr 8:8-9; 20:21-22; Is 28:9-10; 2 Tim 2:15; 2 Pet 3:16-17), denies the workings of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13; 1 Jn 2:20-21, 27) and makes God out to be a liar. Denial also only further establishes the unregenerate estate.
Saul of Tarsus.
Rich made the claim multiple times that Saul (later known as Paul the Apostle) before he was converted was going around cutting off the heads of Christians and that this was his job and that he was very good at it. He really emphasized the cutting off of heads. But the Bible never actually says that even once. Saul was persecuting Christian’s and putting some to death, but cutting off the heads of Christian’s is adding to scripture. Gods Word actually never says that. We have the example of Stephen (Ac 7), and there was no beheading. Making it more gruesome than it actually was doesn’t make it worse, only a certain condemnation of adding to scripture. Where would Rich get this from? Saul of Tarsus was motivated by the Word of God in his zeal to rid the world of false teachers and prophets (e.g. De 13:1-10), or so he thought. As it turned out, he was the false teacher and the Christians were the true ones, which he thankfully came to understand upon his conversion.
Jesus, Repentance and Faith.
Rich speaks of the false Jesus made up by many:
“America likes to make Jesus in their own image. A lot of Christian’s make Jesus in their image. They want the version that they like. They like the Saviour part, they don’t like the Lord part. It is Lord and Saviour.”
Rich is exactly right here and I’m glad that he says this. They want the goody meister “Jesus,” the make me feel good “Jesus,” the worldly "Jesus" that lets them keep their ungodly music while giving them eternal life, exemplified by Rich himself. This is “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4), a modern Jesus which is a designer Jesus concocted for the narcissistic culture duped in Freudian-think. People are lookin for the thrill they feel in an experience with Jesus, which is why they are high in their lusts towards ungodly CCM music, or other worldly music such as the type Rich produces. This is also Rich. That’s the same Jesus men wanted in Jn 6. That wasn’t Him, so they walked away, and Jesus didn’t run them down. These churches today would definitely chase these people and offer them something, anything to hold their attention for a moment, until they can give them Jesus the entertainer, Jesus the goodymeister, or Jesus their therapist. The numbers have to be kept up, so they feed their itching ears what it is that they want to hear. The mood of these churches could indeed be summarized by 2 Tim 4:3-4,
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
But unfortunately Rich himself is guilty of the very things he condemns, seemingly blind to his own contradictory position.
Rich is certainly correct that many want Jesus as "Saviour" but not as "Lord," which is why they reject the Lordship of Christ. They want Him as their servant, not as their Boss. He is also correct that true Christians are bondslaves, however this is not really the meaning of repentance, though there is a connection. I surmise whether he obtains these teachings from Scripture or from reformed theology, which is nearly right on these matters but not entirely. Rich is also right when he says that you become a real Christian when you turn everything over to Him, though his statement lacks clarity and depth. After briefly stating these things he ask the rhetorical question,
"What does it mean to repent?"
He goes on to describe repentance as Jesus not getting in your truck for a ride, but actually getting behind the wheel and driving the truck after doing a 180 or where-ever He wants to go. He follows this with, "Repentance is not, 'I like the Saviour part, I don't like the Lord part.'" This is only partially true, as repentance is more than this. The Bible describes and defines repentance as involving all three faculties of man: the intellect, emotion and volition (will), with the latter being the most critical and the major reason why vast majority of mankind is unsaved. The volition is tied the Lordship of Christ, so he is partially right, but its more than what Rich describes here. There are three Greek words in the NT that define and describe repentance, and address all three faculties of man and elements of repentance: Metanoia (used in number of scripture, such as Lk 11:32; 15:7,10, and expressed as a reversal of thinking and mental attitude, the intellectual element), Metamelomai (seen in Matt 21:28-32, and emphasizes regret and sorrow, the emotional faculty of man), and Epistrepho (found in places such as Lk 17:4; 22:32, and means you change directions in your life and refers to your will, your volition). In a simplistic manner, repentance starts in your mind, moves to your emotions and activates your will. What Rich is describing comes way short of a Biblical defintion of repentance.
Its actually difficult to understand exactly what Rich believes concerning repentance and salvation, taking into account the short period of time given to the subject but also in what he says, documented above and his attempt to correlate the imbalance of wanting "Saviour" but not "Lord" with a misconceived major contrast between "belief" and "faith," as if they are as different as "Saviour" and "Lord." He claims,
"It's just like belief and faith, the difference between those two things. The devil himself believes in Jesus Christ. He knows all about Him. He's been fighting with Him since the beginning."
Rich then goes on to illustrate the alleged dissociation between "belief" and "faith." "Believe" apparently reflects the faith of devils, while "faith" reflecting true belief or trust, using a chair as an example ("belief" is believing that it might hold him, while faith actually sits down with trust that it'll hold him). I have heard this exact same illustration given many times amongst Keswick/Revivalist preachers who completely corrupt Biblical repentance and thus the gospel. The terms can almost without exception be used interchangeably The alleged great discrepancy between faith and belief is hocus pocus, the terms can almost without exception be used interchangeably. Furthermore, it's even more egregious in using the example of the devil. Jam 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." The standing point of belief itself, that devils have in God, is no different than the belief of born again believers, thats the very point James is making in James 2, plainly evident in the context (vv. 14-19). The difference however between the devil and the true born again believer is that the actual faith of devils is dead. They have faith, but its dead faith. It is without genuine, lasting fruit, and its never been founded upon repentance, a "faith" which they share with false professing believers, the contextual example of James 2, as he contrasts true believers with false believers, as he does throughout the epistle.
Corruption of 2 Chronicles 7:14.
The passage reads:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
He quotes this passage in response to Carlson question whether the Jesus of the NT was different than the Jesus being preached in most churches today.
In extremely common fashion, this passage of Scripture is exceptionally abused and misused in diverse manners. Rich gets hung up on “my people” which he says are Christian’s, seriously misunderstanding that “my people” refers to Israel ONLY, and that the passage applies to Israel, ONLY, though some of the principles obviously apply to all unsaved people. He does not appear to understand that Israel does not have to be saved to be Gods people. They are called His people hundreds of times in scripture, and majority of those times, if not all, they were completely and plainly unregenerate. The covenants God made with Israel automatically made Israel God's people. Majority of the time they never lived up to God's will, and that was because the nation has always been unsaved (though that will change in the Great Tribulation, Daniel's 70th week). If Rich had proper Biblical discernment and understanding, he would know that the rest of that passage tells us that "my people" were obviously unsaved people. True born again believers have humbled themselves before God, they have repented unto salvation, they have sought His face, and they have certainly turned from their wicked ways (they have repented, which means to turn from ones wicked ways and thoughts, Is 55:6-7, and furthermore, all the wicked in Scripture are unsaved). The words used in this passage to call Israel into a right relationship with her Lord are always referring to a call to salvation, especially when used together, as they are with all the required conjunctions ("and"). The phrases with the conjunctions ("and") between them, “shall humble themselves” “and pray” “and seek my face,” “and turn from their wicked ways,” along with the result for doing so, “then will I hear from heaven,” “and will forgive their sin,” “and will heal their land,” can only be interpreted as the conversion of lost people, the salvation of a persons soul from eternal death, and not that of a disobedient believer. All of Scripture makes that extremely clear, repeatedly.
This passage can only be applied to Israel as they alone are called Gods people (“my people, which are called by my name”) whether saved or lost. Throughout Scripture the Jews have had this title, privilege and advantage, from the time of their espousal to Jehovah in Egypt, regardless of their national spiritual condition. (Hence why all things spiritual have come through the Jews--Rom 3:1-2; 9:4-5--in spite of the nation being clearly lost at the time--read Rom 3:1-20; 9:1-8). This high office and privilege was based upon the promises and covenants God made with Abraham and His election (choosing) of Israel to be His servants (1 Ch 16:7-36; Ps 105:8-15; 132:13-18; Rom 9:8-14; Ac 3:25-26). “For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.” (Ps 135:4). “Concerning the gospel, they are enemies” because they reject their Messiah and hate those who embrace Him, “but touching the election, they are beloved for the Fathers sake.” (Rom 11:28). There are literally hundreds of examples of Israel being called “His people,” “my people,” etc, while being very clearly unsaved, e.g.: De 4:23-35; 9:4-29; 10:12-22; 27:9-10; 32:15-43; Ps 78:1-72; 95:7-11; 1 Sam 12:1-22; 2 Sam 7:8-24; Is 63:15-19; 2 Cor 3:13-16; Matt 1:21; 2:6; Jn 1:11. Over and over they’re referred as such in the Books of Moses, but plainly lost as seen throughout those same books and the rest of the Bible, including in Ps 78, 81,106, Ac 7, 2 Cor 3:13-16, Heb 3 and 4. In 2 Cor 3:13-16 Paul declares there is a vail over their minds and hearts from the time of the Exodus, “their minds were blinded . . . even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.” This tells us the nation of Israel has always been unregenerate, which is collaborated by many other passages. Yet they are called “my/his people” everywhere. Consider Matt 1:21: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins.” Who were “His people” that were lost in their sins? The Jews of course. But sadly we know, “He came unto HIS OWN, and HIS OWN received him not.” (Jn 1:11). “His people” and “His own” were unsaved and rejecting Him.
Israel had a basis for a prayer of restoration and reconciliation, and that is always through individual salvation. At the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed to God in 2 Ch 6 for the right or privilege to pray to Him during times of judgment. He asked God if Israel could pray toward this temple with hope of restoration and healing of their land. In answer to this prayer, God gave him the familiar promise of 2 Ch 7:14, which confirms the necessity of conversion for God hearing, forgiving and healing Israel. America or a church or some individual Christian doesn’t have the same promise given to them. As noted, some of the principles in the passage apply to all people, but the text is dealing with Israel’s national salvation. Inclusively we know the passage can only refer to the nation of Israel because of the context (see 2 Ch 6–7 and 1 Ki 8:33-40) and the specific terminology “If my people, which are called by my name” and "heal their land" which can never apply to a Gentile or Gentile nation.
The text as a whole applies only to lost Israel, a call to her salvation and healing, and not for Gentiles, though most of the principles of the passage may be applied to all people, whether Jew or Gentile. The interpretation of the text is lost and disobedient Israel and its parallel text in 1 Ki 8:33-40 makes this crystal clear, as do other texts such as De 30:1-20 and contrasting contextual passages such as 2 Ch 6:41. Scripture always harmonizes. Misinterpreting 2 Ch 7:14 is frequently tied to unscripturally applying unbelief, backsliding, lukewarm and carnal to saved people. These labels, which are Keswick “theology” currency, are in reference to lost people in Scripture, but egregiously applied to professing believers in the same manner 2 Ch 7:14 is.
We address the common corruption of this passage in the following article: Does God's Promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 Apply to Saved, Gentile People?
The greater problem with Rich's misuse of this passage is his reason for its use. He says "its our fault," i.e., the Christians of America's fault, that bad things are happening in America today, again using the "my people" of 2 Ch 7:14 to support his narrative, and that these Christian people, "my [God's] people," have not humbled themselves, or repented, or sought His face, or turned from their wicked ways, and thus are responsible for the growth of depravity and wickedness being pushed, especially on children, in every realm of society. He is actually correct, but not at all how he thinks. Rich has the corrupted and false belief that all the people that call themselves "Christian" amongst professing Christians, from evangelical, to Baptist, to Protestant, to a slew of other denominations (maybe even Catholics), are actual true Christians, and therefore they need some secondary blessing or rededication along the lines of 2 Ch 7:14, to get their lives and the country back on track. This is the twisted narrative of false "believers" who cannot discern between true and false believers, in the very same manner of not being able to discern between whats clean and holy from whats unclean and unholy. America is loaded indeed with professing believers, but almost none of them are truly saved. Very, very few have ever been born again. This is the cold hard truth whether Rich, or you dear reader, likes it or not. Very, very, very few are genuinely converted to Christ, so yes, in that manner they are responsible for the terrible problems occurring in America, but not because they haven't lived up to the Christian life they profess, but because they are unregenerate and cannot live up to the life they allegedly profess. Because they are actually false professors, they bring great reproach to the name of Christ through their sinful lives, heresies, worldliness, hypocrisies, and more, while all along professing to belong to God. This means they are hypocrites, and Christ's great denunciation of hypocrites in Matt 23 applies to them. Though what Paul stated in Rom 2:23-24 was directed towards the religious Jew, the principle applies explicitly to any false professing believer:
"Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."
Its not because of true born again Christians that evil and wickedness grows, but because of false "believers" and false teachers, the hypocrites, the pretenders.
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. . . . Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (2 Tim 3:13, 8).
And that is why they must be marked and exposed and avoided (2 Tim 3:9; Rom 16:17-18).
"But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was." (2 Tim 3:9)
In this context Rich speaks about how the lying news media will,
"Take a story . . . and they twist it around to fit the narrative they want to have to accomplish whatever it is. The same thing happens with Scripture all the time, and it's been happening for a long time, I would say hundreds of years."
Well that is exactly what John Rich is doing with 2 Ch 7:14 and many other passages of Scripture.
Misses a Big Opportunity to Preach the Gospel, to Explain How God Chooses a Sinner.
Rich doesn’t explain why it is that the lowly, simple (not as in gullible or naive), “random” fishermen (not “sailors” as Rich claimed), etc, people are chosen by God and not the “wise” or popular or the great speakers, or the great men, etc, of which the latter wasn't even mentioned. This is a critical juncture of the interview where he should be explaining to an unsaved Carlson and the millions watching how God chooses a sinner, I.e. the true gospel in other words. But he doesn’t. It’s a great missed opportunity, especially considering the pride and arrogance that engrosses America (a fact he should be wise to, if he is truly saved, which I truly doubt) and how God has been humbling her, and the importance of surrender and submission to Jesus Christ as Lord. Great salvation passages such as Is 55:6-7 should've been considered:
"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
Our Enemies Are Not God's Enemies; and God Does Not Love But Only Hate the Wicked.
At this point things get a bit crazier. A combo of misusing scripture, misunderstanding Gods hate, with a dose of reformed Calvinism and we get God only hating the wicked and not loving His creation.
Rich makes the proclamation that we don’t pray for Gods enemies and that God doesn’t love His enemies, while making an odd attempt to differentiate between Gods enemies and our enemies, as if they are different. This isn’t the first time I have heard this. I have heard people justify their pure hate and lack of compassion towards wicked godless people on the basis of this foolish argument. It's used as a convenient excuse not to show compassion and not to preach the gospel. Nowhere does the Bible differentiate between Gods enemies and the born again believers enemies. They are one and the same, and to somehow divide these into two reveals a purposeful wresting of Scripture. Rich claims we are to “pray for our enemies” but not Gods enemies.
Here is what he said:
“There’s a difference between being our enemies and Gods enemies. It doesn’t say pray for God's enemies, matter of fact it is quite the opposite of that, in Proverbs 6. There is people that say God loves everybody. Nowhere does it say that. Proverbs 6 lists those people that God hates. One of the first things He lists is those whose feet are swift to shed innocent blood. He hates them. We are not supposed to pray for them. You go into Psalm 139 and David says, I hate your enemies, talking to God, with a perfect hatred."
Ps 139 does speak about a "perfect hatred," but what Rich is describing and attempting to correlate is not "perfect hatred." His hate is based upon a bitter hatred for the wicked so that he wouldn't even pray for them, and that is NOT "perfect hatred" at all! The "perfect hatred" of David towards God's enemies (Ps 139:8), which were also his enemies (Ps 139:9), contrary to the attempts of Rich to egregiously differentiate between God's enemies and our enemies, is nothing like Rich is attempting to purvey here. David showed mercy and love towards his most bitter and vicious enemies, such as King Saul (cf. 1 Sam 24:1-19). This is what king Saul had to say after David exercised compassion and mercy towards him and for sparing his life:
"And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil. And thou hast shewed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the LORD had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the LORD reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day." (vv. 17-19)
That is the meaning of "perfect hatred," hating the sin and wickedness while loving the individual behind the degenerate behaviour — hard on sin, and wrath towards wickedness and heresy, while instantaneously prepared to show lovingkindness, grace and mercy. Rich has sadly been deceived with the same lies as those addressed by Christ in Matt 5:43, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy," while the truth of the matter actually is what He says thereafter:"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matt 5:44ff.). That is the very opposite of what Rich is saying to Carlson. Rich says hate your enemies and don't pray for them and don't love them while Jesus the Son of God, God the Son, the majestic Creator and Judge of all, says love your enemies, bless your enemies, do good to your enemies, and pray for your enemies. This is the love of God for even the heathens love them that love them in return. The enemies of Matt 5:44 are also God's enemies. They are one and the same. Those like Rich who have a corrupted view of God and hate, should read the following amazing testimony on what love for ones enemies truly brings: All Things Work Out For Good to Them that Love God — The Remarkable Testimony of the Last Christian on Queen “Bloody” Mary’s Execution Roll.
We do not believe in the heresy of unconditional love, except when it pertains to the truly saved, the true born again child of God, not the false professor, not the neo-evangelical (at least mostly, because almost all are unregenerate). The Bible is very clear that God loves His children eternally, and nothing can ever separate them from His love (Rom 8:34-39). Even in chastisement, God is loving His sons and daughters (e.g., Heb 12:5-11; Pr 3:11-12). God however does not unconditionally love the sinner or the wicked, but He does love them, though it be a different love than that of His children and its certainly not unconditional (cf. Jn 3:15-16, cf. vv. 17-21). It is conditioned upon their repentance and obedience to the gospel (2 Th 1:8; 1 Pet 4:17), whereby they become the beloved children of God.
As for Proverbs 6, yes those guilty of the seven sins mentioned in vv. 16-19 are an abomination to God, which means to be hated, but its not like how Rich is describing. Riches hate means to hate them like the world of the unsaved hate, while God's hate is never divorced from mercy, love and grace.
One more thing stated by Rich in this context requires a mention. He claimed that God “created the devil himself.” No, God did not actually create the devil. Rich should stop reading and listening to reformed calvinist who make up these kind of lies, distorting and corrupting the very character of God (noted for instance in this article). God created Lucifer, the most exalted and highest angel in the heavens, but Lucifer decided by his own will that serving God was not sufficient; he wanted to be God (Is 14:12-15). Thereafter he was cast out of heaven and forever known as Satan or the Devil, and God made the lake of fire for him and the 1/3 of angels who fell with him. God doesn't create evil, nor can he be tempted with evil.
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" (Jam 1:13)
C.I. Scofield, the Rapture and Christ’ Second Coming.
Rich attempts to make the case that the pre-tribulation rapture is about the worse thing that has ever happened to Christianity, even though he once believed it himself.
Concerning this subject, Rich propagated factual errors in his argumentation:
He claims that John Nelson Darby was the inventor of the pre-trib rapture, which is false, though Darby certainly propagated the teaching and popularized it, but he didn’t produce it. For thousands of years men have believed in the pre-trib rapture.
He also says Darby was influenced by and connected to the Rothchilds, a famous and extremely rich Jewish family, one of the 300 of the Committee of 300 Globalist Elites that control the world as puppets of Satan. There is zero evidence that Darby was influenced by the Rothchilds.
Rich claims that Darby was "very wealthy and very Charismatic," both of which are untrue.
Rich proclaimed that Cyrus (C.I.) Scofield’s Bible (Scofield Bible) was the first ever Bible with notes or commentary which is also untrue, as the Geneva Bible way back in 1599 was actually the first Bible to contain reference notes (authored by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, and others).
Scofield by the way was a heretic, a lawyer that was perpetually broke and failed to provide for his wife and kids, and was divorced multiple times, living in continual adultery. The Scofield Bible promotes Westcott and Hort multiple times, which is the corrupt Critical Text, and this only confuses Scofield’s alleged KJV/Textus Receptus position. There is actually a lot of heresy in the Scofield Bible notes. I mean a lot. He taught a false works gospel. He claimed OT saints were saved by works, which is connected to his rejection of repentance (its a work according to Scofield). He taught theistic evolution. Supported the gap theory. He taught a universal church. All these things are heresy. He popularized and essentially canonized Keswick teachings in this Reference Bible, which is false sanctification (e.g. he completely corrupted and wrested Rom. 7 & 8 into Keswick theology. In this passage Paul’s struggle is said to be “the record of past conflicts and defeats experienced as a renewed man under law.”) His teaching led to the idea that at the point of salvation someone received Jesus, and at some later point, Jesus became Lord (which happened when he was "dedicated” or received the “second blessing”). He would be a carnal and lukewarm Christian up until that point. This is all heresy and all a repentance issue (worth noting: this false sanctification and salvation is found essentially in all churches today, thanks in part to this reference Bible). Scofield also held position of pastor unbiblically, having been divorced and remarried at least three times. Etc.
In this context, Rich claims that the word “antichrist” is not found in the Bible. Tucker finds that unbelievable, questions him about it, to which he again responds in the negative. In the King James Bible, which is the ONLY Bible in English that is formally translated from the text that God has inspired and preserved, we find the word 5x in 4 verses (1 Jn 2:18[2x], 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7). Even Carlson knew that this wasn't true, since he's read through the Bible and listens to it. Either Rich is very ignorant or he is reading an extremely perverted version of scripture or he is intentionally lying to make some kind of splash, or a combination of these.
John Rich goes after the pretribulation rapture for being unsubstantiated in Scripture and giving way to complacency. He speaks a number of lies about the pre-trib rapture. The pre-trib rapture or the Scofield Bible are not the cause of the delusion or apostasy noted in our day, as Rich declares. It’s also not the most important doctrine to many Christian’s, as Rich claims. It actually isn't, though it may be to a few. Nor do majority of professing Christians hold to the pre-trib rapture. The pre-trib rapture also was not the cause of churches popping up everywhere after Darby supposedly discovered the pre-trib secret rapture in 1830.
His major over-emphasis on the badness of the pre-trib rapture is a massive red herring. This is not the reason why the delusion is happening, nor the massive amount of apostasy in our world today. Complete bullocks. That cause is without a doubt the false gospel and the false Jesus, which results in false professors repeating the process, and then the attack on God's Word via Bible perversions and the Critical Text, and John Rich is a big part of that problem. This is the reason why Christianity has almost completely apostatisized. Neo-evangelicalism and Reformed Calvinism and other Protestant groups have been spreading the leaven of apostasy over hundreds of years, harlots of the Great Whore which is Roman Catholicism, and she has been doing her part, the greater part of the false church, for nearly two thousands years. Many of the baptists have been part of the pogrom as well, over the last half century at least, and other groups such as the Anabaptists (e.g., the Mennonites and Amish) have been doing a full swing back into some of the damnable heresies of Roman Catholicism and ecumenical fellowship with her.
One of the biggest reasons why I am weary to accept what men like Rich say about the rapture is because of their apostasy in so many other areas. If they are wrong in those areas, which they are, then how could they be right concerning the rapture, which in my opinion is the most difficult of all doctrine in Scripture.
End-Times Revival?
Rich claims that the Bible speaks of a revival in the end times. The Bible doesn't actually say that, but it does speak of a great apostasy that will occur, which is a falling away from the truth, like what we see today on every hand, in large part caused by neo-evangelicals such as John Rich.
Worldly Music, The Spotlight, Fame and the Riches of Rich.
Though Rich speaks of many wanting a Jesus that is Saviour but not Lord, which is true and a “damnable heresy” (2 Pet 2:1), he himself appears to have never submitted to Jesus Christ as Lord, evident by the music that he produces, which is extremely worldly, appealing to the lusts of the flesh, and exuberating false worship, and the uber riches he lives under. Because of the spotlight. He loves the spotlight, but the sinner that is genuinely converted to Christ leaves the spotlight. Saul of Tarsus was in the spotlight seeking man's glory, but went into obscurity from the very moment of his conversion. The appeal for fame and notoriety is gone and replaced with an abhorrence for it.
Rich refers to the rapper Eminem's new music album as an example of how wicked the music industry world has become. He says he had looked up Eminem's newest record where he found the following dark titles: "Evil," Antichrist" and "Lucifer." Indeed these titles reveal the wicked and dark world of ungodly worldly music and their mockery of God, yet in spite of John Riches apparent abhorrence of those titles and its lyrics and everything Eminem stands for and is doing, Rich himself is advancing a very similar evil and Antichrist Satanic agenda by performing worldly and ungodly music himself, described by him as "rocken hard party songs," and now more recently, using the watered-down lyrics of Christianity, thus mixing clean with the unclean, while God's Word says that saved people always,
"[P]ut difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;" (Lev 10:10a)
In fact, separation is wrapped up in salvation:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor 6:17-18)
Herein lies one of the greatest problems and downfalls with neo-evangelicalism and most of contemporary Christianity, actually exposing most as frauds and fakes, and that is the utter rejection of the doctrine of separation. Any person that professes to be Christian but doesn't practice separation, is very likely a fraud, along with undoubtedly many other proofs evident in that persons life and beliefs and doctrine.
Riches idea of countering the worldly and satanic music and entertainment, which he illustrated by describing the ungodly "mesmerizing" shows that he watches with his kids, such as the Super-bowl and Grammy award's, big concerts and music videos, as"practicing witchcraft right there on the stage," with "wammo, evil coming straight at you," which he claims "impossible to look away from," — comes by providing the same worldly means of entertainment, only with Christianized lyrics. He claims "someone has to counter that" and their "massive budgets" but he does it with virtually the same genre of music, which is rock n' roll, only Christianized lyrics of course, and the same visual ecstatics, all of which was his purpose for the music video Revelation (link provided only for the purpose of illustrating our point here). Rich says he "went to such extremes" with the video because he "wanted to compete visually up to the level with what people are used to seeing . . . if we are going to combat, if we are going to present both sides, play at a high level, bring it at a high level and that is why we went so far with it." This is not how God works. At. All. But it is how neo-evangelicalism proceeds, using worldly means in tune with ungodly culture to counter the wickedness and darkness of this worlds system. They do it through music, dress, appearance, inviting to church by worldly allurements, etc. This is the behaviour of a rebel, who does what his heart desires, and not what the inspired and revealed Word of God commands.
The "Christian" music of men like Rich is 100% contrary to Scripture and apostate covered in detail here at 20/20 in the following reports:
Carlson expressed astonishment that the world actually profits through advancing Satanic philosophies and deeds, and though Rich gave a good answer to it, he completely missed expressing the important truth that all the worlds riches and kingdoms can be had by those who will fall down before Satan and worship him, noted in Satan's dialogue with Christ:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt 4:8-10)
John Rich is Rich. He lives in Mt. Richmore, a home he built that sits by Nashville, TN, the biggest mansion in the area, exceeding 19,000 square feet, three floors and 20 bedrooms. Of course it's not wrong for Christians to be rich, but 1 Tim 6 tells us the behaviour of rich Christians, as does other Scripture.
I don’t know if Rich saw this interview as an opportunity to teach Carlson the Bible and his favourite parts of the truth, like his rabidly anti-pre-trib anti-rapture position, since he really harped on that as the major cause of Christian apostasy, but through it all he did a poor job and lost significant opportunity to preach the true gospel and sound doctrine, and thus most importantly, glorify God.
Throughout the interview the massive amount of red flags popping up indicating he is very likely not a true born again believer is fully realized at the end where he gives a brief testimony of how he allegedly became a Christian, our last point.
Riches Testimony Perfectly Reflects the Apostasy of Neo-Evangelicalism and What Has Occurred in His Life
I dislike having to criticize and judge a persons personal testimony, but it's sadly necessary and Biblical as well. Rich says he is a prodigal, but he’s actually not. The prodigal of Lk 15 is a testimony of true salvation and what Rich is conferring in the interview and other places is absolutely nothing like Lk 15. In Luke 15 we have a story of two sons, neither of which loved their Father, both rebelling against Him. They hated Him and did not know Him. In this chapter Jesus tells one parable in three parts (“parable” in v. 3 is singular), all of which reveal the love of God the Father for the lost, unlike the religious leaders in Israel. He searches for them like a lost coin, lost sheep, and lost son, even when they are wicked. That reflects the correct view of God the Father and, therefore, also the view of every true believer toward the lost. Tucked into this story are the issues of sin, shame, disgrace, desperation, and then repentance, faith, atonement, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, sonship, and blessing to the repentant sinner who flees to Him for salvation. When Christ spoke of saving repentance, he spoke of the attitude expressed by the words of the younger son that was lost but then found:
"And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. . . . And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (vv.17-21)
This is the humble repentance of an ungodly sinner who recognized his desperate condition, turned from his sins and self, and came to the Father by faith, for the forgiveness of his sins. This should remind us of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:3). Unless we recognize our spiritual poverty, we cannot be saved. As the angels of heaven sang for joy when our Saviour was born (Lk 2:9-15), so they sing for joy when a sinner is born again: “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. . . . For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” (vv 7-10, 14). Heaven celebrates the salvation of a sinner from the clutches of Satans bondage and eternal hell fire.
Rich is absolutely no prodigal. He is the product of easy believism/quick prayerism, and then followed the lie that he can live as a "carnal Christian" which is like the devil, and then some point later in life rededicate himself and continue on with the label "Christian," as if nothing happened. What a terrible lie, one that is being spread like fire among evangelicals, protestants, Baptists, and most other "Christian" denominations. Rich has no clear Biblical testimony of salvation, claiming that he was "saved as a kid with my dad," which is the type of false "salvation" testimony exposed in this report: The Counterfeit Salvation of Doubting, Uncertainty and Rededication, Frequently Accompanied with Asking Jesus Into The Heart. His affections for ungodly and unrighteous living, which continues on, reflects something much different than the prodigal at his salvation. There is never any testimony of having been translated from darkness to light, with its practical tangibleness in newness and effect (Jn 3:8). Never at any point has he left the culture of the world, though he has distanced himself from the mainstream music machinery and much of the leftist woke culture. His love for the world, fame, money, ungodly music and living, which he describes as "rocken hard party songs," and then the spotlight, continues rolling forward. Though he admits that the songs he sang are ungodly (not in so many words), since the lifestyle reflected in the lyrics is ungodly, he never repents of any of it, never changes from a love for those things to one of abhoreence. He maintains status quo.
When Rich speaks of his fathers discontentment and dislike for how he is living, he describes how his father one time after John had pushed back against what he wanted him to do, "he [his father] stood up and walked out of the room, meaning God walked out of the room, left me sitting there, abandoned is what the feeling felt like. That was the most desolete feeling ever." He correlates his father with God here, and that is beyond heretical. One's dad is not God, no matter how submitted we are to him. He doesn't directly say, but this is his "rededication" moment when things started changing for him, the pig getting all prettied up with the lipstick and jewelry and the whole nine yards.
I do believe that Rich does represent one element of the prodigal: when he is yet in the miry pit of the pig pen, not to a lesser degree, only merely duped by a desensitization of sin and worldliness by a modern Christianity that has married itself to the pagan culture that they befriend. But sadly Rich does not see himself in the pig pen, nor that he has ever been, and so he will continue on the broad path to eternal destruction and damnation (Matt 7:13-14).
It is shameful that anyone would hang their hat on this unscriptural testimony that bore no fruit, no evidence of salvation, never hated the things of the world, never reflected the holiness and righteousness of God, never resulted in a new creature in Christ Jesus. Of course the cop-out of "I was saved as a kid" is so easily adaptable that its practically scripted for these false professors, since they have nothing to show for their adult years that even remotely speaks to a testimony. So that is what they are left with but God is not fooled.
Another thing that directly releates to this is Riches inability to differentiate between true Christians and false "Christians," a very, very common problem amongst neo-evangelicals and reformed calvinists and other professing Christian groups that profess the name of Christ but possess Him not, which difference is absolutely critical for the true salvation of the unsaved. They are void of the supernatural discernment necessary to tell the difference. Majority of people that claim to be Christian are only "Christian" by name. They have never been genuinely not born again. Multiple times during the interview Rich describes people that are not saved, as being saved. Such as the 20,000 audience in front of the rich tele-evangelist that "give these lukewarm messages that keep all the [20,000] Christians feeling nice and comfortable all the time and they never get into the stuff we are talking about..." Its not hard to understand why they don't get into the "stuff" he is talking about (i.e., preaching on the streets, being persecuted and suffering for Christ's sake)--they are not Christian teachers at all but false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing (Rom 16:17; Matt 7:15-20; 2 Pet 2:1-2), and those who follow them are unsaved simple fools that are easily influenced and seduced by the oration of charismatic speakers (Rom 16:18; Phil 3:19; 2 Pet 2:3). But Rich doesn't see the truth of this serious matter and treats them all as Christians, and that indeed is "a great disservice" and "criminal." It is dangerous.
In Closing, a Call to Salvation to Both Rich and Carlson
The various issues noted in the interview reflect the apostasy of neo-evangelicalism and reformed calvinism, which are intermixed in Riches doctrine. Neo-evangelicals like Rich twist and wrest and force the scriptures to fit their preconcieved doctrine, presuppositions and way of living. He forces the Scripture to agree with him that writing and playing ungodly music is okay, that producing and drinking and serving hard liquor is okay,
John Rich is a neo-evangelical with reformed theology doctrine. He does not relfect the life of a saint, nor carry the testimony of one redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. John, I implore you to examine yourself (2 Cor 13:5) and come to the true salvation found in God's Word. The true grace of God that saves, completely changes the person, the nature of the person, where all old things are passed away and all things are become new (2 Cor 5:17). This is regeneration and it happens immediately at conversion, dramatically and supernaturally, and it happens to everyone that is genuinely born again, bar none. Grace is a cleansing agent that changes everyone that is permanently indwelt with the Spirit of God. We see this plain truth in Ti 2:11-14, among many other texts in Scripture:
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
Tucker Carlson, if you are reading this, I am happy to hear you are reading the Bible and seeking the truth, which I hope is truly your intentions. I pray you are reading the right Bible as well, seeing that there are two streams, the true one and the satanic one, which is truly Satans greatest attack on the things of God. You can read about the two diverse streams here: Why Modern Bible Versions are Corrupt, and the King James Version is Not.
I have no doubt that you are a very intelligent man, so the most important piece of wisdom I could give you is this: to have true wisdom, to be wise in the eyes of God, you must first become a fool, weak and abased. 1 Cor 1:18-31 tells us about this journey from darkness to light, from wisdom to foolishness to true wisdom:
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. [22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
The worldly "wise" must first become a fool. That means you must become a fool Carlson. That is, if you want to be genuinely born again. Please read our gospel tract on How to be Saved.
Comments