www.westminstertradition.com

‘We adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 AD) and the Cambridge Platform (1648 AD), the caveat of the Separatist Puritans, as long as their contents are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures.‘

How far Elijah Chacko has departed from his former subscription to the WCOF can be seen by reading his tract, ‘A Tribute To The Westminster Confession Of Faith (1646).‘ One bullet point on the front cover of this tract says, ‘Repudiating any form of amendment‘. In repudiating any form of amendment, Elijah was stating his belief that the Confession is wholly in agreement with the Word of God. If the Confession were unscriptural, it would obviously need amendment. Now however, Elijah Chacko has added the caveat, ‘as long as their contents are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures‘. He is insinuating that he believes these historic creeds are NOT in all places in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. Otherwise he would write, ‘We adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith… affirming that their contents are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures.‘ Without doubt, Elijah has reneged on his former position.

Elijah is not morally bound to live and die by The Westminster Confession. Subscription to this creed is not a condition of salvation. The Baptists adopted an amended confession and catechism (London Baptist Confession 1689). The New England Congregationalists also did. The latter, professing their hearty assent and affirmation to the whole (Westminster) Confession of Faith (for substance of doctrine), disagreed with some points of practice in the 25th, 30th and 31st chapters, concerning church discipline, touching which they drew up a treatise entitled ‘The Cambridge Platform’. This is an upright response: they endorse the WCOF in doctrine, but clearly state their differences in certain points of practice. But Elijah Thomas Chacko is not being forthright. He has not stated wherein he disagrees with the aforementioned creeds. A veil of ambiguity hangs over his statements. His doctrine can change at any time.

The truth is that he departs from the WCOF, not in one, but in many points and from The Cambridge Platform in almost its entirety (click here). Knowing this would discredit him in the eyes of many, he deceitfully conceals wherein he differs. It is this writer’s hope that this present analysis of The Westminster Tradition ‘Beliefs’ section will help clarify how Elijah Chacko has strayed in both doctrine and practice.

‘We believe in the unity of the Godhead, “there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost…” ‘[WCF II (III)] (I John 5:7).

A direct quotation from the WCOF, so no issues here. The Westminster Tradition are trinitarian in doctrine and practice, although rather unusually they reject the term ‘Holy Trinity’ as used in the WCOF Chapter 2. Elijah Chacko believes in only one trinity – the ‘evil trinity’ consisting of the dragon (Satan), the beast (Antichrist) and the false prophet (Rev 16:13). This forms the basis of his demonology in which he wrests Scripture in his attempts to define which ‘member of the evil trinity’ is represented in any given passage. For example, he teaches that it was the Antichrist spirit that incited Cain to murder Abel, by erroneously linking 1 John 4:12 to 2 Thess 2:8. In the latter passage, ‘that Wicked‘ is indeed a reference to Antichrist, because his coming is ‘after the working of Satan‘. But in 1 John 4, the context is clearly taken from vv8-10 which speak of the devil. The Greek word translated ‘wicked one’ here is found 75 times in the New Testament and is not the same Greek word as that used in 2 Thess 2:8. The source of Elijah’s errors may stem from his derision of Greek/Hebrew scholarship. Elijah Chacko prides himself on his mastery of the English language. His overconfidence in the English of the Authorized Version (treating it almost like the inspired autograph) combined with his wilful ignorance of Greek and Hebrew leads him into many doctrinal errors.

‘We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, that He was not imputed with the sin of Adam (Matthew 1:20, Luke 1:35); that He is fully God and fully man (John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 2:9); that He died for the sins of the elect (John 3:16) and was resurrected on the 3rd day (Luke 24:46), ascended up to heaven and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). We rejoice and worship our risen Saviour on every Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (Psalm 118:22-24).‘

It’s a little strange that whilst adopting the form of sound words of the WCOF (Ch 8, Sec 2) i.e. ‘conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost‘, Elijah omits the portion that immediately follows i.e. ‘in the womb of the virgin Mary‘. Use of the term ‘virgin Mary’ (like the term ‘Trinity’) is frowned upon within The Westminster Tradition.

The final sentence correctly acknowledges the New Testament change of sabbath from the last to the first day of the week – a doctrine gleaned from Jonathan Edwards’ work ‘The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath‘.

‘We believe that God created the world and all that is therein by the power of His word in six literal days (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6, Colossians 1:16).‘

They do indeed hold to sound creationist doctrine.

‘We believe that because of Adam’s first transgression, all his posterity sinned and fell in him. “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” [WCF VI (III)] (Genesis 3, Romans 3:9-10, Romans 5:12,14). Therefore, our will is in bondage and we are unable to do any spiritual good (Romans 7:15-16, Matthew 15:19).’

Though Elijah Chacko quotes directly from the WCOF, he cites entirely different proof texts. This pattern of providing his own proof texts is not only found here. It is not, of course, a crime to do this. But it seems strange that he went intentionally out of his way to do so. Is he trying to improve upon the historic creed?

‘We believe that a man is justified by the accomplished redemptive work of Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12). It is the sovereign God Who elects (Romans 9:9-21), pardons and justifies a sinner at a point in time of his/her life (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:2-5).‘

It is no accident that Elijah Chacko replaces chapters 10 & 11 in the Westminster Confession (‘Of Effectual Calling’; ‘Of Justification’) with just two sentences under the heading ‘Salvation’.

The first sentence carefully avoids the doctrine of justification by faith and therein departs from the WCOF which states (Ch 11,Sec 2) that, ‘Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification…‘ The alone instrument of justification is faith, not Christ and His righteousness. Again, he quotes a Bible reference which is not used in this context in the Confession. In quoting Acts 4:12 (‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved‘), Elijah is confusing the grounds of justification with the instrument of justification i.e. faith. He is subtly diminishing man’s responsibility. Certainly there is salvation in none other Name under heaven (Acts 4:12), but this knowledge does us no good unless we ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ‘. If we do this, we shall be saved (Acts 16:30-31; John 6:47; John 1:12; Rom 3:28; Rom 5:1).

The second sentence with its scriptural proof texts forms a defining feature in Elijah’s preaching. One of Elijah’s distinctive doctrines is his assertion that Abraham was saved when he ‘believed in the LORD and it was counted to him for righteousness‘. He links Rom 4:3 to Gen 15:6 in his endeavour to prove this, teaching that Abraham was justified not when he left Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 11:31), but many years later whilst dwelling in the land of his inheritance (Gen 15:6). Whether or not this is correct, it is a sad irony that in Elijah’s eagerness to demonstrate the exact moment of Abraham’s justification, he misses what the Scripture is actually saying: that ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.‘ The primary emphasis of the text (Rom 4:3) is not on the timing of Abraham’s justification (except perhaps to note that it preceded his circumcision, v10), but on the means of Justification – which was through belief in God and not by works! That is the greater and universally applicable truth. Some may be justified in their youth and others in their old age, but ALL are justified by faith. Elijah however, believes that the all-important inference in our days is not how we are justified but when and whether we are justified. Therefore he asks not ‘Have you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ?’ but ‘Have you reached your Genesis 15:6?’ The point he is coming to is that Abraham exercised faith in Gen 12, 13 and 14 (Heb 11:8-9), but that it was only many years later in Gen 15 that he was counted righteous/justified. Therefore, he says, we need to distinguish ‘saving faith’ from ‘legal faith’. And how are we supposed to get from legal faith to saving faith? See article 8.

[N.B. It is also noteworthy that Elijah Chacko erroneously links Rom 4:19 (and being not weak in faith… when he was about an hundred years old) to Gen 15:6 rather than to Gen 18, when God reiterated His promise to Abraham, who was ‘ninety years old and nine’ (Gen 18:10; 17:17,24). Paul was not asserting that Abraham was justified when he was ‘about an hundred years old’. Elijah wrests Romans 4 to prove that Abraham was justified many years after he left Ur. True as this might be, it was not at all Paul’s point. Paul was labouring to prove that circumcision was not a precondition of Abraham’s justification, but a subsequent sign and seal of that righteousness he had already received by faith. That he was imputed righteous whilst yet uncircumcised proves that he can be the father of all who believe and not of the Jews (circumcision) only. Paul’s eye is on Abraham’s faith. Whilst we must not be presumptuous about our own faith, yet these things were written not for our discouragement, but that we might ‘believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification‘ (Rom 4:23-25).]

‘We affirm that a fallen man can never be justified by the deeds of the law (Romans 3:20). We also believe in the necessity of the preparatory work to humble and prepare a man for God’s deliverance (Isaiah 40:3-4). “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24).‘

The order in which these articles are laid out suddenly deviates from that of the Confession. In the Westminster Confession, the order is as follows: (Ch11) Of Justification; (Ch12) Of Adoption; (Ch13) Of Sanctification; (Ch14) Of Saving Faith; (Ch15) Of Repentance unto Life; (Ch16) Of Good Works; (Ch17) Of the Perseverance of the Saints; (Ch18) Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation; (Ch19) Of the Law of God. Elijah Chacko completely skips chapters 12-18 and jumps straight to the law. His assertion is that if we have not ‘reached our Genesis 15:6’, we need the law to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.

He teaches from Isaiah 40, that before the glory of the LORD can be revealed in salvation, every mountain and hill must be made low, the crooked must be made straight and the rough places plain. Our high, crooked, rough hearts must be dealt with. He then explains that the ‘law is applied’ by two chief means: preaching and providence. Anointed preaching (i.e. that of Elijah Chacko, ‘the voice crying in the wilderness‘) is purported to be the most important. Elijah claims to be a ‘preacher of the law’ and uses this as a license to rule over the flock with force and with cruelty (Eze 34:4). He behaves as though he were the personification of the law – the schoolmaster spoken of in Gal 3:24. He claims that he is bringing his followers to Christ and that those who reject his ministry forsake their own mercy.

Elijah Chacko has purposely juxtaposed ‘salvation’ and ‘law’ as articles 7 & 8 (in the very center of the list) because they are the central doctrines in his ministry: law and Gospel. Elijah Chacko labours to persuade members of his cult that they are not yet justified (salvation) and are therefore still ‘under the law’. Though he is assiduously careful to point out that ‘fallen man can never be justified by the deeds of the law’, he nevertheless insists that if members are ever to reach their Genesis 15:6, they need to ‘submit to the law’. In practice this means submitting to Elijah’s abusive and controlling behaviour. The Westminster Tradition is truly a Doubting Castle, ruled by a Giant Despair.

The Westminster Divines abhorred such control over people’s consciences. They were in the midst of a battle to free themselves from the tyranny of the prelates. Therefore they write ‘Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty Of Conscience’ (Ch 20, Sec 2):

‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.‘

Those who follow Elijah Chacko will answer that his doctrines are not contrary to God’s Word. But when, in conscientiously following Elijah Chacko you carry out instructions you secretly feel are wrong, does not your heart condemn you and do you not betray true liberty of conscience? And even if you deny this to be true, do you not follow Elijah Chacko out of an implicit faith – an absolute and blind obedience? If you should deny this, it is proof indeed that not only is your liberty of conscience destroyed, but you have also become unreasoning and unreasonable.

‘We affirm with the Westminster Divines that the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for a saving understanding of the sacred contents of the Scriptures. We believe that professing Christians should seek to experience the life of God in the soul of man (Ephesians 4:18), the presence of Christ (Psalm 104:34) and the quiet moving and effectual working of the Holy Spirit (John 7:38- 39, Ephesians 5:18b).‘

Elijah Chacko has misquoted the Westminster Divines. Here is the relevant section (WCOF Ch 1, Sec 6) correctly quoted:

‘The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.‘

Elijah Chacko writes, ‘the sacred contents of the Scriptures‘, but the Westminster Divines wrote, ‘such things as are revealed in the Word.‘ The two are not the same. The ‘sacred contents of the Scriptures‘ may be shut up to the ordinary believer. But ‘such things as are revealed‘ are those things which we all may know. As Moses wrote: ‘The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it‘ (Deut 30:14) and ‘those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut 29:29b).’ The Bible is an open book! Even The Westminster Tradition logo acknowledges this – the ‘W’ is an open Bible! But Elijah, seeking to protect his niche, claims that without him his followers would know nothing. The Puritans who composed the Westminster Assembly believed in the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture i.e. that God’s way of salvation is to be understood by those who read of it in His Word with a sincere and upright heart. They make this plain in section 7 of chapter 1:

‘All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.‘

The Westminster Divines acknowledged that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God is necessary for that understanding to be saving. In doing so, they denounced a mere religion of the intellect as ineffectual unto salvation. We must look to God to illuminate not only our minds, but also of our hearts. 

‘We hold in high regard and consider these to be our godly forebears that God has raised up for the preservation and spiritual wellbeing of His Church through the ages: the early church fathers, the pre-Reformers, the Reformers, the Puritans especially the Separatist Puritans and the authentic Calvinistic revivalists. We fully affirm and echo the tenets that ignited the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura, Justification by Faith and Papacy is the Antichrist.‘

Glorious sentiments these may be, but how vague they are! They serve the writer’s intention, which is to give a veneer of credibility to The Westminster Tradition, as though it were a branch sprung up from a noble stock. It is an easy thing to build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous (Matt 23:29); to identify with those who are held in high regard. A more discriminating question is: would these godly forebears confess Elijah Chacko and acknowledge those in The Westminster Tradition as their legitimate spiritual seed?

Another question arises. Which early church fathers is Elijah alluding to? Which pre-Reformers? Which Reformers? Which Puritans? Which Separatist Puritans? Who are the ‘authentic’ Calvinistic revivalists? You could hardly paint with broader brush-strokes than this! In private, Elijah Chacko has denounced great swathes of these. He condemns Zwingli, charging him with the murder of the Swiss anabaptists. He has little time for John Owen, dismissing him as a hypocrite – one who loved the praises of man and was unwilling to suffer affliction with the people of God. Spurgeon has been ridiculed in Elijah’s sermons as one who could attract the masses with his eloquence, but who knew little of the power of godliness. Lloyd-Jones is denounced as the man who paved the way for the Charismatic movement. Whatever elements of truth there may be in such statements, they are singularly uncharitable and condemnatory. ‘For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again‘ (Matt 7:2).

The best measure of how highly those in The Westminster Tradition regard their ‘godly forebears’ is how closely they resemble them. Children who love, honour and respect their parents will inevitably bear their image and resemblance. They will be known as their true sons and daughters. Do Elijah Chacko and those who model themselves after him bear this resemblance? Those in The Westminster Tradition are poor judges of this, because their knowledge of church history is shallow and cursory.

Now, although the Reformers never owned this triad of doctrines (Sola Scripture, Justification by Faith, Papacy is the Antichrist) as THE tenets that ignited the Protestant Reformation, without doubt they are of critical importance and should be stalwartly defended. But does Elijah Chacko do this, or has he subtly  corrupted them (as has already been covered in the commentary to points 1, 3 and 7)?

1. Sola Scriptura: whilst paying lip service to the properties of God’s Holy Word, Elijah elevates himself above others, claiming that he has been raised of God in these times of darkest apostasy and granted a unique degree of anointing and illumination so as to restore all things (doctrines) to their original (Pauline) purity. His followers are not truly Berean. They submit to Elijah’s verdict that they are not competent to interpret God’s Word for themselves and believe it is their wisdom to submit in all things to God’s ‘anointed prophet’. They are no more free than those who submitted themselves to ‘Holy Mother Church’.

2. Justification by Faith: Elijah Chacko shifts the emphasis away from the need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and take hold of His promises by faith, focussing instead on the need for Christians to constantly evaluate their own faith. In this context, the straitness of the gate is so brutally depicted that all but the most ‘presumptuous’ declare themselves unregenerate. Have I the faith of Abraham? Am I like Joshua and Caleb? Did not even Jesus’ closest disciples abandon Him? The consequences of continuous introspection are debilitating. Their little faith, rather than feeding on Christ, shrivels and dies. Those who follow Elijah Chacko stop looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of their faith (Heb 12:2) and look instead to the law, trusting it will be their schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ (Gal 3:24). Their ‘legal repentance’ and voluntary humiliation becomes a form of works. Again, their dependence upon their ‘anointed preacher’ becomes absolute.

3. Papacy is the Antichrist: Elijah has developed this doctrine to an unscriptural degree. He insists there is only one trinity – the ‘evil trinity’ – comprising Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet (Rev 16:13). He teaches that Satan rules over the atheists and heathen, the Antichrist rules over the Roman Catholic Church and the False Prophet spirit deceives those within the false Protestant churches. He teaches that Armageddon and Gog and Magog are end-times battles, being simultaneously waged in the spiritual realm in our own times (see comments on article 15). In Armageddon, he claims, the Antichrist wars against Christ and the False Prophet spirit wars against the spirit of the true prophets. In the battle of Gog and Magog, Satan is supposedly fighting against God the Father. It’s three against Three! Elijah mistakenly teaches that Cain was filled with the Antichrist spirit when he slew his brother Abel. He extends this principle, insisting that characters such as Absalom, Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot (and many others besides) were also actuated by the Antichrist spirit. He regularly accuses his followers of being defiled and becoming a ‘launching pad’ for the Antichrist spirit. This becomes a further means by which he can demean and control  his followers. In practice, the name of Antichrist is most frequently evoked by Elijah Chacko to denounce those who oppose him. The cry of the Reformers that the papacy is the Antichrist is actually rather irrelevant to those within The Westminster Tradition. They are more concerned with ‘ridding themselves of the Antichrist spirit’.

‘We believe that the head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ and a body of true believers that comprise this Church (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, Colossians 1:18, 3:11). These believers are found all over the world, in their local congregations and having their own local leaders (Psalm 19:3, Psalm 46:4, Matthew 18:20), who autonomously govern in accordance with biblical principles to guide and direct the members under them (Judges 8:23).‘

If only this were true of The Westminster Tradition. Sadly, it is a lie as has already been proven elsewhere on this website. In case that document is a little too detailed, some examples are listed below:

1. The Westminster Tradition functions as a denomination and not as a ministry. It considers itself to be the sole true church. It has no lasting affiliation or friendship with any other Protestant group.

2. There are no elected and ordained officers in any of the Westminster Tradition congregations.

3. Elijah Chacko is called ‘presiding pastor’ by those in his ministry. He presides or rules over all the affiliated congregations either directly, or by means of unelected officers. These ‘local leaders’ are accountable not to their congregations, but to Elijah Chacko who takes upon himself the authority to promote or demote them at his pleasure. It is simply untrue to claim that they govern autonomously. They are expected to submit regular reports. Anything of importance is orchestrated centrally. Those leaders who demonstrate unquestioning allegiance to Elijah Chacko are given a greater degree of autonomy, but it is never absolute.

4. Local churches are expected to send a significant proportion of their tithes and offerings to the Westminster Tradition’s central fund based in Singapore. They have no say over how this money is used.

‘We adhere and conform to the Regulative Principle of worship as opposed to the Normative Principle of worship. The essence of this doctrine is that there must be a Scriptural warrant, either explicit or implicit, for every element of the public worship service and gathering (Exodus 25:9, Leviticus 10:1-3, Hebrews 8:5b). Hence, we employ the Psalms and other metricated portions of the Scripture for hymnology exclusively during corporate worship (Ephesians 5:19) and we believe that preaching is the central focus of the worship service (1 Corinthians 1:17-18).‘

Again, a laudible statement, but one that is not borne out in practice. Where is the Scriptural warrant for men and women to worship separately? It is frequently the case in Singapore and Johor Bahru (Malaysia) that when Elijah Chacko is absent, he forbids ‘combined worship’. Wives and daughters are separated from their husbands and fathers, who are therefore unable to exercise spiritual oversight (1 Cor 14:34-35). Where too is the Scriptural warrant for women to teach or preach? Yet Elijah himself appoints womenfolk to these duties (see article on women preachers). 

‘We believe in the administration of the ordinance of water baptism as an expression of one’s commitment to the doctrines we espouse (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:34-38). Our members also partake in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as an expression and affirmation of their consecration, commitment and love towards the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. (1 Corinthians 11: 23-26).

Elijah Chacko usually personally administers baptism to those who join his ministry. In the statement above, he departs very considerably from the WCOF in both what he says and also what he doesn’t say. He omits to say that he believes in baptising everybody who comes to his ministry, whether previously baptised or not. The Westminster Confession (Ch 28, Sec 7) states, ‘The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.‘ He omits to say that he believes in baptism by immersion. He doesn’t state with any clarity whether he holds a paedobaptist position or not. Baptism is a divisive issue. This author is not so much criticising Elijah Chacko over whether he dips or sprinkles, or whether he baptises children or believing adults. His criticism lies in the deliberate deceit and economy of information. Most pastors are pretty straight-forward about their baptismal practices. Why then is Elijah so evasive? Well, most pastors aren’t trying to wheedle their way into other people’s pulpits. But Elijah Chacko’s aim is to get his preachers into the pulpit of any church which will receive them. Being forthright about his position on baptism will narrow their options considerably.

The Westminster Confession (Ch 28, Sec 1) is clear that baptism is to be unto the party baptized not merely an expression of commitment to a corpus of doctrines, but ‘a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom 4:11; Col 2:11), of his ingrafting into Christ (Gal 3:27; Rom 6:5), of regeneration (Tit 3:5), of remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3).’

The London Baptist Confession, though differing from the Westminster Confession, agrees that it isn’t merely an expression of commitment to doctrine. In Ch29 (Of Baptism), it states:

‘Baptism is…to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27); of remission of sins (Mar 1:4; Act 22:16); and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance (Mar 16:16, Acts 8:36,37; 2:41; 8:12; Acts 18:8).’

In The Westminster Tradition, baptism is an identification with Elijah Chacko – with his person, his gospel, his doctrines and his ministry. Rebaptism is necessary because anybody who joins The Westminster Tradition will inevitably consider themselves to have come from an apostate denomination. Since the doctrines espoused in The Westminster Tradition are different from every other Protestant church, baptism is consequentially considered necessary.

The statement on the Lord’s Supper likewise departs from that of the Westminster Assembly. The Larger Catechism (Q168 – ‘What is the Lord’s supper?’) states the following:

‘The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed (1 Cor 10:16); testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.‘

Since barely anyone in The Westminster Tradition believes themselves to be justified, there would be no communicants if only those who believed they had union and communion with Jesus could participate. Therefore, the table is opened (in principal although not always in practice) to all members The Westminster Tradition.

‘In every epoch of history, God raises His servants. We believe that ministers and preachers must be called and sent of God (Romans 10:13-15) and have the duty to faithfully preach the Word of God (Acts 20:27, 2 Corinthians 4:4).‘

This section will make more sense in the light of the commentary on Elijah Chacko’s eschatology.

‘We are adherents of the Amillennial view of eschatology and believe that we are in the days of final apostasy (1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:1-7) and the second coming of the Lord is nigh (2 Peter 3:10-12).‘

This is not all that Elijah Chacko believes. He teaches that the prophecies of Revelation are to be divided into two main sections. The first section (Ch2-3) contains Christ’s messages to the seven churches which are in Asia. They are considered to be seven literal messages to seven historic churches in John’s time. But more than this, Elijah understands the seven churches to represent seven chronological and successive periods in New Testament church history. The prophecies address circumstances within Christ’s true church. He teaches that the second section (Ch4-20) is again a chronological account of events that will take place in New Testament history, given in the sense of judgments that God will send upon those without Christ’s true church. Thus there are seven seals (representing period from Christ’s ascension to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire by Constantine); seven trumpets (representing the period of the Dark Ages from Constantine to the Reformation); and seven vials (representing the period from Reformation to Christ’s second coming). Elijah teaches that this world shall end with the greatest ever apostasy, that we are presently in such an apostasy and that the only major event left to take place is the culmination of the spiritual battle of Armageddon in the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church (Babylon the Great). He believes that the millennium is a symbolic period of time spanning the New Testament period from Christ’s first to second comings and that having reached the expiry of this period, Satan is now loosed and deceiving the nations (battle of Gog and Magog). The defeat of Satan will mark the end of this world and Christ’s Final Judgment. Elijah sees the ‘evil trinity’ as our present spiritual enemy (Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet). These are all evil spirits, and each receive their power (in that order) from the former. Satan was bound when Christ died and bruised his head – that is why the successive centuries saw the rise of Antichrist’s power. The beast (Antichrist) was wounded at Reformation, which is why, despite the weakening of the Roman Catholic Church, the cults and false Protestant churches multiplied and there has been such widespread apostasy from the Reformation truths. He teaches that the False Prophet spirit continues, the Antichrist spirit has recovered from his grievous wound and Satan has been loosed out of his prison and so therefore the evil trinity is fully at work, deceiving those within heathendom, Romanism and Christendom. Elijah teaches that we are presently either at the very end of the sixth vial period or the beginning of the seventh. 

The stage is set and it remains for Elijah to declare himself. He is that thief in Rev 16:15 who comes just before the seventh vial (v17). Elijah asserts that this thief cannot be Christ, because Christ’s will not return before Babylon falls. Elijah Chacko is little known, even within the Reformed constituency, so it suits him that he can point to a prophecy which affirms that he will come incognito. Rather contradicting himself, he also claims to be the eschatological standard whom God has raised up to counter the fierce inrush of the enemy in these final battles of Armageddon and Gog and Magog: ‘When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD‘ (Is 59:19b-20). It’s difficult to conceive how a  conspicuous standard can also be an inconspicuous thief. Elijah Chacko believes that just as God sent John the Baptist to announce Christ’s first coming, so God has now sent him to announce Christ’s second coming. He considers himself to the one of whom it is written: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD‘ (Mal 4:5). This teaching is erroneous and cultic. In Rev 16:15, Christ Himself warns that He comes as a thief and that His return, far from being announced by a ‘John the Baptist’ figure will be unannounced, the timing not even being known to the angels in heaven (Matt 24:37; Mark 13:32-33). Elijah believes he has been specially called and sent of God in this final epoch of history. He also believes he has been specially anointed to preach. As a beneficiary of all those who have come before him (see ‘Godly Forebears’) and as one who has the benefit of hindsight (being able to survey the entire scope of world history), Elijah believes himself to have been raised up in these darkest of times to restore Bible doctrine to its former purity. He frequently preaches from Rev 3:14-22 (the letter to the church of the Laodiceans) because he believes that this latter day church bears the Laodicean distinctives. He teaches that it is an unregenerate church that Christ will ultimately spue out, but that for the time being He stands outside knocking. Elijah sees his ministry as being one of rebuke and chastening (Rev 3:19a). He identifies himself with Noah, with Jeremiah and with John the Baptist. He sees our present times as extraordinary ones – in need of extraordinary offices (click here). 

For a fuller refutation of Elijah Chacko’s claim to be the Second Elijah, click here. Please note that the afterword was written before I knew the full extent of Elijah’s behaviour. I stand by the refutation itself, but not everything in the afterword (which remains for historic reasons).