PETER GOEMON: PRETRIB RAPTURE

20 Questions that Expose Dispensationalism?

The Bible Sojourner: "Do these twenty questions expose fatal problems with dispensationalism? Critics argue that dispensational theology cannot adequately explain key Bible passages concerning Israel and the church, the kingdom of God, Daniel’s seventieth week, the pretribulation rapture, biblical prophecy, and the New Covenant. In this episode, Peter Goeman works rapidly through twenty common objections to dispensationalism and asks whether they genuinely overturn the system.
Along the way, he examines covenant theology, the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, the “last trumpet,” the timing of the rapture, the future of Israel, and the relationship between the church and the New Covenant. Some questions raise legitimate issues, while others depend upon misunderstandings or outdated caricatures. Ultimately, the question is not whether the label “dispensationalism” can survive criticism, but whether its central beliefs accurately reflect what Scripture teaches."

I share some core tenets associated with dispensationalism—including a literal prophetic hermeneutic, premillennialism, and a firm Israel–Church distinction. However, apart from my general reluctance to adopt theological labels, the pretribulation rapture remains a defining feature of dispensationalism that many Christians find deeply problematic.

In this post I will take issue with Goeman's denial of the John Nelson Darby connection with the pretrib rapture. 

2: 1. Did Anyone Believe Dispensationalism Before Darby (3:25 mark)

Goeman: "The first question on the list: If your system is truly biblical, why did no one see it until John Nelson Darby in the 1830s? ..this is a very common assumption that people make. They assume that Nelson, John Nelson Darby creates a system, creates theological beliefs. One of the things I often challenge people is, I will often ask them, name one thing that John Nelson Darby invented. Because that's really the reality that we're talking about here is did John Nelson Darby invent anything? And there have been quite a few recent studies in fact about the life of John Nelson Darby that pretty much show that he is not contributing as much uniquely if anything as what is often assumed for people. In fact, the pretribulational rapture, which a lot of people assume Darby is the one who invented or maybe he got it from Margaret McDonald, that's a, you know, fallacy that many people have have held to. Even well-known individuals have propagated that belief. But it has been well established that John Nelson Darby did not create that himself. He didn't receive it from somebody else or he didn't receive it from Margaret McDonald in some charismatic vision or anything like that. He actually was influenced by a man named Thomas Tweedy.."  

Little is known about Thomas Tweedy and I have not heard anyone else mention him in this connection. Some sketchy details are found on the Plymouth Brethren Archive:

 
"The last of the early Brethren to come to Demerara was Thomas Tweedy who had seceded from the Church of lreland in the early 1830s soon after his graduation from Trinity College, Dublin, in 1833. As a roving evangelist in Ireland he had decided that missionary work was his vocation, but partly on account of ill health and perhaps also because of discouragement from his family he remained in Ireland for some years. It was only in 1842 that he set out for Demerara where he arrived after 'a fine passage' of only 33 days. How effective was Tweedy's work as a missionary is hard to say, as his health was, at the best of times, fragile and the only account we have of his life is written by one who was not particularly interested in the spiritual side of his work. He married a local coloured lady, Elizabeth Thomas by whom he had two children. Henry died when still young, while Elizabeth became the caretaker of the chapel in Georgetown."1  

Max S Weremchuk: "William Kelly refers to Newton telling him that Darby had written a letter to him in which he mentioned Thomas Tweedy suggesting 2 Thess. 2:1-2 as a help in understanding the rapture (in the article 'The Rapture of the Saints: who suggested it, or rather on What Scripture?'). In 'B. W. Newton and Dr. S. P. Tregelles. Teachers of the Faith and the Future' edited by G. H. Fromow p. 41 we read: 'About the year 1833, an Anglican Missionary came from London to Dublin, and was admitted into this circle. He told them that, while the first fourteen verses of that chapter (Matt. 24) were Christian, the remaining portion was 'Jewish,' and that, although Jewish believers might be guided by that Scripture, after the Church had been taken up to meet the Lord, it had nothing to do with the Church in the present age. Said he, 'We have found the key never discovered before.'
Could this have been Tweedy?
Would this not have been the 'clue' Darby still needed to come to the conclusion of the 'Jewish interpretation'? I would not be surprised if Darby at sometime thought of a partial rapture -- as appears in Margaret MacDonald. Could this be what the 'secret rapture' meant? The help Darby received from Tweedy and thus resulting in his 'Jewish interpretation' led to the now well-known 'Brethren' view of the rapture."2

Goeman challenges his audience to identify a doctrine unknown before Darby. The pretribulational rapture is absent from the historical record before 1829. Its emergence can be traced first to Edward Irving and the Irvingite movement, and subsequently to Darby who took the credit for it. Darby began teaching the pretrib rapture around 1830-1833. Despite extensive searches — no verifiable evidence places the pretrib rapture before that period. Documented instances of misrepresentation by pretrib leaders have been noted by Dave MacPherson, myself, and other researchers. Pretribulational eisegesis remains widespread, and the conduct of certain advocates raises legitimate concerns. The pattern indicates a coordinated effort to generate artificial “evidence” with some leaders appearing willing to employ any method necessary to preserve the claim.

Examples

* Lee Brainard's unscrupulous research into the early Church Fathers. Lee Brainard's amateurish attempts to reinterpret the writings of various church fathers have been debunked in every instance.3 
* Mark Hitchcock's recent claim that he has discovered "new evidence" of the pretrib rapture in Irenaeus is a regurgitation of old false claims..4 
* Andy Woods credibility issues. Alan Kurschner's strong rebuttal against Andy Woods' "lies" and "evasion of significant arguments" in 2018.5 

* Paul Wilkinson's blatant revisionism of John Nelson Darby.6

The Dave MacPherson Rapture Files Blogger: Posts 

A recent exchange between Andy Woods and Paul Wilkinson made clear that both treat the pretrib rapture as a primary issue, with Woods stating that he avoids association with individuals who deny it.

Woods: "My question for you is, is this a secondary issue, because a lot of people say 'don't get wrapped up in this, this is a secondary issue'?
Wilkinson: "Is it a secondary issue? Well, the apostle Paul in Titus 2 said it's our blessed hope.. that's my hope, that's the church's hope..
Woods: "What I am hearing you say is that this is not a secondary issue because what you believe about this changes your focus.. I don't think it is a secondary issue either and I mark and avoid people. I have a hard time appearing on their shows, appearing at their conferences.. A lot of them have contacted me and wanted to participate at our conferences and when I find out they are aggressively promoting some other perspective, I just have a difficult time unleashing them in front of God's people.."7  

For an ordinary attendee who raises doubts, Woods’ highly assertive almost cultish boundary‑drawing rhetoric would no doubt be difficult to withstand. These are scary people!

Darby's claim of direct revelation 

Paul Wilkinson, who claims to be an expert on John Nelson Darby asks: "Where did his (Darby's) understanding of the rapture come from? It didn't come immediately, but as he himself writes, in his own writings, he got it from studying the word.."7  

Actually Darby claimed (falsely in my view) that God Himself revealed dispensational hermeneutics to him directly. 

Darby - in his own words.. "..what God has with infinite graciousness revealed to me concerning His dealing with the Church.."8  

"..it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout."9 

Darby’s claim to have received the pretribulation rapture by direct revelation places the entire doctrine on unstable ground. By presenting his insight as newly revealed truth—functionally parallel to the way first‑century apostles received revelation (Galatians 1:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23)—he positioned himself as a post‑apostolic recipient of fresh divine disclosure. After nineteen centuries of Christian history, that claim is highly questionable.

John Rylands University Library: "He (Darby) produced popular synopses of the Bible and voluminous polemical writings on biblical subjects. As well as his distinctive eschatological views in which he popularised the idea of the 'rapture' of true believers at the point of Christ's return, he developed a dispensational interpretation of the Bible. This analysed the relationship between God and mankind in terms of distinct dispensations or epochs, with marked changes and transformations occurring following pivotal events. This interpretation proved to be a useful way of overcoming contradictions and discrepancies within the Bible. It was adopted and developed further in the early twentieth century by C.S. Scofield who produced a highly popular and influential series of reference and study Bibles. Through this medium, Darby became one of the most influential forces shaping the character and form of modern day American fundamentalist Christianity. Most of those describing themselves a 'premillenial dispensationalists' can trace the modern roots of their ideas to Darby.10

In my assessment, the pretribulation rapture is one of the most dangerous deceptions to gain traction in the modern church. Its advocates have worked extensively to force the doctrine into the biblical text, and they have made equally strenuous illicit attempts to demonstrate that pretribulationism predates Darby. Both efforts have been unsuccessful. Believers should soberly consider the implications before relying on a hope that will not materialize when the Antichrist’s persecution becomes a concrete reality.

There are significant gaps in Goemon’s argument—gaps that someone with his background should not have overlooked. I have supplied exactly what he requested: evidence of a doctrinal position that did not exist prior Darby. A response from him and definitive proof that the pretrib rapture was taught prior to the 1830s would be appreciated. 

1. Thomas Tweedy | Plymouth Brethren Archive
2. My Brethren - Biography - J. N. Darby - Research 1
3. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Lee Brainard
4. Pre-Trib Proof! | Tipping Point with Jimmy Evans
5. What Andy Woods Is Not Telling You about 'the Apostasy' in 2 Thess 2:3 - Ep. 121 | ESCHATOS MINISTRIES
6. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Paul Wilkinson
7. PPOV 346. Drs. Paul Wilkinson & Andy Woods discuss Christian Palestinianism. 3-21-25.
8. Reflections Upon The Prophetic Inquiry And The Views Advanced In It | Plymouth Brethren Writings
9. Evidence From Scripture of the Passing Away of the Present Dispensation - John Nelson Darby (#62234) - BTP
10. Papers of John Nelson Darby

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)
Prewrath - Early Church Fathers

DOUG STAUFFER: RAPTURE UNDER ATTACK

The Rapture Under Attack | Why Scoffers Are Increasing | Doug Stauffer | Repost 2015

Prophecy Watchers: "What happens when people begin mocking the promise of Christ's return? According to the apostle Peter, it's one of the signs of the last days. Originally recorded in 2015, Gary Stearman and Doug Stauffer examine one of the most debated subjects in Bible prophecy—the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church. Together they explore why the rapture has become increasingly controversial, the rise of end-time scoffers, and what Scripture teaches about Christ's imminent return."

The pretribulation rapture remains controversial for one simple reason: it lacks biblical foundation. The fictional “Left Behind” model is associated with theological immaturity and credulity. Its advocates have undermined sober evaluation of the rapture, disrupted substantive eschatological discourse, and blurred interpretive clarity—creating conditions in which alternative frameworks such as amillennialism and postmillennialism gain comparative traction. It is unsurprising that the pretribulation error attracts legitimate scoffers. In scripture, this term is directed toward those who dismiss “the promise of his coming” (2 Peter 3:3-4), not toward critics of false constructs.

Beyond this, Prophecy Watchers has accumulated substantial criticism for its heavy commercialisation, its constant product‑driven framing, its acquisition of a former TBN studio, and its self‑promotion through associations with networks like TBN, Daystar, CTN, and Cornerstone. Prophecy Watchers itself highlights these network connections as ministry “breakthroughs", presenting the TBN building purchase and Daystar acceptance as divine endorsements rather than routine media expansion. The platform is also widely perceived as excessively commercial, with nearly every teaching segment tied to DVDs, books, bundles, subscriptions, or “ministry support” packages, creating a closed loop where theological claims feed product sales. External observers echo this perception, describing the ministry as a money‑making scheme with paywall‑adjacent practices.1 In addition, Prophecy Watchers regularly features teachers whose doctrines are considered highly questionable in many conservative theological circles. 

The phrase "blessed hope" points directly to the appearing of Jesus Christ "in the clouds of heaven". (Matthew 24:30). This event is also referred to as His parousia (coming): Matthew 24:3,27,37,39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 3:13,4:15,5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,8-9; James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 1:16,3:4; 1 John 2:28). The the bible does not attach the term to an imminent pretribulation rapture model; its referent in Titus 2:13-14 denotes the believer’s confident anticipation of His glorious appearing, the final act of redemption and purification. While the scriptures exhort believers to watch and to be expectant, certain definitive signs will precede the rapture.  

..waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (Titus 2:13-14 cf. Matthew 24:30).  

The motivation for godly living is the desire of genuine, Spirit‑filled believers to pursue a life consistent with God’s character and teaching. It is a relational response to the gospel’s revelation of divine love, not a reaction to an invented doctrine of imminency. 1 John 3:2 refers to “his appearing”. The hope of believers is “the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27)—their final conformity to Christ > we will be like him… we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2). The ultimate dissolution of the elements is a further incentive to live a holy life. 2 Peter 3:11-13 refers to "the day of God, the period of final judgment and the inauguration of God’s eternal kingdom, reflected in Revelation 21:1–4. Merging the blessed hope with a false pre-trib imminent construct is a direct violation of the imperative not to add to God's word. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19).

Stauffer misrepresents the prewrath view in a number of key respects. Firstly he claims that prewrath espouses replacement theology. This is entirely fallacious. Prewrath holds to the foundational position that "all Israel will be saved" towards the end of 70th week of Daniel based on Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 30:7; Zechariah 12:10;  Romans 11:26-27 and other passages. The key difference is that prewrath interpreters teach that the 70th week of Daniel is a period in which God will work with both Israel and the church simultaneously. The pretrib assertion that the church cannot be present during the 70th week is an unverified assumption. 

Guns?!!!

Stauffer: "What do you need to be preparing? Your heart or your guns? Well, go ahead and I have guns. I know how to shoot. I know how to protect my family. It's not for the tribulation.."

Stauffer’s allegation that prewrath preparation for the tribulation requires physical weaponization is completely off base. The New Testament expectation is not armed resistance but faithful endurance. (Matthew 26:52). Believers are not depicted as fighting during that period; they are depicted as being overcome. (Revelation 13:7; Matthew 24:9; Daniel 7:25). Perseverance — even unto death — is the consistent scriptural pattern. (Matthew 10:22,24:13; Revelation 2:10). 

The scriptures never speak of a seven year tribulation. Rather they tell us repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that the great tribulation will last for 3.5 years "cut short". (Matthew 24:22):

Daniel 7:25 He (the Antichrist) shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. (3.5 years).
Revelation 11:2 ..but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.
Revelation 13:5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.
Revelation 12:5-6 ..and the woman (Israel) fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days. This period coincides with what is also known as "Jacob's Trouble". (Daniel 12:1, Jeremiah 30:7).
Matthew 24:15-21 ..when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Daniel 9:27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.2

The scriptures make a clear distinction between thlipsis (tribulation) and orgē (wrath), as reflected in Malachi 4:1; Zephaniah 1:7–18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11; and 2 Peter 3:8–13. The Day of the Lord is identified throughout scripture as God's specific wrath beginning with the trumpet judgements in Revelation 8 which are sounded after the seventh seal is broken. The ungodly anticipate God's wrath following the cosmic disturbances after the sixth seal:  

Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Revelation 6:15-17).

A responsible interpreter who prioritizes accuracy over theological bias will not impose the doctrine of imminence onto texts that provide no indication of it.

Luke 21:25–33 shows that specific, identifiable signs must occur before the rapture

And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Luke 21:25-33).

Doug Stauffer debated Joe Schimmel in 2016.3 Although Schimmel raised several pertinent points, his post‑tribulation position is defective. No comprehensive resolution can be achieved when both participants hold substantive errors. The aim of such exchanges is to confront error with accurate doctrine; however, Schimmel has consistently resisted correction. In addition, Schimmel and his family are now facing serious allegations concerning their ministry, and several troubling facts have emerged.4 

 

In the same year (2016), Alan Kurschner invited Stauffer to a formal debate. Stauffer declined, offering an inconsistent rationale by asserting that such debates are “condemned by Scripture". A more plausible explanation is that he was unwilling—or unable—to engage a competent prewrath interpreter in a structured, exegetical exchange.5 

1. Prophecy watchers-cult? : r/cults
2. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION FALLACY
3. (145) The Great Rapture Debate - YouTube
4. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: JOE SCHIMMEL BLESSED HOPE CHAPEL ALLEGATIONS: JUNE 15 UPDATE
5. Why is Doug Stauffer Participating in His Self-Described Condemnation of an Upcoming Rapture Debate? | Bible Prophecy Answers with Alan Kurschner

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)

The Dave MacPherson Rapture Files Blogger: Posts

PETERS-KOZAR PREMATURE VERDICT ON STEVE LAWSON

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs. (2 Corinthians 5-11).

The recent Peters–Kozar denunciation of Steve Lawson was issued long before the evidence justified anything resembling a verdict to the point of being irresponsible. They were not grieved as they should have been; rather they relished the chance to show their underlying hostility and hatred towards Lawson. This episode has revealed them for what they are, exposing them as nasty, unforgiving, and unrestrained. They have since moved quickly to erase all record of their vicious remarks.

The suspect post from Protestia: "Lawson briefly appeared as a Conference Speaker along with various women pastors and speakers at the Contending for the Faith Expository Preaching & Teaching Conference, which is presented by the Tennessee Baptist Missionary & Educational Convention (TBMEC), a regional body of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. and was subsequently purged from website."1 Specifically, Lawson was listed as having several workshops on how to prepare a sermon, both on day one and on day three of the event. This generated a spate of protests stating that he is not qualified without anyone even factchecking the source and the information. 

Protestia subsequently published a correction: "We can confirm that the conference organizers advertised Lawson’s participation without his knowledge or consent. They invited him to be a speaker, but before hearing that he intended to decline, there was an internal misunderstanding that led them to assume he would agree. As soon as he found out, he informed them that he would decline the offer, and they promptly removed him from the line-up."2 

The furor began when Justin Peters and Steve Kozar could not wait to stick their knives into Lawson. Their zealous reaction to the suspect news erupted without factchecking the information or thinking about the repercussions of their stinging condemnation of Lawson. These two "discerners" have been left with egg on their faces.. but frankly they could do with a bit of humbling!

Peter's reaction on X: "I was just sent this. Hey, see this is proof Steve Lawson never repented. I wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not."  The post has been hastily deleted.3 

Kozar reposted Peters' post and added: "Steve Lawson, the narcissist, needs to have an audience."

Kozar subsequently posted an update: "I removed my earlier post about Steve Lawson from Justin Peters."4

Comments

Steve Lawson was formally and permanently removed from ministry about eighteen months ago after the elders of Trinity Bible Church of Dallas determined he had engaged in an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman for five years. Following their decision, Lawson resigned from all roles at OnePassion Ministries.5

Various leaders were quick to issue unanimous condemnation and shock reverberated throughout the Reformed camp. Justin Peters wasted no time offering his two pennyworth and weighed in with: "In our camp, you disqualify yourself sexually as a minister, you're done. You can be forgiven, you can be restored to church, but you'll never minister on the pulpit again, ever."

Lawson’s sin was grave indeed and met the biblical threshold for disqualification. Nevertheless, he has complied with every requirement placed on him and he has maintained a low public profile for eighteen months. No one had any reason to doubt his genuine repentance.

Although they have apologised to their readers, Peters and Kozar have failed to apologise to Lawson personally. Assuming that Lawson is a true believer, I wonder how this slander and concealed hatred has affected him personally? (James 4:11; Proverbs 10:18). 

Peters-Kozar pattern of conduct is entirely predictable:

Peters' skewed teaching on repentance and his various questionable teachings. 

WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Search results for justin peters

Kozar's pronounced self‑importance, his dismissive posture toward other discernment efforts, and his commitment to baptismal regeneration and other Lutheran errors. 

WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Search results for steve kozar

* As a qualifier, I do not grant the legitimacy of Reformed or Lutheran theology.

1. Steve Lawson Briefly Appears As Conference Speaker, Then Is Purged From Website - Protestia
2. Steve Lawson Briefly Appears As Conference Speaker, Then Is Purged From Website - Protestia
3. Post Not Found - X | 404 Error
4. Steven Kozar on X: "I removed my earlier post about Steve Lawson from Justin Peters. Here is an update:" / X
5. Dr. Steven Lawson Resigns From All OnePassion Ministry Duties Following Moral Failure

CHRIS WICKLAND'S REPEATED "WORDS FROM GOD"

 Lessons From Ann Widdecombe. A Tribute

Chris Wickland: "I felt that God said to me, 'Very soon you are going to be known as the Tommy Robinson of the far right and you are going to split Christendom right down the middle.'"

Tommy Robinson, a high‑profile far‑right figure, has recently begun describing himself as a Christian. Pastor Rikki Doolan says Robinson “came to Christ” while in prison after conversations with a chaplain about the Gospel. Even so, substantial doubts remain about what Robinson actually believes and how — or whether — those beliefs shape his public conduct. Critics argue that his deployment of Christian language and imagery in political contexts appears instrumental rather than devotional, raising questions about sincerity and motive. In short, although Robinson now identifies as Christian, the substance of his faith and its relationship to his activism continue to be contested.

Chris Wickland's frequent alleged “words from God” display a consistent pattern: they centre on his own status, his projected achievements, and the exceptional things God is supposedly planning to accomplish through him. This exemplifies the Pentecostal NAR tendency toward inflated self‑importance and manufactured divine endorsement, where “revelations” function as a mechanism for personal glorification rather than any credible spiritual insight.

In this video Wickland focuses on Ann Widdecombe inflating her into a supposed Christian martyr. Ann Widdecombe was Roman Catholic. I have nothing to say against her personally, except to point out that Roman Catholicism is not biblical Christianity.

There are numerous issues within the RCC. If the foundational, biblical doctrine of faith is not recognised, then whatever principles we claim or whatever causes we defend do not constitute true faith. The doctrine itself holds primacy; without it, all secondary commitments are structurally irrelevant.

The five solas laid down by the Reformers sum up the core tenets of orthodox faith:

* Sola gratia (by grace alone): Salvation is a gift from God, not earned by human effort. (Ephesians 2:8-9). 
* Solus Christus (on the basis of Christ alone): Christ's work is the only basis for justification. (John 14:6).  
* Sola fide (through the means of faith alone): We are justified by faith in Christ. (Romans 3:28).

* Soli Deo gloria (to the ultimate glory of God alone): All glory belongs to God. (1 Corinthians 10:31).
* Sola Scriptura (as taught with the final and decisive authority of Scripture alone): The Bible is the ultimate authority. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In addition to the RCC's heretical understanding of justification and salvation, several of their beliefs and practices are incompatible with biblical faith.

* The RCC replaces Sola Scriptura with the authority of the Papacy and Papal infallibility. (Colossians 1:18).
* Veneration of the saints and the assumption of Mary is blasphemous.
* In Protestant theology, only baptism and the Lord’s Supper are recognized as sacraments instituted by Christ. The RCC has added five further sacraments: Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The RCC views sacraments as necessary channels of grace administered by the church, whereas Protestants view grace as a gift received directly through faith in Christ.
* The RC unbiblical concept of purgatory and indulgences lacks scriptural basis.

According to Roman Catholicism, the seven sacraments, allegedly instituted by Christ, are outward signs that confer inward grace: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation (aka. Confession and Penance), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The core issue is straightforward: scripture recognises only one source of grace — Christ Himself — and that grace is received directly, not mediated or generated through baptism, confirmation, or the eucharist. Any system that assigns sacramental channels of grace contradicts the biblical structure of faith. Likewise, believers do not require a priest to pronounce absolution in Christ’s name, nor do they need to perform penance; forgiveness is received directly from Christ Himself. (1 John 1:9). By inserting sacramental intermediaries, the Roman Catholic Church positions itself as a mediator between Christ and believers, effectively displacing the direct relationship scripture establishes between Christ and His church.

The onus upon true Christian teachers is to reprove the RCC for their heresies, not to fraternize with them!

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Further Information

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church - CARM

CHRIS WICKLAND: RESISTANCE AND REVIVAL?

Time For Christians To Resist?

Chris Wickland recently came to my attention following the public reaction against King Charles III’s revised formulation of his role — retaining “Defender of the Faith” while also presenting himself as a "protector of faith within Britain’s multi‑faith society". Wickland’s subsequent protest outside Windsor Castle and his call for Christians to "resist", has prompted me to spend some time reviewing his teaching.1 This has left me with several concerns. I have included links at the end of this post that expand on the points summarized below.

Wickland is the pastor of Living Word Church in Titchfield and Bridgemary, Hampshire. A Pentecostal minister, he centres his work on prayer and revival. He presents himself as having a "prophetic" ministry and is active in the Living Word Church Network, an initiative aimed at planting churches across the south coast of England.

"Living Word Church Network is not a denomination but we hold to Pentecostal teachings. We believe in the Four Square gospel, also known as the Full Gospel. That is Jesus as Saviour, Jesus as Healer, Jesus as Baptiser and Jesus as soon coming King."2  

Red Flags

> The term “Four Square Gospel” originated with false teacher Aimee Semple McPherson during a 1922 sermon in Oakland and later shaped the identity of the Foursquare Church she founded in Los Angeles in 1923. Although the name is presented as drawing on biblical imagery of completeness from Exodus, Ezekiel, and Revelation, its doctrinal framing and historical associations are not something I would choose to identify with. 

> Wickland is ecumenical. Ecumenism treats doctrinal non‑negotiables as expendable in order to fabricate the appearance of unity. Anyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God. (2 John 1:9).

> "Chris and Tracy Wickland and Congregational Pastors are Colin and Monique Gallaugher." Egalitarianism is unbiblical! 

> Wickland’s affirms the “five‑fold ministry”. The "five-fold ministry" is historically rooted in Latter Rain and Dominion Theology and was later absorbed into NAR hyper‑charismatic systems, where it functions as an extrabiblical, top‑down authority pyramid imposed on the church. The Greek of Ephesians 4:11–13 does not justify establishing a fixed, hierarchical five‑office governance model for contemporary church structures.

> Wickland asserts that biblical Tarshish should be identified with the United Kingdom and he uses that claim to argue that Ezekiel 38:13 places the UK outside the scope of Antichrist authority. The consensus amongst commentators is that Tarshish was located in the western Mediterranean, possibly Spain. It was known for its ships and trade. (Jonah 1:3; Isaiah 23:1). The mention of "all its villages" implies a network of trading communities.

 

Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all its villages will ask, ‘Have you come to capture the plunder? Have you assembled your hordes to carry away loot, to make off with silver and gold, to take cattle and, to seize great spoil?’ (Ezekiel 38:13).

> There are several problems with the claim that Gog in Ezekiel 38-39 is the Antichrist. Those who teach that the Antichrist will be Islamic are in error for several reasons. One striking difference is that the Antichrist will be thrown alive into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20), whereas Gog will fall and be killed on the mountains of Israel. (Ezekiel 39:4). 

> Wickland highlights reports of the Euphrates River drying up and connects this phenomenon to end‑time prophecy. This cannot serve as an eschatological indicator, since Revelation places the drying of the river within the bowl judgments—in other words, the Euphrates must still be present prior to that moment. The Euphrates has fluctuated for centuries. Modern fluctuations arise from dam systems, irrigation demands, and regional climate pressures. Treating contemporary water scarcity as prophetic fulfilment reflects interpretive error rather than responsible exegesis. Revelation 16:12 is an explicit prophecy, describing the river’s supernatural drying to prepare the way for the kings from the East and to initiate the gathering at Armageddon. (Revelation 16:12–16). Other passages—Isaiah 11:15, Jeremiah 50:38, and Jeremiah 51:36—use the image of the river’s drying symbolically to express judgment, desolation, and God’s sovereignty over nations.

> Wickland is an admirer of Charles Fox Parham. He recounts that, after praying about entering Pentecostal ministry, he interpreted the passing of a Parham‑branded bus as divine confirmation. This kind of interpretive reflex is characteristic of hypercharismatic spirituality. Anyone familiar with the documented history of Pentecostalism recognizes Parham as a racist and a cult leader.

John Collins: "Charles Fox Parham, often credited as a founding figure of Pentecostalism, was deeply entangled with fraud schemes, racial ideology, and extremist theology that shaped both his ministry and his legacy. His promotion of British Israelism, segregation, and apocalyptic communal experiments reveals a movement rooted not only in revivalism but also in white supremacy and exploitation."3  

> Wickland's recurring accounts of visions, angelic visitations, revelatory dreams and "words from the Lord", are, by definition, unverifiable.4  I have heard numerous similar narratives from figures such as Jesse Duplantis, Benny Hinn, Sid Roth etc. I treat such claims as non‑credible and categorize their proponents as individuals to be marked and avoided. (Romans 16:17-18). I have no doubt that the Lord can disclose things to His people, but such claims require testing. (1 John 4:1). I do not see that discipline operating within Pentecostal/charismatic environments.

Revival?

Wickland: "In 2018, I believe God gave me a significant prophetic word concerning the downfall of Theresa May, the unfolding of Brexit, and the restoration of some of Britain’s ancient spiritual paths, including the revival of monastic communities. Since then, I have received further prophetic insights regarding a coming revival. These speak of a move of God in the UK that will blend the ancient with the modern, that calls us to return to the old, sacred paths of Britain in order to safeguard our spiritual future."5

Monastic communities were never grounded in biblical practice, and any proposed blend of “ancient and modern sacred paths" is, at minimum, highly suspect.

Claims of a "great end-time revival" are extra-biblical constructions, not exegetical conclusions. The claim that scripture teaches an end‑time revival is unfounded; the biblical text provides no explicit support for such a doctrine. The dominant New Testament pattern points in the opposite direction: intensifying deception, apostasy, and judgment as the age closes. When challenged, Wickland simply goes into denial and presses on with his "revival" message regardless. 

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 14:9-14).

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. 9But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. (2 Timothy 1-8).

Is the rapture an afterthought?

Living Word holds a non‑replacement, premillennial position and rejects the pre‑tribulation rapture. These beliefs offer a corrective to erroneous frameworks such as amillennialism, postmillennialism, and the pretribulation rapture. However, Wickland's eschatology is problematic. He focuses on the resurrection of the dead, describing the rapture as an "afterthought".  

Wickland: "It is always the unrighteous being removed from the righteous not the righteous being removed from the unrighteous".  He refers to "one taken one left" This teaching is primarily located in Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36. These passages are often associated with the concept of the rapture, a future event where believers in Christ are taken up to meet the Lord in the air, as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.  In this view, those "taken" are the righteous who are gathered to Christ, while those "left" are the unrighteous who remain for judgment. The minority interpretation suggest that those "taken" are those taken in judgment, akin to the removal of the wicked in the days of Noah and Lot, while those "left" are the righteous who remain to inherit the earth. Wickland claims the Aramaic version of the New Testament implies a negative. The New Testament was primarily written in Greek with the earliest manuscripts being Greek. Although the Aramaic tradition is historically meaningful, it is not regarded as the original form of the text but as a translation derived from the Greek. The Greek manuscripts remain the most authoritative and widely accepted. When someone steps outside the primary textual witnesses to make a doctrinal point, it usually signals that the argument is being forced rather than grounded.

Noah was "taken" (he was delivered) in the arc before the wicked were destroyed. Similarly Lot was rescued by the angels before God's judgement fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. The Greek verbs paralambanō and aphiēmi support the consensus that those “taken” are gathered together by the angels for deliverance. (Matthew 24:31). paralambanō (to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation)"6  In this context, ἀφίημι is to 'leave alone'. The parable of the ten virgins also affirms that five are taken for deliverance and that five are left for judgement. (Matthew 25:10-12).

Bengels Gnomen: "Matthew 24:40,[1065] 41. Παραλαμβάνεται, is taken[1066]) sc. into safety, under protection; see Matthew 24:31.—ἀφίεται, is left) sc. in the midst of the dangers, whatever may occur.[1067]" 7

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Wickland's appears to believe the classic postribulation view which is problematic.8 The underlying issue is straightforward: believers accompany the Lord at Armageddon, which presupposes that their resurrection has previously occurred.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:39-40, 44,54).

Posttrib interpreters correctly note that believers are raised on “the last day” (John 6:39–40) and equate this with Paul’s “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15:52. The flaw is the assumption that Paul’s “last trumpet” corresponds to the seventh‑angel trumpet of Revelation 11:15. Revelation was not yet written when Paul composed his letters; therefore he cannot be referencing that later apocalyptic sequence. The more coherent textual link is Matthew 24:31, where the trumpet sounds immediately after the tribulation and marks the close of the age while still preceding the outpouring of divine wrath—the Day of the Lord.

Many interpreters fail to distinguish between tribulation (thlipsis) and wrath (orgé) in the book of Revelation. This distinction is exegetically indispensable. Thlipsis refers to the persecution unleashed by the Antichrist—the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21), whereas orgé denotes the outpouring of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord. Believers are explicitly informed that they are not appointed to wrath. (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

Revelation 6 makes this sequence clear: the day of the Lord begins only after the cosmic disturbances that follow the breaking of the sixth seal. (Revelation 6:12–14). This moment is defined by the declaration, For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it? (Revelation 6:17). On this basis, prewrath interpreters argue that the rapture occurs between the sixth and seventh seals of Revelation. 

Several early documents including the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian confirm a prewrath rapture. The Didache specifically teaches that the Antichrist will appear prior to Christ’s return, at which point Christ will raise the righteous and deliver the faithful who have survived the tribulation from the divine judgment associated with the day of the Lord.9 

I have written a number of posts on this subject from a prewrath perspective. I also recommend Alan Kurschner's articles that specifically reference the weaknesses of the posttrib view.* 

A Gideon moment or a Hananiah moment?

Wickland cites Esther 4:14 - For such a time as this.. and the Gideon narrative in Judges 6:1–40 as rhetorical leverage for a call to “resistance” and a prophetic national revival. Peaceful resistance itself is not novel; it has always been the Christian mandate. The problem is that the churches have consistently failed, drifting further into apostasy; the present climate is a form of divine judgment. I remain cautious about sweeping “prophetic words” especially those offering national‑scale assurances. When such declarations collapse, the resulting disillusionment can be severe.

If Wickland genuinely believes that God will intervene and bring revival to the UK he must be certain that his prophecy is accurate — that we are not witnessing a Hananiah‑type moment of confident but unfounded assurances. Scripture consistently warns of significant end‑time apostasy rather than large‑scale revival, and that pattern should inform our discernment.

The public association between Bishop Cei (Ceirion) Dewar, Pastor Chris Wickland and Tommy Robinson, who presents himself as a recent convert, is well‑documented, including shared platforms and collaborative activity. My knowledge of Dewar is limited, but the available material indicates a confessional, exclusivist, anti‑ecumenical stance, with explicit rejection of mainstream Anglican structures and inter‑church cooperation. He also appears aligned with forms of militant Christian‑nationalist activism hence his association with Tommy Robinson.

The suggestion that believers should set aside theological differences and align themselves with Wickland, Dewar, and Robinson requires caution. Broad prophetic assertions about national revival demand testing and restraint. As 1 John 4:1 makes clear, not every spirit or proclamation is to be uncritically received without examination.

I would echo the words of Jeremiah.. Amen! May the Lord do so; may the Lord make the words that you have prophesied come true.. (Jeremiah 28:6).   

BUT - bearing in mind Wickland's poor theology and frequent suspect "words from the Lord" I am sceptical.

In that same year, at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month of the fourth year, Hananiah the son of Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and all the people, saying, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the vessels of the Lord’s house, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place and carried to Babylon. I will also bring back to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and all the exiles from Judah who went to Babylon, declares the Lord, for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.”
Then the prophet Jeremiah spoke to Hananiah the prophet in the presence of the priests and all the people who were standing in the house of the Lord, and the prophet Jeremiah said, “Amen! May the Lord do so; may the Lord make the words that you have prophesied come true, and bring back to this place from Babylon the vessels of the house of the Lord, and all the exiles. Yet hear now this word that I speak in your hearing and in the hearing of all the people. The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent the prophet.”
Then the prophet Hananiah took the yoke-bars from the neck of Jeremiah the prophet and broke them. And Hananiah spoke in the presence of all the people, saying, “Thus says the Lord: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all the nations within two years.” But Jeremiah the prophet went his way.
Sometime after the prophet Hananiah had broken the yoke-bars from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: “Go, tell Hananiah, ‘Thus says the Lord: You have broken wooden bars, but you have made in their place bars of iron. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put upon the neck of all these nations an iron yoke to serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they shall serve him, for I have given to him even the beasts of the field.’” And Jeremiah the prophet said to the prophet Hananiah, “Listen, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, and you have made this people trust in a lie. Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will remove you from the face of the earth. This year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord.’”
In that same year, in the seventh month, the prophet Hananiah died. (Jeremiah 28:1-17).

Wickland's self presentation as a "prophetic voice" for the UK is in my view both delusional and dangerous.

* Articles for Posttribulationism to Caonsider | Bible Prophecy Answers with Alan Kurschner

1. My Speech outside Windsor Castle. The Vexed Vicar
2. livingword
3. Charles Fox Parham: Fraud, Racism, and the Dark Origins of Pentecostalism - William Branham Historical Research
4. Witchcraft to Christ. The true story of Christopher Wickland
5. A prophetic word for Britain: Rediscovering the ancient paths
6. Strong's Greek: 3880. παραλαμβάνω (paralambanó) -- To take, to receive, to take along, to accept
7. Matthew 24:40 Commentaries: "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
8. Rapture? End of the world and the apostate church
9. Microsoft Word - Prewrath - Early Church Fathers.docx

Further Information

The evangelist Sister Aimee McPherson was a fraudulent trickster – Historical articles and illustrationsHistorical articles and illustrations | Look and Learn
Women In Ministry Archives - BibleThinker.

The Five-Fold Ministry: How A Forgotten Idea Fueled The NAR | KCF | IHOPKC | Bob Scott | 560

One Taken and One Left Behind, and the Meaning of 'Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather' in Luke 17:37 - Ep. 49

WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION FALLACY

prewrath.pdf

The Islamic Antichrist Debunked | A Comprehensive Critique by Chris White

JD HALL: DISPENSATIONAL LEADERS CORRUPTION OF ZIONISM ?

Live with J.D. Hall - Is Your Church Part of the Israeli Political Influence Pipeline?

"In this in-depth conversation, Jeremy Slayden sits down with theologian and writer J.D. Hall to examine what they argue is a long-running influence campaign shaping modern American evangelical theology—particularly around Israel, Zionism, and dispensationalism. Hall traces his own journey from Southern Baptist pastor to outspoken critic of institutional evangelicalism, explaining how church growth strategies, donor money, and political ideology gradually displaced biblical theology in many churches.. 

The discussion explores how movements once considered fringe—such as dispensational Zionism—rose to dominance in the 20th century, and why many historic Christian theologians, reformers, and even America’s founders would have rejected modern claims about Israel being God’s continuing “chosen nation” apart from Christ. Hall also outlines why he believes social justice ideology and foreign political interests entered evangelical spaces through trusted theological institutions rather than overtly secular channels.

In the latter half of the conversation, the focus turns to Israel’s relationship with American Christians today. Hall argues that many prominent pastors and political figures now function less as Christian witnesses and more as ideological advocates, urging unconditional political, financial, and theological support for the modern nation-state of Israel—often without reference to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The episode challenges viewers to return to Scripture, test popular teachings, and reconsider long-held assumptions about theology, power, and loyalty."

Covenantal vs Dispensational Theology

Covenant theology took shape as a formal system during the 16th and 17th‑century Reformation. Dispensational theology arose in the mid‑19th century, chiefly through the work of John Nelson Darby in the 1830s–1840s. Both frameworks are therefore relatively recent theological developments, even though certain elements within each can be identified earlier in Christian history. The decisive point of separation between covenant theology and dispensationalism is their treatment of Israel and the Church: covenant theology collapses both into a single redemptive people, whereas dispensationalism maintains a structural, historical, and prophetic distinction between them. 

JD Hall reports that he grew up "loosely" within premillennial dispensationalism. His public theological commitments are now firmly Reformed, and he operates within a covenantal framework. He founded the platform later known as Protestia in the mid‑2010s under the original name Pulpit & Pen, with the rebrand to Protestia occurring around 2019. He now adopts an openly hostile stance toward dispensationalism, rejecting it outright and characterizing it as “poppycock” and “stupid". 

When asked why he changed his mind about dispensationalism he cited three passages: "God has a chosen nation, Who is it? He doesn't have two, He's got one.. Peter was talking to the church.. The bride is the church. Everywhere you look you see an affirmation of that.. Galatians 3 where the apostle Paul says it is those of faith who are the children of Abraham.. Romans 9 'not all of Israel are really Israel.." 

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29).

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.. (Romans 9:6).

I have no problem with anything JD asserts so far. BUT, none of his assertions negates the legitimacy of God’s prophetic purposes for the Jewish people or for the land of Israel. 

Israel’s future repentance is a fixed element of biblical prophecy. Zechariah 12:10 and 13:8–9 describe a national turning to Christ in which a refined one‑third remnant is restored. Deuteronomy 30:1–6, Hosea 3:4–5, Hosea 5:15, Hosea 14:1–4, Ezekiel 36:24–28, Ezekiel 37:21–28, Jeremiah 31:31–34, and Romans 11:23–27 all present the same pattern: present unbelief, future crisis, national repentance, and final restoration under the Messiah. These texts collectively affirm that Israel’s current condition does not negate God’s promises, and that their future return to the Lord remains certain.

JD correctly notes that the Jewish people are presently cut off, yet Paul maintains that God retains the authority to graft them in again. Paul’s argument in Romans 11 is explicit on this point: And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11:23-24).

Premillennialism was widely accepted doctrine of the early church. Key figures such as Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus were prominent proponents of premillennialism, i.e. they held that Jesus would reign for a thousand years before the final judgment:

1st–2nd Century (Apostolic & Sub-Apostolic Era) Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130) – Earliest recorded Christian to clearly teach a literal earthly reign of Christ after His return. Didache (late 1st century) – While not explicit, its eschatology aligns with an imminent return of Christ and a coming kingdom. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) – Publicly defended premillennialism as a widely held belief among “orthodox” Christians.

Late 2nd Century Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) – Systematically connected Old Testament prophecies with a literal millennium in Against Heresies. Tertullian (c. 155–240) – Linked the resurrection of the righteous to a thousand-year reign before the final judgment.

3rd Century Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235) – Interpreted Daniel and Revelation literally, expecting a future Antichrist and millennial reign. Commodianus (mid-3rd century) – Wrote poetry describing the millennium as a time of peace and abundance.

Early 4th Century Lactantius (c. 250–325) – Gave one of the most detailed premillennial descriptions, portraying the millennium as a golden age on earth.

Shift in the 4th–5th Century Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340) – Favored a more allegorical interpretation, influenced by Origen’s spiritualizing approach. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) – Popularized amillennialism, interpreting the “thousand years” symbolically as the present church age, which became the dominant medieval view.

Summary:  1st–3rd centuries: Premillennialism was common and often taken literally. 4th century onward: Allegorical and symbolic interpretations gained dominance, especially after Christianity became the Roman Empire’s official religion.

The Reformers introduced several important corrections, but their work was limited in scope, particularly in the area of eschatology. Their theological frameworks should not function as the controlling authority for contemporary doctrine. Our commitments are derived from scripture itself, not from figures such as Calvin or Luther. (2 Timothy 3:16).

JD’s discussion of alleged “dark money” influencing the Southern Baptist Convention and broader evangelical institutions raises a familiar claim: that wealthy donors and institutional elites are directing funds toward seminaries in order to steer future pastors toward culturally Marxist frameworks, with downstream effects on congregations. He cites Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale as reinforcing his view that the primary threats to doctrinal integrity are not external but embedded within seminaries themselves.

Jeremy Slayden’s observation is similarly diagnostic: believers often assume that a charismatic or seemingly upright figure on the platform must be delivering unfiltered truth, as though God would not permit otherwise. This naïveté—an uncritical trust in pastors and teachers—remains a significant vulnerability within the church. Confronting doctrinal error is costly, isolating, and often resisted, yet it is integral to genuine discipleship. (Matthew 16:24). Every New Testament book, with the exception of Philemon, warns explicitly about false teachers. (Acts 20:29; 1 John 4:1). The pattern is consistent: vigilance is not optional.

JD identifies 2006 as a definable turning point; a “reformed resurgence” that functioned as a corrective to dispensationalism and the widespread influence of the Scofield Reference Bible, whose ubiquity through Oxford University Press helped entrench Darby’s dispensational framework first articulated in 1821.

JD asserts that the State of Israel provides roughly $100 million annually to American evangelical institutions as part of a coordinated influence effort. He frames this as “Shepherds for Shekels”, suggesting that Israeli funding is used to shape a specific pro‑Israel narrative within US evangelicalism, positioning American Christians as a political protectorate for the Israeli state. I cannot independently verify JD’s claims, but this is the structure of the argument he sets out. As I listened, it clarified something I have long observed and found troubling, but have not previously been able to articulate: a directional agenda embedded within modern dispensationalism. Specifically, the pretribulation rapture doctrine, which is aggressively defended by figures such as Andy Woods, Lee Brainard, Paul Wilkinson, Jack Hibbs, and Amir Tsarfati. Their defense often relies on arguments that are methodologically unsound, selectively framed, or demonstrably inaccurate — including attempts to fabricate or misrepresent historical evidence in order to retroactively situate dispensationalism within the early church. JD’s thesis offers a coherent explanation for this pattern and accounts for the darker directional agenda evident within modern dispensationalism in a way that other explanations do not.

 

The pretribulation rapture doctrine remains the critical flaw within modern Zionist‑aligned evangelical systems. In this respect, dispensational teachers appear to function as political instruments, advancing an eschatological framework that is both unbiblical and strategically self‑defeating. Their teaching produces measurable harm for believers and for Jewish communities. The extreme position of John Hagee — that the gospel need not be preached to Jewish people — illustrates the doctrinal distortion at its worst. The challenge is to separate pretribulationism from the elements of dispensational theology that are biblically sound.

Further Links

*The Dave MacPherson Rapture Files Blogger: Posts

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)

KING CHARLES' APPALLING APOSTASY

 🚨 ROYAL CRISIS... As Charles Ditches 'Christianity' For 'Multi-Faith' Crown 🔥

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15).

Above Neil McCoy‑Ward raises several observations about King Charles, some of which carry an unsettling tone.

Buckingham Palace has published a revised description of King Charles III's constitutional role, stating that the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is responsible for protecting "the space for Faith" within Britain's "multi-faith nation". 

Previously King Charles was described as the “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.” The latest edition adds a broader emphasis on religious inclusion, stating: “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.” It further adds: “His Majesty also has a special role in bringing communities and faiths together, engaging with them across the regions and nations of the UK.”

The revised wording reflects King Charles’ long-standing commitment to interfaith dialogue, a cause he has championed since his time as Prince of Wales. Throughout his public life, Charles has regularly engaged with representatives of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox and other religious communities in the UK and overseas, often speaking about cooperation among the "Abrahamic faiths".

Before his coronation in 2023, there had been speculation that Charles might adopt the title “Defender of Faith” rather than the traditional “Defender of the Faith”, signalling a broader commitment to all religions. However, he ultimately retained the historic title used by previous British monarchs and he took the oath accordingly. 

The recent 2026 revised description is a violation of the Coronation Oath and the solemn promises Charles made on the 6 May 2023:

"Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England?"

To each question, Charles answered unequivocally: "All this I promise to do."

In effect, Charles has demonstrated that his words carry no substantive content, no integrity, and no discernible purpose. Speech of this kind cannot ground trust; a person who trades in empty words cannot be relied upon to honour commitments or fulfill obligations. (Matthew 12:36–37; Ephesians 5:6).

The Church of England, founded in 1534 under Henry VIII, began with compromised origins—its formation marked by the sin, political expediency, and hypocrisy surrounding a monarch who effectively sought a Roman Catholic church stripped only of Roman authority, and largely achieved that aim. The Coronation Oath, in its modern form (1689), is explicitly grounded in Reformation‑era Protestant doctrine and the settlement of religion established under Elizabeth I and reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. The Oath requires the monarch to maintain the Protestant religion established by law, and is a direct product of Reformation theology and polity. Since the Reformation, however, the CofE has entered a prolonged trajectory of doctrinal instability, drifting steadily toward outright apostasy.

The question, then, is whether the King has failed to preserve the doctrine, worship, or government of the Church of England. His close association with other faiths—particularly Islam—has not altered Anglican doctrine, but it does raise the issue of whether he has upheld the Coronation Oath’s requirement to maintain, “to the utmost of his power” the Protestant religion established by law. His sustained interfaith agenda provides repeated instances in which that obligation has been demonstrably compromised.

As a man in the final stretch of his earthly life, it is theologically notable that Charles appears not to have undertaken serious consideration of the authority of Jesus’ words and the claims of the gospel. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6). For someone who treats words as worthless, his disregard for the exclusive demands of Christ is consistent. Though Charles has publicly professed allegiance to the gospel, his conduct reflects the pattern scripture identifies in a double‑minded man whose actions functionally deny the God he claims to serve. They profess to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good deed. (Titus 1:16).

2 Chronicles 34 is instructive. After nearly six decades of idolatry, neglect, and suppression under corrupt Israelite kings, the Book of the Law had effectively vanished. When it was recovered during Josiah’s temple restoration in 623/22 BCE, the young king recognised its authority immediately and responded in the only appropriate way: he repented.

And when the king heard the words of the Law, he tore his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon the son of Micah, Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying, “Go, inquire of the Lord for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out on us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do according to all that is written in this book...   And Josiah took away all the abominations from all the territory that belonged to the people of Israel and made all who were present in Israel serve the Lord their God. All his days they did not turn away from following the Lord, the God of their fathers. (2 Chronicles 34:19-33).

The distinction is clear: Charles has lived his entire life with the gospel immediately within his grasp, yet he has been found wanting repeatedly. The theological trajectory of Charles' contempt of God's Word points toward an outcome that leads to ultimate ruin.

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8).

Hopefully, whatever Charles does at his Transylvanian retreat in the Zalán Valley reflects nothing more than his attachment to the natural landscape, though McCoy‑Ward’s video gestures toward a darker undertone. Charles himself has publicly expressed pride in his genealogical connection to Vlad III—Vlad the Impaler, or Vlad Țepeș—the historical figure behind the Dracula legend.1

1. From Vlad the Impaler to the British Crown: King Charles III's Ancestral Ties | Ancient Origins