LEE BRAINARD'S INEPT RAPTURE/SIXTH SEAL ARGUMENTS

The Rapture and the 6th Seal Arrival of the Day of the Lord

Soothkeep: "In this livestream, Lee Brainard examines the biblical case for the pre-tribulation rapture and challenges the arguments commonly used to support the pre-wrath position. Beginning with Revelation 6 and the sixth seal, he examines the timing of the heavenly signs, the Day of the Lord, and the relationship between the seals, trumpets, and bowl judgments."

And I watched as the Lamb opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs dropping from a tree shaken by a great wind. The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us  from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?” (Revelation 6:12-17).

Having acknowledged the coherence and logical strength of the prewrath rapture position, Brainard nevertheless contends that it is undermined by a critical defect. The difficulty, however, is not with the position itself but with the inept arguments he advances against it.

Brainard argues that prewrath rests on several unproven assumptions. According to him, proponents must demonstrate:

1. That the seals, trumpets, and bowls unfold sequentially.
2. That the cosmic signs are not merely introduced by the sixth seal, but actually occur during the 70th week and long before Christ's return.
3. That the sixth seal marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord, meaning no divine wrath, judgment, or Day-of-the-Lord activity exists in any form prior to it.

• The obvious factor is that the seals and trumpets are presented numerically and chronologically in the text. 
• The seals, trumpets and bowls increase in intensity and scope.
• Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse makes a distinction between the beginning of birth pains, the great tribulation, the cosmic signs, and the gathering of the elect. This parallels the sequence of the seals in Revelation 6. Jesus explicitly warned against confusing the end with the beginning of birth pains, He taught that the great tribulation precedes His return, and He identified the celestial disturbance as the sign announcing His coming. Both these passages supports distinguishing the seals from the divine wrath associated with the trumpets and bowls.
• The cry of the fifth seal martyrs in Revelation 6:10 demonstrates that the wrath of God has not yet begun.
• The sixth seal functions as a watershed moment. Prior judgments have already occurred on the earth, but the cosmic disturbances signal that the Day of the Lord is about to begin following the great tribulation. (Matthew 24:29). The emphasis shifts from tribulation and preliminary earthly judgments to particular divine wrath preceded by cosmic disturbances, signalling a decisive change. The specific cosmic disturbances affecting the sun, moon, stars, and heavens described in Revelation 6:12-14 have not occurred before the sixth seal this is indeed the first place in Revelation where that type of phenomenon appears on a global cosmic scale. 

A fundamental principle of biblical interpretation is that passages whose meaning is clear and explicit should guide the interpretation of passages that are more obscure, disputed, or capable of multiple readings. Brainard argues that the following passages disprove the prewrath view that the cosmic disturbances occur at the sixth seal, maintaining instead that they occur at Armageddon.

Isaiah 34:2-4 is often compared with the gathering of the nations at Armageddon in Revelation 16:16 and the final overthrow of Christ's enemies in Revelation 19:17-21. Because the passage describes universal judgment and cosmic upheaval, interpreters view it as an allusion to Armageddon and the Day of the Lord.

Verse 4. The entire host of heaven will be dissolved. The imagery portrays the unraveling of the material cosmos itself, with the celestial realm containing the sun, moon, and stars passing away. Similar language is found in Matthew 24:29 and 2 Peter 3:10.

However, while Isaiah 34:4 associates these cosmic disturbances with divine judgment, the passage itself provides no explicit chronological framework indicating the sequence in which these events occur. Any attempt to determine their sequence must be based on comparison with other prophetic passages that place similar cosmic phenomena within a more clearly defined sequence of end-time events.

Joel 3:9-16 > Brainard's claim that this passage places the gathering of the nations for judgment at Armageddon alongside cosmic disturbances warrants further investigation. 

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and moon grow dark, and the stars lose their brightness. (Joel 3:14-15).

The verbal parallels between Joel, Matthew 24, and the sixth seal in Revelation are striking:

Joel: The sun and moon grow dark (Joel 3:15).
Jesus: The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light (Matthew 24:29).
Sixth Seal: The sun became black as sackcloth, and the whole moon became like blood (Revelation 6:12).

A further point of identification appears in Matthew 24:29, where Jesus states that these cosmic signs occur “immediately after the tribulation” followed by the visible coming of the Son of Man on the clouds and the rapture of the church.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31).

Revelation likewise places the cosmic disturbances at the opening of the sixth seal, not within the Armageddon passages themselves. The darkened sun and blood-red moon appear in Revelation 6, whereas Armageddon is not introduced until Revelation 16.

The most natural explanation for this apparent tension is that Joel presents these events in a compressed prophetic perspective. Old Testament prophets frequently portray the Day of the Lord as a single, comprehensive event without distinguishing every stage within it. Thus, Joel places the gathering of the nations, cosmic disturbances, divine judgment, and God's reign from Zion within one prophetic panorama, whereas Revelation unfolds these themes progressively.

Prewrath interpreters generally understand the sequence as:

Joel → Matthew 24 → Sixth Seal (cosmic disturbances) → Christ's appearing → Final judgment of the nations/Armageddon

In this framework, Joel's cosmic signs are not identified exclusively with Armageddon itself. Rather, they function as the heavenly signs that announce the arrival of the Day of the Lord and lead into the final judgment of the nations.

The clearest chronological indicator appears in Joel 2:31, which explicitly places the cosmic disturbances before the Day of the Lord. Consequently, this explicit chronological statement should be afforded greater interpretive weight than related passages in which the sequence of events is not clearly defined. Joel 3:14-16 describes the nations assembled for judgment in the Valley of Decision within the broader context of the Day of the Lord. For this reason, the passage is often understood as depicting the culmination of divine judgment against the nations, commonly associated with Armageddon.

I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and awesome Day of the LORD. (Joel 2:30-31).

This distinction becomes particularly relevant when comparing Joel with Revelation. In Revelation 6:12-17, the sixth seal describes dramatic cosmic disturbances, including the darkening of the sun, the moon appearing as blood, and the stars falling from heaven. Significantly, these signs prompt the inhabitants of the earth to recognise that the great day of his wrath is come. If Joel 2:31 is allowed to govern the chronology, the cosmic disturbances function as a precursor to the Day of the Lord rather than as the Day itself. Consequently, the clear chronological statement in Joel 3:31 should be given priority when interpreting more general prophetic passages. 

A notable weakness in Brainard's argument is his selective engagement with the evidence. Although Joel 3 is cited, Joel 2:30-31 is not addressed, even though it explicitly places the cosmic disturbances before the Day of the Lord. Any comprehensive analysis should account for both passages rather than relying on one to the exclusion of the other. Brainard’s omission of Joel 2:31 would, in most disciplines, be judged as academic negligence. Had this been submitted as an examination presentation, it would likely have failed for ignoring evidence directly relevant to the question under consideration. This is not an isolated instance but reflects a pattern previously observed in Brainard's research, where the treatment of the evidence is notably selective.

Brainard: "Signs in the heaven occur in conjunction with the army of heaven descending (Joel 2:1-11 and Isaiah 13:3-13)".   

Joel 2:1-11 > for the day of the Lord is coming; it is near, (Joel 2:1).The temporal sequence in Joel is difficult to miss. Joel 2:1 describes the Day of the Lord as coming and near, indicating that it has not yet arrived. As previously stated, Joel 2:31 places the cosmic disturbances before that Day. This raises an obvious question: has Brainard actually followed the chronology laid out in the passage?

Isaiah 13:3-13 is primarily an oracle of judgment against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1). The chapter later identifies the Medes as the instrument of Babylon's downfall (Isaiah 13:17). At the same time, Isaiah's language expands beyond a local historical judgment. The prophecy speaks of the Day of the Lord, the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, God's judgment of "the world" and the shaking of the heavens and earth (Isaiah 13:6, 10-13). Many interpreters therefore understand the passage as employing cosmic Day-of-the-Lord imagery that transcends the immediate fall of Babylon. However Isaiah 13 does not mention Armageddon, the gathering of the nations, or any equivalent geographical setting. Those connections must be argued from comparisons with other prophetic passages rather than from Isaiah 13 itself.

Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,. 

to make the land a desolation
and to destroy its sinners from it.
For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
will not give their light;
the sun will be dark at its rising,
and the moon will not shed its light.
I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
I will make people more rare than fine gold,
and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
in the day of his fierce anger.  (Isaiah 13:9-13).

Isaiah 24:21-23  Brainard: "signs in the heavens when Satan is bound and the Lord takes his throne on Mount Zion." 

On that day the Lord will punish

the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished.
Then the moon will be confounded
and the sun ashamed,
for the Lord of hosts reigns
on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
and his glory will be before his elders. (Isaiah 24:21-23).

Equating Isaiah 24:23 with the cosmic disturbances of Revelation 6 ignores the purpose of the passage. Isaiah is not describing celestial disturbance but the overwhelming revelation of divine glory. (cf. Revelation 21:23). The sun and moon are personified as being ashamed because their brilliance pales into insignificance before the glory of the Lord reigning in Zion. The text functions as an exaltation of God's supremacy over creation, not as a prediction of the cosmic signs that accompany the Day of the Lord. The two passages address different subjects and should not be conflated.1 

Pulpit Commentary: "..the expressions used suggest rather a contrast between the dazzling splendor of Christ's actual appearance and the normal brightness of sunlight and moonlight. The greater and lesser lights will 'pale their ineffectual fires' before the incomparable brightness of the 'Sun of Righteousness' (Malachi 4:2). When the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem."2

Brainard presents the seals as both chronological and overlapping. In his view, each seal introduces a judgment that continues until the end rather than occurring as a brief, isolated event. For example, the first seal introduces the Antichrist, whose influence extends throughout the entire period. The second seal introduces warfare, which likewise continues to the end, while the third seal introduces famine as an ongoing condition. He applies the same pattern to the remaining seals.

Brainard refers to the fourth seal as involving "sore judgments", although the basis for this designation is doubtful. Revelation 6:7-8 describes the fourth seal in terms of death by sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts, but it does not mention sores. Sores first appear in Revelation 16:2, when the first bowl judgment is poured out: So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.

The bowl judgments are introduced by the seventh trumpet, which follows the seventh seal. The seventh seal gives rise to the seven trumpet judgments, and the seventh trumpet introduces the seven bowl judgments. This progression forms part of Revelation's broader sequence of escalating judgments, culminating in the outpouring of God's wrath upon a rebellious world. Consequently, identifying the fourth seal specifically as "sore judgments" is difficult to support directly from the text, since sores are not mentioned until the bowl judgments of Revelation 16. 

Brainard argues: “the fifth seal introduces the great tribulation which lasts all the way to the end.” This claim is inaccurate. Jesus explicitly places the cosmic disturbances after the tribulation, stating: Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29). 

Brainard's presentation of the typology of the Day of the Lord appears to have been sourced from S Maxwell Coder's dispensational premillennial framework, especially as reflected in his prophetic writings such as 'The Final Chapter'. This four-stage structure reflects the classic Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute dispensational approach that Coder taught and defended. While imaginative, this typological reading lacks evident exegetical support. No clear textual indicators appear to warrant the conclusions being drawn.

This theory presents the Day of the Lord as unfolding in four stages that parallel the progression of a natural day. Just as a normal day begins with the appearance of the morning star, followed by dawn, sunrise, and then the full daylight, so the Day of the Lord is said to begin with Christ as the "Morning Star" in relation to the church (Revelation 2:28; 22:16; 2 Peter 1:19). According to this view, the rapture occurs at the very outset of the Day of the Lord. The period between the rapture and Christ's visible return constitutes the "dawning" of that day (1 Thessalonians 5; 2 Thessalonians 2). The Second Coming is then identified with the "sunrise," drawing on Malachi 4:1-3 and the accompanying cosmic disturbances. Finally, the millennial kingdom is viewed as the Day of the Lord in its fullest expression, supported by appeals to Hebrews 4, 2 Peter 3:8, and Hosea 5:14-6:2. The framework is intended to show a progressive unfolding of divine intervention, judgment, and kingdom blessing, though the four-stage structure itself is inferred from symbolic parallels rather than explicitly outlined in Scripture.

The central objection to this theory is that S Maxwell Coder's four-stage Day of the Lord depends on a broader dispensational framework rather than on explicit biblical statements linking these events together. Critics argue that many Day-of-the-Lord passages present it as a sudden climactic intervention of God rather than a period extending from the tribulation through the millennium; that the New Testament often places Christ's return, resurrection, and judgment together rather than separating them into multiple phases; that a pre-tribulation rapture is not clearly tied to the beginning of the Day of the Lord; that the Millennium is chiefly portrayed as a time of blessing rather than judgment. In short, the objection is not primarily to the individual events themselves, but to the claim that Scripture explicitly arranges them into a single four-stage Day of the Lord.

Brainard continued with a Q&A session which I did not watch.

The deficiencies in Brainard's presentation become apparent early on. Although he relied heavily on the book of Joel, he failed to engage with Joel 2:31, a text that is directly relevant to the timing of the Day of the Lord. Likewise, Matthew 24:29 indicates that the tribulation precedes the events associated with the Day of the Lord, contradicting key elements of his framework. These are not minor oversights but significant exegetical omissions that materially affect his conclusions. This pattern raises serious concerns about his reliability as a biblical interpreter, particularly in light of the warnings given to teachers in James 3:1 and the command to rightly divide the word of truth in 2 Timothy 2:15. For that reason, I would caution serious students of eschatology against following his teaching and would regard Romans 16:17-18 as applicable to those who persist in promoting such doctrinal error.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19).

1. What is the meaning of Isaiah 24:23?
2. Isaiah 24 Pulpit Commentary

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)

CHRIS WICKLAND PARANORMAL VISIONS

Paranormal, Prayer and Prophecy with Paster Chris Wickland

A number of troubling concerns have emerged out of this interview between psychic medium Angela Haynes and Chris Wickland.  

Wickland recounted that he was heavily involved in occult practices throughout his childhood and teenage years. He claimed, at around seventeen years of age, he became a Christian, after which time he began experiencing what he describes as hearing the voice of God and encountering angels.

Notably, one of Wickland's early points of contact was a meal and prayer meeting organized by the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International (FGBMFI). The FGBMFI was closely connected to the ministry of cult leader William Branham and the broader Latter Rain revival, a movement widely regarded as a significant precursor to what later became known as the New Apostolic Reformation.1  It was at this meeting that Wickland received prayer and claims that he was freed from depression.

Taking Wickland's accounts at face value, it is worth noting that Scripture warns that Satan is most effective when he appears as an "angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). Someone with a history of deep involvement in occult practices may experience voices, visions, or even apparent spiritual phenomena that are interpreted as divine. A new convert may lack the theological and spiritual maturity needed to evaluate such experiences carefully, whereas discernment is expected to grow through spiritual maturity, biblical knowledge, and testing of claims. It is reasonable to ask whether Wickland experienced a genuine Christian conversion or whether he transitioned from occult beliefs and practices into a form of quasi-Christianity that presented itself as authentic Christianity while retaining underlying elements of his earlier worldview. 

Angela Haynes gave an account of her negative experience within church communities, including those connected with the Alpha Course, which became difficult once her involvement in psychic mediumship and tarot reading became known. She interpreted the reaction as exclusionary and maintained that individuals with backgrounds in the occult, addiction, or unusual spiritual experiences require opportunities for open dialogue. Haynes suggested that mainstream churches should be less focused on doctrinal boundaries and more willing to engage with claims relating to spiritual realities. Haynes' testimony suggests a syncretistic approach to spirituality, combining elements of the Hare Krishna movement with a professed belief in Jesus and an openness to other religious traditions. She stated that, during her involvement with the Alpha Course, she was told that these pluralistic beliefs could not coexist within orthodox Christianity. (30:00 mark)  I am no fan of the Alpha Course because it is ecumenical, but in this instance they appear to have given her good advice. 

The difficulty is self-evident. Biblical Christianity makes exclusive truth claims and teaches that reconciliation with God comes through Jesus Christ alone. As such, the coexistence of Christian belief with other religious commitments presents a clear theological contradiction. On that basis, I would encourage Angela Haynes to seek the Lord and to renounce beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the Christian faith.

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 cf. 1 John 5:11-12).

Wickland went on to make a very problematic claim. After attending what sounds like another dodgy meeting in Israel where he allegedly received prophecies about being "an end time prophet to the nations", Wickland claimed that he began receiving visions again. He referred to his previous occult gifts as transferrable and becoming "pure and sanctified".

From a biblical perspective, Wickland's specific claim that occult gifts were "transferred" and became "pure and sanctified" cannot be substantiated from Scripture.

The New Testament does teach that God can radically transform a person's life and redeem former sinners for His service. However, it does not teach that occult abilities are spiritual gifts that simply become sanctified after conversion.

The following biblical considerations are relevant:

• Biblically, spiritual gifts originate with God and are imparted by the Holy Spirit. Paul consistently teaches that believers receive the Spirit through faith in Christ, not through any prior spiritual source (Galatians 3:2). 
• Spiritual gifts are described as sovereignly distributed by the Holy Spirit according to His will, rather than as abilities carried over from a person's former spiritual experiences. As 1 Corinthians 12:11 states, one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. If the Spirit is received through faith in Christ, then occult abilities cannot be the means by which Christians obtain spiritual power.
• Scripture clearly distinguishes the power of God from magic and sorcery. In Acts 8, Simon the Sorcerer witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit and mistakenly assumed that spiritual power could be obtained and transmitted like an occult practice. Peter's sharp rebuke exposed this misunderstanding, emphasizing that God's gift is neither a commodity to be acquired nor a power to be manipulated. The passage underscores that the work of the Holy Spirit operates according to God's sovereign will, not through human control or occult techniques.
• Scripture consistently treats occult practices as something to be renounced (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Acts 19:19 describes new believers publicly destroying their occult materials after conversion. The biblical pattern is abandonment of occult involvement, not incorporation of occult abilities into Christian life.
• Light and darkness are presented as incompatible realms. Paul asks: What fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). The theological principle is that believers belong to Christ's kingdom, while occult practices belong to a different spiritual sphere. Scripture never teaches that occult powers become sanctified Christian gifts after conversion.
• Christians are commanded to test the spirits. In 1 John 4:1, believers are instructed not to accept every spiritual manifestation uncritically but to examine whether they originate from God. This command recognizes that spiritual experiences can arise from different sources and must be evaluated accordingly. Therefore, the mere existence of supernatural abilities or experiences is not, by itself, evidence that they are from God.
• Paul warns believers to evaluate spiritual claims not by their extraordinary nature but by their conformity to the gospel and apostolic teaching.

Wickland continues to report numerous visions and dreams. Many of his prophetic claims are unverifiable, while others have proven false. Notably, he has himself acknowledged making false prophecies, a fact that raises serious concerns about the authenticity of his "prophetic ministry".

In 2023 Wickland delivered a prophecy in which he predicted a general election. He maintains the prediction came from an all‑night dream and was not fabricated, claiming the word “uproar” repeated throughout. In the dream, Keir Starmer triggered a general election, resulting in a hung parliament and the physical collapse of the Houses of Parliament, followed by unrest in the streets. Wickland now concedes the obvious: Starmer did not call an early election, none of the predicted events occurred, and the prophecy failed in every detail. 

Wickland: "Obviously Keir Starmer did not trigger an early general election as I had seen it.. none of what I just said has happened at all." 

False prophecy is treated in scripture as a lie. (Jeremiah 27:15; Ezekiel 13:6-8). It is never treated as a minor error or something to be overlooked. In the Old Testament it carries the highest level of moral severity, including the death penalty, and operates as an automatic disqualification from any claim to divine authority. Neither the Old nor the New Testament permits any margin of error in prophetic speech; there is no biblical allowance for prophecy to be less than 100% accurate. The prophetic standard is total precision and total fidelity to Yahweh, without exception.

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ (Deuteronomy 18:20).

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. (Jeremiah 14:14).

Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you.’” For who among them has stood in the council of the Lord to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? Behold, the storm of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his heart. In the latter days you will understand it clearly. “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds. “Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’ How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart, who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal? Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord. Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:16-32).

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’ Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the Lord. They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the Lord,’ when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, ‘Declares the Lord,’ although I have not spoken?” Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Because you have uttered falsehood and seen lying visions, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord God. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord God. (Ezekiel 13:1-9).

And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ when the LORD has not spoken. (Ezekiel 22:28).

The New Testament presents false prophets as deceptive figures who infiltrate the church under a veneer of legitimacy, producing corrupt fruit and leading believers astray. Jesus warns that many will arise, some performing signs designed to mislead (Matthew 7; 24; Mark 13). Acts identifies false prophecy as active opposition to the gospel, while 2 Peter describes false prophets and false teachers as introducing destructive heresies and denying Christ. John commands believers to test every spirit because many false prophets have gone out into the world, and Revelation portrays the false prophet as a figure who uses signs to promote idolatry and moral corruption. Across these texts, the New Testament maintains a unified standard: false prophets are recognised by deception, doctrinal distortion, corrupt conduct, and the production of counterfeit spiritual authority.

1. Full Gospel Business Men - William Branham Historical Research 

DAVID HIND ONE CHURCH LEICESTER: BUILDING A LEGACY?

One Church Together - VISION SUNDAY | 1st November 2026, 11.30am

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15).

A recurring concern with David Hind's teaching is his habit of appropriating Old Testament narratives in support of his own stated vision. Instead of deriving meaning from the text through sound exegesis, passages are often presented as direct endorsements of pre-existing objectives. Verses are isolated from their context and employed as proof texts for plans later described as divinely revealed. This reverses the proper order of interpretation, making Scripture serve the vision rather than the vision submit to Scripture. Such methodology bears similarities to practices frequently observed in cultic environments.

And they told him, “We came to the land to which you sent us. It flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there... (Numbers 13:27-28)

But Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.” Then the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are.” So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” (Numbers 13:30-33).

Numbers 13 is a pivotal chapter in Israel's wilderness journey. God instructs Moses to send twelve tribal leaders to explore Canaan, the land He had already promised to give His people. While Deuteronomy 1 indicates that the proposal originated with the people, God permitted it and used it as a test of Israel's faith and obedience. Significantly, the spies and the nation failed that test through unbelief and rebellion. This crucial aspect of the narrative is absent from Hind's application of the passage.

Hind's mishandling of the text is problematic on several levels:

Ignoring the Original Meaning

Events in Israel's history occurred within specific covenantal, historical, and redemptive contexts. Their primary purpose was to reveal God's dealings with His covenant people, not to provide templates for contemporary organisational visions. When that context is ignored, biblical narratives become vehicles for promoting whatever message a leader wishes to advance.

Turning Description into Prescription

Biblical narratives describe events that occurred; they do not automatically prescribe actions for future believers. David's military victories, Solomon's building projects, and Joshua's conquest of Canaan are historical accounts situated within unique moments of redemptive history. Treating every narrative as a blueprint for present-day initiatives frequently produces unwarranted conclusions.

Creating Proof Texts for Pre-Existing Plans

Rather than allowing Scripture to shape and test a vision, the vision is established first and biblical texts are subsequently recruited to support it. Scripture then functions less as divine revelation and more as a means of legitimising decisions already made.

Over-Spiritualising Parallels

A common feature of this approach is the creation of symbolic parallels that are rhetorically persuasive but exegetically unsupported:

For instance: There are giants in the land.. but we are able to defeat them - therefore we must support this project.

The difficulty with such reasoning is that the conclusion does not arise from the text itself but from a modern analogy imposed upon it. The connection is created by the speaker rather than established by the biblical author. As a result, the narrative becomes a vehicle for advancing a contemporary agenda rather than communicating its original theological purpose.

Shifting the Focus from God's Purposes to Human Ambitions

The Old Testament primarily reveals God's character, covenant faithfulness, judgment, mercy, and redemptive purposes. When these narratives are repurposed to advance organisational growth, strategic objectives, fundraising campaigns, leadership programmes, or personal visions, God's purposes risk becoming subordinate to human ambitions.

A sound interpretive approach requires that we:
Determine what the passage meant in its original context.
Understand its place within the broader biblical narrative.
Derive theological principles from the text.
Apply those principles carefully to contemporary situations.
Avoid treating modern projects, programmes, or visions as direct equivalents of Old Testament events unless Scripture itself establishes such a connection.

Ultimately, the danger is that Scripture ceases to shape the vision, and the vision shapes the interpretation of Scripture. At that point the biblical text is no longer functioning as an authority over the vision, but as a rhetorical instrument used to validate it. That reverses the proper relationship between the reader and the text and opens the door to precisely the kind of proof-texting and visionary exceptionalism that has characterised many authoritarian religious movements.

Elevating Alleged Prophecy to the Level of Scripture

Hind states: "The word of the Lord has come through the Bible to us and the word of the Lord has come through prophecy. He has asked us prophetically to build next door, a place of love and compassion. He has also said to us that the building next door will be designed, built and completed much faster than we are now perceiving, and that many new churches are to be planted."

The concern is not simply the claim that God guides His people. The concern is that personal prophetic pronouncements are being presented alongside Scripture as divine directives requiring practical obedience. This creates a serious theological problem. While Scripture is the completed, objective, and authoritative word of God, modern prophetic claims are necessarily subjective and must be tested.

This is especially important given Hind's track record. A person with a history of failed prophecy is disqualified and should not be granted automatic credibility when making further claims about what God has supposedly revealed. Scripture repeatedly warns believers to test prophetic claims rather than accept them at face value.

The question therefore is not whether building a compassion centre is a worthwhile project. The question is whether God has genuinely spoken in the specific manner being claimed.

Hind presents the proposed £5 million compassion centre as a prophetic mandate and a lasting legacy for Leicester:

"A legacy for our city, where people can come until Jesus returns to receive care, practical help and prayer. We know that this moment is holy."

Such language deserves careful scrutiny. Declaring a project to be a "holy moment" may create an atmosphere of spiritual certainty around a human decision, making disagreement appear equivalent to resisting God Himself.

Are Christians Called to Build an Earthly Legacy?

The New Testament emphasis is noticeably different from the language of legacy-building.

Believers are called to be faithful rather than celebrated;
serve rather than build personal monuments;
store up treasure in heaven rather than on earth;
make disciples rather than create institutions that guarantee remembrance.

An earthly legacy mindset can subtly shift attention from faithfulness to significance, from obedience to achievement, and from Christ's kingdom to human accomplishment.

The biblical question is not:

"What can we build that will be remembered after we are gone?"

but rather:

"Have we been faithful to Christ with what He has entrusted to us?"

Scripture repeatedly directs believers to evaluate spiritual claims carefully:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God  (1 John 4:1).

The issue is therefore not whether a project is impressive, compassionate, ambitious, or well-intentioned. The issue is whether the claims surrounding it can withstand biblical examination.

Ultimately, the New Testament emphasis is not "build something that ensures your legacy", but "remain faithful to Christ". Buildings, organisations, programmes, and ministries all belong to the temporal order. Faithfulness to Christ is what endures.

The consequences of Hind's biblical misinterpretations should not be underestimated. In light of James 3:1, Scripture places a heightened responsibility upon those who teach, making accurate exegesis and sound doctrine matters of critical importance. Hind's appeal to Matthew 25:40 removes the passage from its broader context and employs it as support for a contemporary vision. Scripture assigns the church the responsibility to preach the gospel, make disciples, care for believers in need, and do good to all people as opportunities arise. As Paul writes in Galatians 6:10, Christians are to show kindness to everyone whenever the opportunity presents itself, while recognising a particular responsibility toward the household of faith. The emphasis is on faithful obedience in the ordinary opportunities God provides, not on constructing an overarching vision around large-scale projects or institutions.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46),

The New Testament does not present large construction projects or social redevelopment schemes as central expressions of the church's mission. The biblical pattern directs resources primarily toward gospel ministry and the relief of human need primarily within the church. Consequently, any multi-million-pound building project must demonstrate clear alignment with these priorities rather than becoming an institutional objective in its own right. Where substantial pressure is placed upon ordinary members, particularly the poor, Christ’s warning against religious leaders who “devour widows’ houses” becomes especially relevant (Matthew 23:14). Such practices place upon believers burdens that Christ neither requires nor intends, and risks lasting harm to the body of Christ.

Top Verses Churches Twist To Make Millions | The Worst Offering Messages Exposed

EXAMINING DREW WHITTON'S CRITIQUE OF PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT

Drew Whitton Interview - Rethinking Penal Substitution: How Does Atonement Really Work? |

Drew Whitton's critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) raises a number of historical and exegetical claims that, in my view, do not withstand careful scrutiny. I am particularly surprised that Chris White appears persuaded by aspects of Whitton's presentation, given White's usual emphasis on biblical exegesis and theological precision.

In 2025, I undertook an extended study of PSA with the intention of critically examining my own assumptions against the biblical evidence. Rather than weakening my confidence in the doctrine, the study strengthened my conviction that penal substitution reflects a significant and indispensable aspect of the New Testament's understanding of Christ's saving work.

This article is not intended as a comprehensive defense of PSA. Rather, it addresses several specific claims advanced by Whitton concerning the nature of atonement, Old Testament sacrifice, and the relationship between the cross and Christ's heavenly ministry.

Was Penal Substitution Invented During the Reformation?

Whitton argues that PSA is a Reformation doctrine.

The claim requires qualification. The fully developed theological formulation associated with Penal Substitution emerged during the Protestant Reformation. However, the underlying concepts of substitution, sin-bearing, sacrificial death, and Christ dying on behalf of sinners are present throughout the New Testament and appear in various forms within earlier Christian theology.

Historic Christian reflection on the atonement has produced a number of theological models and emphases, including:

• Penal Substitution
• Christus Victor
• Satisfaction Theory
• Moral Influence approaches

These are not always mutually exclusive categories. Indeed, many theologians have incorporated elements from several of these themes simultaneously.

The more important question is therefore not whether PSA received systematic development during the Reformation. Most theological doctrines undergo historical development. The central issue is whether PSA faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture.

Whitton frequently argues that the gospel is "far more than PSA". In one sense, this is uncontroversial. Historic evangelical theology has never reduced Christ's saving work to a single moment or doctrine. Christ's incarnation, obedience, death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and intercession all form part of the unified work of redemption.

Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly presents Christ's sacrificial death as the central saving event toward which His earthly ministry moved.

Jesus came not merely to teach, heal, or provide an example, but to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), to suffer and die (Luke 24:46), and to accomplish the work given to Him by the Father (John 12:27).

The resurrection, ascension, and intercession of Christ are indispensable realities. Yet the New Testament consistently portrays them as flowing from and bearing witness to the saving accomplishment of the cross.

The issue, then, is not whether Christ's work includes more than PSA. It plainly does. The issue is whether PSA provides a legitimate explanation of how Christ's death saves. I believe the biblical evidence supports that conclusion.

Grain Offerings and the Necessity of Blood

Whitton argues that since the Old Testament included grain offerings, blood sacrifice cannot be central to biblical atonement.

This argument overlooks important distinctions within Israel's sacrificial system.

The ordinary grain offering described in Leviticus 2 functioned as an offering of worship, devotion, gratitude, and covenant fellowship. It was not generally presented as a sin offering in the same sense as the sacrificial offerings involving blood.

Scripture repeatedly associates atonement and forgiveness with blood sacrifice.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls (Leviticus 17:11).

Likewise:

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

While Leviticus provides exceptional accommodations for those unable to afford animal sacrifices (Leviticus 5:11-13), these provisions do not overturn the broader pattern established throughout the sacrificial system. Blood occupies a unique role in relation to atonement and forgiveness.

The grain offering complemented the sacrificial system; it did not eliminate the theological significance of sacrificial blood.

Blood, Purification, and Sin

Whitton further argues that blood was used to purify objects such as altars, ritual furnishings, and sanctuaries, and therefore should not be viewed primarily in relation to sin.

This conclusion does not follow.

The Old Testament presents both purification and forgiveness as consequences of sacrificial atonement. These themes are not competing categories. They arise from the same underlying reality: sin produces guilt, uncleanness, and separation from God.

The author of Hebrews explicitly connects purification and forgiveness:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

The cleansing of ritual objects therefore does not diminish the connection between blood and sin. Rather, it illustrates the pervasive effects of sin's defilement within a fallen creation.

Hebrews presents Christ's sacrifice as the fulfillment of this entire sacrificial framework. Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary not with the blood of animals but with His own blood, securing eternal redemption for His people (Hebrews 9:12).

Were Sacrificial Animals Connected to Judgment?

Whitton argues that sacrificial animals were not being punished and did not experience divine wrath.

It is certainly true that animal sacrifices possess limitations. Animals are not moral agents and therefore cannot literally bear guilt in the same manner as human beings.

Nevertheless, the sacrificial system consistently associates death with sin and guilt.

The worshiper's guilt is symbolically transferred to the sacrificial victim, and the animal dies in connection with the sinner's need for atonement. The death of the victim communicates a fundamental biblical principle: sin results in death.

Scripture repeatedly affirms this relationship:

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

The animal sacrifices functioned as types and shadows that pointed beyond themselves to Christ. They did not provide final atonement in themselves but anticipated the coming of the true and perfect sacrifice.

Thus, while caution should be exercised before reading every later theological category directly back into Leviticus, the sacrificial system undeniably establishes a connection between sin, judgment, substitution, and death.

Was Christ's Atonement Incomplete Until the Ascension?

One of Whitton's more controversial claims is that Christ's atoning work was not completed at Calvary and only became complete through His ascension into heaven.

The New Testament evidence points in a different direction.

Historic Protestant theology has generally maintained that Christ accomplished atonement through His sacrificial death, while His resurrection, ascension, and heavenly priesthood testify to and apply the benefits of that completed work.

Several passages support this understanding:

It is finished (John 19:30).

We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10).

Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20).

Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes that Christ's sacrifice occurred once for all and secured eternal redemption.

Christ's continuing ministry in heaven is not a continuation of sacrifice but the ongoing priestly application and representation of a completed sacrifice.

This distinction is vital.

Is Christ's sacrifice ongoing? No. Hebrews consistently presents it as completed.
Is Christ's priestly ministry ongoing? Yes. Christ continually intercedes for His people before the Father.

The ascension therefore should be understood as the exaltation and heavenly presentation of a completed atonement rather than the event that finally completed an unfinished one.

Is Christ's Intercession Part of Atonement?

Much of this discussion ultimately depends upon how the term atonement is defined.

Some theologians employ the term broadly enough to include Christ's heavenly ministry. Others distinguish between the accomplishment of redemption and its ongoing application.

I adopt the latter distinction.

In my view, the New Testament consistently presents Christ's sacrifice as the basis of redemption and His intercession as the ongoing ministry through which the benefits of that redemption are applied.

At the same time, the New Testament attributes numerous effects to Christ's blood and sacrificial death:

Cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:14)
Forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7)
Justification (Romans 5:9)
Redemption (Ephesians 1:7)
Reconciliation (Colossians 1:20-22)
Peace with God (Colossians 1:20)
Establishment of the new covenant (Luke 22:20)
Access to God's presence (Hebrews 10:19-22)
Victory over the accuser (Revelation 12:11)

No single biblical image exhausts the significance of Christ's death. Nevertheless, these various themes are repeatedly grounded in the sacrificial work accomplished at the cross.

Conclusion

The central issue is not whether Christ presently intercedes for His people. Historic Christianity has consistently affirmed that He does. The question is whether Scripture presents Christ's atoning sacrifice as incomplete until His ascension.

In my judgment, the weight of the New Testament evidence points in the opposite direction. Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes the finality, sufficiency, and once-for-all character of Christ's sacrifice, while presenting His heavenly ministry as the ongoing application and representation of that completed work.

For that reason, I find Whitton's interpretation difficult to reconcile with the broader witness of Scripture. While Christ's resurrection, ascension, reign, and intercession are indispensable aspects of His redemptive work, the New Testament consistently directs attention to the cross as the decisive saving event through which redemption was secured, reconciliation accomplished, and peace established between God and His people.

Scripture consistently portrays penal substitution as lying at the heart of the gospel, depicting Christ as bearing the punishment and judgment due to sinners, including God's righteous wrath against sin.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53: 10)

..Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26).

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Galatians 3:13).

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

* WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT

PAUL WILKINSON ACCUSES PREWRATH OF AN "INCONSISTENT HERMENEUTIC"

The Truth 10-15-26 

"The Rapture Debate... Are We Missing Something Important? | The Truth 10-15-26"

I encourage Paul Wilkinson and Tom Hughes to take this question to God in prayer.

The irony is difficult to miss. Paul Wilkinson's charge that the prewrath position rests on an "inconsistent hermeneutic" and "a mishandling of God's Word" is striking, given that many prewrath interpreters have raised precisely the opposite concern, namely that pretribulational exegesis relies on a series of conflations and assumptions that compromise sound hermeneutical method.

In this interview, Wilkinson reiterates his view of pretrib imminence, asserting that "at any minute our Lord is going to catch us away" and that this is the context of 1 Thessalonians 4. However, this passage does not contain even a hint of imminence. While Wilkinson accuses others of "poor hermeneutics", his own interpretation imports a theological presupposition into the text. Rather than drawing the doctrine of imminence from the passage, he reads it into the passage, an approach which is consistent with eisegesis.

By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain 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. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17).

Wilkinson addresses the accusation of "escapism" frequently levelled at the pretrib camp by their critics. Wilkinson: "It is the promise of the Lord Jesus. Paul said 'I bring this to you as a word from the Lord, and then he introduces the rapture.. The Lord made this promise in Revelation 3:10 to the church in Philadelphia.. So the Lord is saying there that the Lord will keep you out of this hour of trial. This is a reference to the tribulation period that is going to test the people on the earth."

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. (Revelation 3:10).

The "hour of trial" is directed toward those who "dwell on the earth" (that is, the earth-dwellers), not toward the saints (Revelation 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 12, 14; 17:2, 8). The consistent association between the "hour of trial" and the earth-dwellers strongly suggests that the referent of this trial is the Day of the Lord's wrath and not the "tribulation". A central error in the pre-tribulation model is its identification of the tribulation with the entirety of Daniel's seventieth week, resulting in the full seven-year period being classified as the tribulation. Revelation 3:10 is best understood as a promise of removal (rapture) before the period of divine wrath described in Revelation 6:17. This interpretation coheres with Paul's teaching: "Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (1 Thessalonians 1:10) and his assurance that "God has not appointed us to wrath" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). The consistent pretrib failure to distinguish between the Antichrist's great tribulation and the Day of the Lord's wrath represents a recurring hermeneutical error that obscures critical biblical distinctions.

Wilkinson places considerable weight on the absence of any reference to the church in Daniel 9. In Daniel 9, Daniel prays on behalf of Israel and confesses the sins of his people. God's answer addresses the subject of Daniel's prayer, namely Israel and its future. The church is not mentioned because the mystery of Jew and Gentile united in one body had not yet been revealed. That omission does not mean God lacked a future plan for the Gentiles. Rather, the church was not part of the revelation given to Daniel, nor was it relevant to the issue he was presenting before God.

And I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed, “O, Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant of loving devotion to those who love Him and keep His commandments, we have sinned and done wrong. We have acted wickedly and rebelled. We have turned away from Your commandments and ordinances. We have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, leaders, fathers, and all the people of the land. (Daniel 9:4-6).

A common observation in eschatological debates is that the term "church" is absent from Revelation 4-18. Pretrib proponents view this absence as significant. However, Revelation mentions “the saints” explicitly in various passages, including Revelation 14:12, Revelation 7:9–17, Revelation 19:8, and Revelation 20:4–9. It also speaks of those who "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus"  Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river to overtake the woman (Israel) and sweep her away in the torrent. But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth to swallow up the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. And the dragon was enraged at the woman and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:15-17).

The absence of the word "church" in the book of Revelation is an argument from silence and does not prove its absence during this period. It is also worth considering whether the church will retain its present institutional form during the great tribulation. Unparalleled persecution may drive believers underground, while the anticipated falling away could substantially diminish the ranks of professing Christians (Matthew 24:10). 

 

Wilkinson: "And and those that say, 'No, well, God's going to protect us while we go through the tribulation, you know, and they'll argue we've got to be purified as the bride.' All you've got is a a Protestant form of purgatory where, you know, the church now has to go through a final purification process before she can be presented to the bridegroom to the Lord Jesus. Well, that totally diminishes, as you just said, what the Lord Jesus did on the cross."  (6:48 mark)

Wilkinson's accusation that persecution during the tribulation amounts to "purgatory" or diminishes Christ's work on the cross is difficult to take seriously. If applied consistently, the same argument would define all Christian persecution throughout history a form of "purgatory". The charge reads more like a caricature than a fair representation of the prewrath position, which explicitly teaches that the Antichrist will be permitted to wage war against the saints and overcome them (Revelation 13:7).

The New Testament presents Christ's death and resurrection as the sole basis of atonement, reconciliation with God, and salvation (Romans 5:8-11; Ephesians 2:8-9). Human suffering adds nothing to the saving efficacy of the cross.

Scripture frequently teaches that trials test, refine, and mature faith: 

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (James 1:2-4).

Trials prove the genuineness of faith "like gold refined by fire" (1 Peter 1:6-7).
Suffering can produce endurance, character, and hope (Romans 5:3-5).

In this sense, persecution may increase faith, depth, or steadfastness, not because suffering is redemptive in itself, but because it exposes and refines what is already present. Persecution does not compromise the cross of Christ unless one claims that suffering itself earns salvation or supplements Christ's atoning work. If persecution is viewed as God's means of sanctification, refinement, or testing, it complements rather than competes with the cross. The cross remains the cause of salvation; persecution becomes one possible means through which believers are conformed to Christ. One interesting tension in Revelation is that the persecuted saints are portrayed as faithful witnesses, yet their victory is attributed ultimately to Christ's sacrifice, not their suffering itself (cf. Revelation 12:11). Their endurance bears witness to the power of the cross; it does not replace it.

Revelation depicts the martyrs as receiving particular honor in the heavenly realm, not because their deaths possess independent redemptive value, but because they remained faithful witnesses under persecution. Their prominence highlights the cost of discipleship and God's vindication of those who remain loyal to Christ despite suffering and death. (Revelation 6:9-11)

Note Jesus personal example and promise of persecution: Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. (John 15:20 cf. Matthew 5:11-12, 24:9; Acts 14:22; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 4:12-14; 1 John 13:13).

I am frequently staggered by the pretrib camp's misapplication and manipulation of certain biblical texts, and its handling of early church sources. There are disturbing parallels with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), where recurring promises that a "breakthrough is imminent" function to perpetually defer fulfillment, fostering false expectations that can ultimately give way to disappointment, disillusionment, and deconstruction. Similarly, pretrib teaching distorts biblical prophecy and cultivates the expectation of an imminent rapture and exemption from the persecution associated with the Antichrist. Much of Tom Hughes' teaching centres on interpretations of Gog-Magog and related prophetic frameworks that remain the subject of significant scholarly and theological dispute. Such claims warrant careful scrutiny rather than uncritical acceptance. While scripture instructs believers to "watch", it does not encourage speculative approaches to prophecy.

The primary prophetic sign Jesus instructed believers to watch for is the abomination of desolation. Accordingly, it is noteworthy that pretrib interpretations redirect this warning away from the church, despite Christ's explicit exhortation to recognise its significance (Matthew 24:15). The Bible sternly warns against the propagation of false doctrines and outlines severe consequences for those who lead others astray through erroneous teachings. (James 3:1; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-2). The consistent testimony of scripture is that the church will face the Antichrist rather than be removed before his appearance.

So 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. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matthew 24:15-28).

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4).

It is noteworthy that many of the ministries promoting imminence-oriented prophecy teaching operate within broader networks that frequently intersect with charismatic and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) circles. These associations do not in themselves determine the truth or falsity of a doctrine, but they provide important context for understanding how particular prophetic frameworks are amplified and distributed. From John Nelson Darby to the doomsday sects associated with William Branham, the doctrine of imminence reflects a modern theological construct rather than an historic Christian belief. A prominent example of this convergence is Prophecy Watchers, which maintains close connections with TBN and routinely provides a platform for a range of controversial figures, including Jonathan Cahn, who presents himself as "prophetic"; "Reverend" Donna Howell; Nephilim "expert" LA Marzulli; prophecy speculator Bill Salus; and Jimmy Evans, whose ministry has been the subject of significant criticism relating to spiritual abuse allegations. Prophecy Watchers also promotes a number of leading dispensational prophecy teachers through dedicated author pages, including Andy Woods, Lee Brainard, Amir Tsarfati, and Jack Hibbs. Hibbs' public endorsement of NAR "apostolic leader" Ché Ahn provides a particularly visible example of his association with NAR networks. Likewise, Paul Wilkinson has shown no reluctance in appearing on Prophecy Watchers and utilizing the platform to promote his publications. Taken together, these associations illustrate the interconnected nature of contemporary prophecy ministries and the networks through which imminence-based eschatological teaching is disseminated.

John Collins: "William Branham, a prominent figure in the Christian revival movement, is known for his end-time teachings that were heavily influenced by John Nelson Darby's dispensationalism. Branham's approach to dispensationalism, which he repackaged as divine revelation, carried Darby's prophetic timeline into the Latter Rain Message, and later evangelical-apocalyptic streams. This connection between Darby and Branham highlights the significant impact Darby's teaching had on the development of modern dispensationalism and the subsequent revival movement within Christianity."1

The potential consequences of this teaching are difficult to overstate. By encouraging believers to expect removal from the tribulation rather than perseverance through it, the doctrine reverses the emphasis of Christ's teaching, replacing preparedness for suffering with an anticipation of escape and leaving many ill-equipped for the realities of persecution. If the pretrib rapture is indeed a theological innovation rather than a biblical doctrine, its advocates face a profound dilemma. Revelation 22:18-19 issues a sobering warning regarding the addition to or distortion of divine revelation, making careful doctrinal examination, and where necessary, repentance, a matter of critical importance.

I do not deny that prewrath is a hard teaching or that many would prefer an "escape" from the tribulation. However, personal preference is not a valid hermeneutical principle. The aim is not what we would like the text to say, but what the text actually says.

1. John Nelson Darby - William Branham Historical Research

7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture (Full Movie)

God Works With Israel and the Church Simultaneously in the PRESENT - Ep. 136 | Bible Prophecy Answers with Alan Kurschner
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION FALLACY

Blogger: Posts

BRETT MURPHY: SABBATH OBSERVANCE

The Decalogue Series: Fourth Commandment "Respect the Sabbath", a sermon by Rev'd Canon Brett Murphy

In Christianity, Sunday, the first day of the week, is recognized as the day of Jesus' resurrection. The earliest Jerusalem church met daily for fellowship, teaching, and worship (Acts 2:46; 5:42). As the church expanded, regular first-day-of-the-week gatherings developed for breaking bread, corporate worship, and collections (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). It is also referred to as "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10, but the text never explicitly identifies the first day as the Sabbath. Moreover, it is questionable whether the early church regarded the Lord's Day as the Sabbath, since its earliest theological assumptions were shaped by Judaism, where the Sabbath already had an established identity. The New Testament never presents observance of the Sabbath as a binding legal requirement, In this respect, the fourth commandment stands apart from the other commandments, as Sabbath observance is never explicitly reaffirmed as an obligation for New Covenant believers. While the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21) receive substantial affirmation throughout the New Testament, with nine being clearly restated and reinforced in apostolic teaching, the Sabbath command is not directly renewed in the same manner.

The Sabbath command was given specifically to Israel as part of the Old Covenant and was a sign between God and Israel.

And the Lord said to Moses, “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Exodus 31:12-17).

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13).

Murphy states that Christians are not exempt from "a form of the Sabbath" Murphy: "Sunday.. the first day of the week is a form of the Sabbath.. Our day of worship  and rest now falls on the Sunday, the day of the resurrection of Christ from the dead."

Murphy sends mixed messages regarding Sunday worship. On one hand, he maintains that church attendance on Sunday is not compulsory. On the other, he argues that it is "as close to being compulsory as can possibly be without being legalistic." He further states that habitually missing church for reasons he considers frivolous, including work commitments, constitutes disobedience. He also characterizes working on Sunday as a "heinous sin" and criticizes those who do not attend services except in cases of serious illness. This appears to be a case of going beyond what is written and giving tradition a level of authority not explicitly supported by scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6). 

Murphy's sermon mirrors the central Sabbatarian view found among groups such as Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists, the Church of God, and other Sabbath-keeping movements. Although these groups differ on which day should be observed, the common error is the same: elevating a theological assumption into a divine command without explicit scriptural warrant. In the case of seventh-day Sabbatarians, the assumption is that the Sabbath command remains binding upon Christians. In Murphy's case, the assumption is that first-day Christian gatherings stand on the same footing as the biblical Sabbath and therefore constitute its continuation in a new form.

Within Sabbatarian theology, interpretive conclusions are sometimes drawn that extend beyond the explicit statements of scripture. While the New Testament records gatherings on the first day of the week, as noted above, it never identifies that day as the Sabbath. The issue arises when an established ecclesiastical practice is treated as a biblical mandate despite the absence of an explicit New Testament command.

Paul's teaching presents the observance of particular days as a matter of personal conscience rather than universal obligation. His approach permits diversity of practice, with each believer responsible for acting according to sincere conviction rather than external pressure or enforced conformity.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17).

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5).

Hebrews 4:9-10 teaches that Christ provides the true Sabbath rest for believers, a spiritual rest from our own works.

Murphy's accusatory tone is evident in statements such as: "Is it much to give two hours on Sunday to God when you spend countless hours at work or pleasure?" Such rhetoric can function less as pastoral encouragement and more as coercive guilt-based persuasion. Appeals of this kind may place believers under unnecessary pressure while also serving leaders' desire to maximize attendance. Rather than insisting that Sunday attendance is equivalent to a divine command binding on all Christians, it is more accurate to describe regular Sunday gathering as a longstanding and valuable church tradition.

Rather than deriving his conclusions from explicit biblical exegesis, Murphy advances further theological speculation, claiming that...

"The Christian Sabbath is not merely a weekly day of resting and worship. Each Sunday is a bold declaration to the dark forces that have a grip on this world that Christ is king, that he has risen in victory and has trampled down the forces of death, hell, and sin. Worship is an act of spiritual warfare. It is a rallying cry for the disciples of Christ to join together in prayer and praise which makes the armies of hell quake in fear."

The difficulty is not with affirming Christ's victory over sin, death, and the powers of darkness, but with attributing effects to Sunday worship that scripture itself does not explicitly attribute to it. The argument proceeds largely through assertion rather than demonstration, advancing claims about spiritual warfare and the reaction of demonic forces without grounding those claims in the immediate biblical text. Consequently, the statement functions more as theological rhetoric than as exegetical argument.

Biblically, worship is first directed toward God's glory; any spiritual-warfare dimension is secondary to that primary purpose. Nor should we assume that Sunday worship is the sole context in which God's presence, power, and favor are manifested among His people. Scripture does not confine God's powerful activity to Sunday worship. The New Testament consistently portrays God working through the prayers, worship, and faithful obedience of His people wherever they may be. (e.g. Acts 12:5,12-14; Acts 16:25-34). Murphy's claim that church attendance fills believers with the Holy Spirit recasts Spirit-filling as a weekly event associated with congregational participation, rather than as the ongoing condition of abiding obedience described in scripture (John 15:9-11). In Ephesians 5:18, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit as an ongoing reality of faithful and godly living, not as a condition achieved through weekly attendance at religious services.

While I affirm the importance of meeting together on the Lord's Day, the reality for many believers is that they are unable to find a church they regard as doctrinally sound. The condition of contemporary Christianity has made this a significant challenge. In my own experience, spanning many years, I have been unable to identify a nearby church that I could confidently describe as sound. Aside from obvious doctrinal deficiencies, many churches have adopted ecumenical approaches with little apparent recognition that such practices directly conflict with biblical teaching. While I reject the ordination of women and the adoption of progressive woke ideological frameworks as inconsistent with my understanding of New Testament teaching, I regard ecumenism as an equally serious departure.

Murphy is now associated with the Confessing Anglican Church (CAC). He was dismissed from the Free Church of England (FCE) and his licence was revoked in August 2024 following a disciplinary process. The dismissal was upheld after an appeal. The official public statement from the FCE is unclear. It confirms that Brett Murphy was removed following "due process and an appeal", but explicitly declined to publish the detailed reasons behind the dismissal. One widely reported example was a video in which he referred to women priests as "witches". Reports state that the FCE regarded the tone and content of such comments as bringing the church into disrepute.

The CAC presents itself as a confessing Anglican body committed to the authority of Scripture and historic Anglican doctrine. Its public statements emphasize doctrinal fidelity and continuity with orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, its ecumenical posture warrants careful scrutiny. While not formally aligned with broad ecumenical structures in the same way as the FCE's participation in Churches Together in England, its public engagement and rhetoric often appear markedly ecumenical in tone, and some observers perceive a degree of affinity with Roman Catholicism that raises questions concerning doctrinal separation and ecclesiastical boundaries.

Although both the CAC and the FCE affirm the historic Christian doctrines of Christ's return, the resurrection of the dead, and final judgment, neither denomination appears to require adherence to a specific millennial position. As a result, premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial interpretations may be regarded as secondary matters rather than defining tests of doctrinal orthodoxy. Both the Church of England and the Free Church of England retain ecclesiastical structures, honorific titles, and clerical offices that extend beyond those explicitly prescribed in the New Testament. From a regulative or restorationist perspective, such practices may be viewed as developments of ecclesiastical tradition rather than direct apostolic institution.

Although no longer serving within the FCE, Murphy continues to use the titles "Reverend" and "Father". Whether such titles are appropriate is debatable. Anglican traditions generally regard them as legitimate clerical styles associated with ordained ministry, whereas critics contend that the New Testament provides no explicit warrant for honorific ecclesiastical titles and instead emphasizes servant leadership and the spiritual equality of believers.

Critics of such honorifics frequently note that the word "reverend" appears only once in the King James Version, namely in Psalm 111:9, where it is applied exclusively to God: "holy and reverend is his name". On this basis, they argue that the routine application of the title to clergy lacks clear biblical authorization and reflects later ecclesiastical custom rather than apostolic practice.

The broader issue concerns the nature of church authority and ministry itself. The New Testament presents the people of God as a spiritual priesthood in which all believers enjoy equal access to the Father through Christ. While the Scriptures recognize leadership roles such as elders, overseers, and pastors, they do not establish a separate sacerdotal class vested with a higher spiritual status than other Christians. Consequently, systems that distinguish clergy through priestly offices, honorific titles, or elevated ecclesiastical ranks may be viewed as departures from the relative simplicity of the apostolic pattern, relying more heavily upon historical church tradition than upon explicit New Testament instruction.

Under the New Covenant, all believers share in a common priesthood rather than belonging to a hierarchy of distinct priestly classes. As Peter writes: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This language is directed to the entire body of believers, emphasizing their collective priestly standing before God rather than the existence of a separate sacerdotal order.

Biblically, the priesthood is not restricted to a clerical class but belongs collectively to God's people. Likewise, Revelation 1:5-6 declares that Christ made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, emphasizing the privileged position of all believers in their direct relationship with God.

Hebrews 4:14-16 further teaches that Jesus Christ is the great High Priest through whom believers have direct access to the throne of grace. Because Christ alone mediates between God and His people, no earthly priesthood is required to stand between the believer and God. The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the sole High Priest and all believers as priests in Him. Consequently, the distinction between a clerical priesthood and an ordinary laity finds no support in apostolic teaching.

In the early church the offices of bishop (episkopos, overseer) and elder (presbyteros) appear to have been one and the same. Local congregations were ordinarily governed by a plurality of elders or overseers, with passages such as Acts 20:17,20:28 and Titus 1:5-7 using the terms interchangeably. During the early second century, however, a more defined episcopal structure emerged in which a single bishop exercised oversight over presbyters and deacons. The claim that the bishop emerged as a distinct, monarchical ecclesiastical office after the apostolic period remains a significant position within Protestant scholarship, particularly among traditions influenced by sola scriptura. Episcopal traditions dispute this interpretation, arguing that the historic episcopate represents a legitimate continuation and maturation of apostolic oversight rather than a substantive innovation.

Murphy is affiliated with Cei Dewar, false prophet Chris Wickland, and the Make Great Britain Christian Again movement. I consider these associations to be highly problematic.