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 repeated assurances that "breakthrough is imminent" can foster false expectations and eventual disillusionment. 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 (Revelation 22:18-19). 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. One of the primary examples is Prophecy Watchers which has close links with TBN and gives a platform to false teachers such as Jonathan Cahn who claims to be "prophetic", "Reverend" Donna Howell, Nephilim "expert" LA Marzulli, "prophecy expert" and speculator Bill Salus, and disgraced spiritual abuser Jimmy Evans. Andy Woods, Lee Brainard, Amir Tsarfati and Jack Hibbs are featured by Prophecy Watchers through a dedicated author page. Hibbs' public endorsement of NAR "apostolic leader" Ché Ahn is a blatant example of his affiliation with the NAR. Paul Wilkinson has shown no hesitation in appearing on Prophecy Watchers and using the platform to promote his latest publication.

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. A doctrine that satisfies itching ears and conditions believers to expect escape rather than endurance through the tribulation is a direct contradiction of Jesus' teaching and weakens preparedness for the persecution that is to come. Those who promote and teach the pretrib rapture need to repent or face God's judgement. (Revelation 22:18-19). 

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

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. 

The FCE affirms the historic Christian doctrines of Christ's return, the resurrection of the dead, and final judgment. However, its approach to ecumenism is more complex. The denomination participates in Churches Together in England, an ecumenical body that includes the Roman Catholic Church and numerous other denominations. From my perspective, this raises significant concerns regarding doctrinal separation and ecclesiastical boundaries. Furthermore, while the FCE affirms the core elements of historic Christian eschatology, it does not appear to adopt an official millennial position.

Both the Church of England and the Free Church of England maintain ecclesiastical structures that incorporate honorific titles and clerical offices extending beyond those explicitly prescribed in the New Testament. From this perspective, such practices derive more from ecclesiastical tradition than from apostolic instruction. Brett Murphy bears the title "Reverend" and serves as a vicar in the Free Church of England (FCE). Psalm 111:9 contains the sole occurrence of the English word "reverend" in the King James Version, where it is applied exclusively to God. 

The deeper issue concerns the nature of church authority and ministry itself. The New Testament presents a model in which all believers share a common standing before God rather than belonging to distinct priestly classes. Consequently, systems that elevate certain individuals through sacerdotal offices or honorific titles may be seen as departing from the simplicity of the apostolic pattern and relying instead upon later ecclesiastical developments.

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.

JOE SCHIMMEL'S REFUSAL TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Joe Schimmel and his family have failed to respond to the various accusations originally published by The Berean Examiner on March 27 2026 and updated on June 15, 2026. The allegations against Joe Schimmel and Blessed Hope Chapel fall into four main areas: (1) refusal to permit an independent third-party investigation into allegations involving Holly Davidson; (2) lack of meaningful governance, oversight, and accountability; (3) alleged narrative management, reputational attacks, and disparate treatment of members who raised concerns; and (4) financial transparency questions relating to church leadership and church assets. The article further argues that these issues contributed to a significant exodus of members from the congregation. For full documentation see:  WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: JOE SCHIMMEL BLESSED HOPE CHAPEL ALLEGATIONS: JUNE 15 UPDATE

During a recent fundraising appeal, Joe Schimmel solicited recurring monthly support from his livestream audience, remarking, "My wife said, make sure you make these announcements." Schimmel's wife, Lisa Schimmel is reported to hold de facto financial control of the church with zero oversight as part of what has been described as a "closed fiduciary loop". Individuals considering financially supporting Blessed Hope Chapel may wish to review ongoing concerns relating to the church's governance and oversight arrangements. Alarmingly, Schimmel has described himself as "the top of the pyramid" and presents himself as the ministries final authority. While the article repeatedly refers to an "elder board", it argues that there is no independent oversight mechanism and no body of elders with authority to hold Schimmel accountable. The central concern is therefore not simply leadership structure, but the absence of an identifiable system of external or independent accountability. This appears to be confirmed on Blessed Hope Chapel's website which refers to an undefined "leadership team".2 

The "Phantom Building Fund" section raises critical questions about the stewardship and transparency of money originally donated for a future church building. According to accounts cited in the article, congregational donations and a major donor contribution funded the purchase of land intended for that purpose. The land was later sold for approximately $2.8 million, but former members allege that the congregation never received a full accounting of how the proceeds were used. The article further reports concerns that roughly $180,000 to $200,000 may have been used to facilitate Joe Schimmel's housing transition through what was reportedly described as a retirement-fund loan. The central issue is the absence of publicly disclosed financial records, independent oversight, annual financial reporting, or documentary evidence that would allow donors and congregants to verify how restricted funds and sale proceeds were ultimately handled.

The New Testament presents the Apostle Paul as a leader who responded to accusations with openness, public accountability, and a willingness to submit his conduct to scrutiny. Whether defending himself before civil authorities in Acts 24-26 or addressing internal criticisms of his apostleship and integrity. In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul consistently sought to demonstrate that his ministry was conducted honorably before both God and people. Nowhere is this clearer than in his administration of the Jerusalem collection. Rather than handling substantial funds alone, Paul involved trusted representatives appointed by the churches, explaining that these precautions were taken "so that no one should blame us" and because they sought to do "what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of man" (2 Corinthians 8:20-21). His concern was not merely actual integrity but the avoidance of credible suspicion. That biblical pattern is relevant whenever questions arise concerning church finances and governance. Former congregants of Blessed Hope Chapel are therefore entitled to ask for a full public accounting of church funds, including the disposition of building-fund proceeds and the circumstances surrounding the financing of Joe Schimmel's residence. Such requests are not contrary to Christian principles; they reflect the very accountability standards Paul embraced to protect both the church's witness and the reputation of the gospel. Where significant questions remain unresolved, the appropriate response is not less transparency but more, including a clear and public explanation supported by documentary evidence of how ministry funds have been administered.

And not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace that is being ministered by us, for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our good will. We take this course so that no one should blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us, for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man. (2 Corinthians 8:19-21 cf. Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:22).   

A significant further concern is the decision to hold meetings at a Seventh-day Adventist church despite historic theological differences between that denomination and the doctrinal positions publicly advocated by Schimmel. If Christians are expected to exercise discernment regarding the teachings, influences, and associations they endorse, some may reasonably question the consistency of using the premises of a church whose doctrines have often been criticized by the same theological circles. The issue is not the rental arrangement itself, but whether such an association risks creating confusion, undermining the principle of avoiding even the appearance of doctrinal compromise, and weakening the clarity of the ministries public witness (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Given Schimmel's emphasis on spiritual discernment and separation from error, it is understandable that a number of former members have sought an explanation for the apparent inconsistency.

The allegations concerning Holly Davidson focus on her conduct, judgment, and suitability for ministry leadership. Former members cited in the article raise concerns about alleged boundary issues in her relationships with younger male congregants, her role in youth ministry, and leadership's handling of complaints made against her. The article also references criticism of her public presentation and manner of dress, with some former members arguing that it was inconsistent with the standards of modesty and discernment expected within the church's own theological framework. The broader criticism is not limited to any single allegation but concerns what former congregants describe as a pattern of behaviour that warranted independent review, accountability, and greater transparency than was ultimately provided.

The concerns relating to children and young people extend beyond isolated incidents and focus on alleged deficiencies in supervision, household governance, and youth ministry oversight. Former members cited in the article describe concerns regarding the supervision of minors at church events and dissatisfaction with leadership responses to parental complaints. The article further alleges shocking concerns about the Davidson household raised directly with church elders, with former staff members and congregants reportedly describing persistent behavioural problems among the Davidson children, recurring disruptions during church activities and trips, and concerns about their welfare and hygiene: "The household disorder was not subtle. Former staff members and congregants went directly to the elders to plead that Chad and Holly Davidson's children were chronically unruly, disruptive, and out of control in church gatherings and on numerous trips — church members also observed their hygiene as filthy on repeated occasions, with some even contemplating calling authorities due to what appeared to be gross negligence." (1 Timothy 3:4-5). The central criticism is not any single allegation, but the claim that repeated concerns affecting children and young people were raised without the degree of accountability, transparency, independent review, or corrective action that many former congregants believed was necessary.

Unacceptable Contradictions

The biblical response to serious allegations is not to ignore them but to address them openly and truthfully. If the allegations are without foundation, they should be publicly refuted with evidence and facts that clear those accused. Scripture also cautions against dismissing concerns merely because they are uncomfortable. The biblical principle of "two or three witnesses" recognizes that multiple independent witnesses may establish the credibility of a matter and warrant careful examination. Where numerous individuals raise similar concerns, the appropriate response is not avoidance but transparent investigation, allowing the facts to determine whether the allegations are true or false.

The contradictions are impossible to overlook. Joe Schimmel and Chad Davidson have continued producing content through Good Fight Ministries as though nothing of significance has occurred, despite Schimmel's longstanding emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability. Serious concerns that have been raised publicly remain unanswered, and rather than providing clear, documented explanations supported by evidence, Schimmel has continued his ministry activities without addressing them. Accusations do not simply disappear because they are ignored. Where issues affecting integrity and public trust are involved, transparency and accountability are valid expectations. Having spent years calling others to account, Schimmel can hardly object when similar standards are applied to his own ministry. If accountability is a principle for everyone else but not for himself, the concern extends beyond inconsistency to hypocrisy. Unless documented explanations and supporting evidence are provided in response to these matters, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain that everything is above reproach, and the possibility of serious unresolved problems cannot be dismissed.

Further Concerns

* Calvinism

For years, Schimmel has maintained a strong anti-Calvinist position, publicly rejecting doctrines such as unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, while emphasizing human responsibility, accountability, and the necessity of responding to truth. His 'Calvinism Refuted' series is devoted to challenging those theological positions and defending the proposition that God desires all people to come to repentance. 3

Despite fundamental theological differences with Calvinism, Schimmel has shared a platform with Doreen Virtue on at least four occasions:

Guard Your Heart Against Darkness, an interview hosted on Doreen Virtue's channel featuring Joe Schimmel. [youtube.com]
Doreen Virtue EXPOSES New Age, Wicca, And The Occult, an interview published by Good Fight Ministries featuring Doreen Virtue. [youtube.com]
Why Harry Potter is NOT for Christians, an interview on Doreen Virtue's channel with Joe Schimmel. [youtube.com]
Elites Are Hiding in Bunkers - The Bible Prophesied This, a recent video featuring Joe Schimmel on Doreen Virtue's channel. [youtube.com]

The relationship appears unequal from either perspective. It is also noteworthy that comments on three of these videos have been disabled, limiting public discussion and scrutiny. From Doreen Virtue's theological position, it is difficult to understand why she would choose to share a platform with Schimmel, given the existence of the serious unresolved allegations and the fact that he is fundamentally opposes her Calvinist convictions.

  

* TPUSA

GFM: "The Good Fight Ministries team had boots on the ground at the Turning Point USA event, where Ray Comfort and the guys from Living Waters used the opportunity to share the gospel with the student body at Cal State Fullerton. While there in person we even had the chance to do some interviews with those who attended. Today will be telling you what we saw, heard and thought of the event after taking it all in firsthand. Also, Candace Owens recently claimed to have been visited by Charlie Kirk in a dream. A dream she says confirmed her own beliefs about what happened and that it would all be revealed very soon. Finally, we'll look at the broader reaction from Christians across the country, many of whom are calling what's happening a revival following Charlie's death, while others are urging caution."

Why did Chad Davidson support an ecumenical event? Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist whose political and religious associations generated significant controversy. His public positions on politics, race, education, election integrity claims, and Christian nationalism drew criticism from various observers and advocacy groups. His involvement with ecumenical and charismatic movements, including associations with Roman Catholics, Mormons, NAR figures, and teachers such as Mark Driscoll, undermined biblical doctrine. These affiliations have advanced ecumenism, compromised the gospel, and placed Kirk in opposition to historic Christian teaching

* Eschatology

(610) The Fifth Beatitude In Revelation: The First Resurrection - YouTube

Schimmel teaches on "The Fifth Beatitude in Revelation". He refers to the statements commonly known as the "Seven Beatitudes of Revelation" (Revelation 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7; and 22:14).

Schimmels insistence that the rapture occurs when Christ returns at the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 20 is a flawed argument which has been challenged a number of times.

Three events associated with the Second Coming occur prior to the battle of Armageddon: (1) the commencement of the Day of the Lord's wrath (Revelation 6:17), (2) the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man and the deliverance-gathering of the saints (Matthew 24:29-31; cf. Luke 21:25-28), and (3) the subsequent events leading to Armageddon. Notably, Revelation 19:11-21 contains no gathering of the saints, an element that would reasonably be expected if this passage marked the beginning of the Second Coming.

For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19:6-8). This passage concerns the marriage supper of the Lamb rather than a pre-rapture event. The sequence presented in scripture places the resurrection and gathering of the saints first (Matthew 24:29-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), followed by the presentation of the redeemed to Christ as His bride. The marriage of the Lamb and its accompanying feast then occur after the bride has been assembled and prepared, as depicted in Revelation 19:7-9.

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. (Revelation 20:5).

Prewrath teachers, do not regard Revelation 20:5 problematic to their eschatology. They typically argue that the "first resurrection" is a category of resurrection unto life, not a single momentary event. Below is a brief summary of Alan Kurschner's rebuttal of the posttrib view. 

The first resurrection unfolds in stages rather than as a single event. Christ was raised first as the "firstfruits" of the resurrection harvest (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). This event corresponds to the gathering of the elect described in Matthew 24:29-31 and is reflected in Revelation 6:12-14; 7:9-10, placing it after the sixth seal and before the seventh seal is opened. Revelation 20:4-6 specifically includes tribulation martyrs among those who participate in the first resurrection and reign with Christ. According to this view, these events are distinct phases of the same resurrection program collectively referred to as the "first resurrection".

Revelation 20:5 contrasts believers and unbelievers. Verse 5 says, "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."

Prewrath interpreters understand "the rest of the dead" as the wicked dead who remain unraised until the Great White Throne judgment after the millennium. Therefore the issue is not timing within the righteous resurrection. The point of the text is that the righteous participate in the "first resurrection" while the wicked await a later resurrection. The text distinguishes two resurrection destinies (life and judgment), not necessarily every phase within the resurrection of the righteous.

Question: If the church is resurrected and raptured before Christ's descent to establish the kingdom, why does Revelation 20:4-6 mention tribulation martyrs and then call this "the first resurrection"?

Answer: Revelation 20 identifies the millennial participants and showing that these martyrs belong to the same "first resurrection" company as all other redeemed people. The term "first resurrection" describes the entire resurrection-to-life order, not merely the final phase of it.

From a forensic standpoint, Revelation 20:5 is viewed by prewrath advocates as evidence for two broad resurrections (righteous before the millennium, wicked after it).

Alan Kurschner examines this question at considerable length and provides a more detailed treatment of the issue: The Second Coming Does Not Begin with Armageddon | Bible Prophecy Answers with Alan Kurschner

1. (610) The Fifth Beatitude In Revelation: The First Resurrection - YouTube
2. About
3. Calvinism Refuted - Good Fight Ministries

IS THE CONFESSING ANGLICAN CHURCH BIBLICAL?

The Confessing Anglican Church (CAC) is not a historic Reformation denomination but a modern church body whose roots lie in the Convergence Movement of the 1990s. It traces its institutional ancestry through the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches (CEEC), founded in 1995, and the Continuing Evangelical Episcopal Communion, which emerged in 2019 before adopting the name Confessing Anglican Church in 2025.

CEC: "We accept the Holy Scriptures as the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct, and affirm their valid interpretation through the dual lenses of two millennia of tradition, alongside sanctified reason. We are enriched by the insights that the Holy Spirit has given to previous generations of Christians, and embrace what He is doing in our current day. We adhere to an expression of the Gospel neither diluted, nor polluted. We are a Church standing strong, breathing deep, ancient and alive."1

The CAC claims to draw from a broad range of traditions, including apostolic origins, Celtic influences, the Church Fathers, the Medieval Church, the Protestant Reformation, the Wesleyan Evangelical Revival, the Oxford Movement, and the Modern Charismatic Movement.1

These statements raise important theological questions. Cei Dewar's claim to represent "the historic Gospel of Jesus Christ" is open to scrutiny. The historic Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that scripture alone is the final and sufficient authority for faith and practice. By placing tradition alongside scripture as an authoritative guide, the position outlined departs from a strict sola scriptura framework and aligns more closely with classical Anglican and Roman Catholic approaches. While the CAC affirms the supreme authority of scripture, it also appeals to tradition and reason as interpretive authorities, situating its methodology nearer to mainstream Anglicanism than to a strict sola scriptura position. As a result, its rhetoric may appear to affirm sola scriptura while its practical theological framework qualifies that principle through the additional authority accorded to tradition and reason.

CAC: "We follow the threefold ministry pattern established by the early church of bishops leading and overseeing, presbyters teaching and ministering, and deacons addressing the needs of the people."1

This statement is not scriptural. In the earliest New Testament churches, 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.

As a result of this core diversion from scripture a hierarchical clergy class evolved within the CofE and other denominations. The office of vicar is a later ecclesiastical role and does not appear in the New Testament. The term derives from the Latin vicarius (representative) and refers to a priest who ministers on behalf of a bishop or other church authority within a local parish. Reflecting its episcopal ecclesiology, the CEC maintains bishops and vicars and employs clerical garments that visibly differentiate clergy from the laity. In the United Kingdom, Ceirion (Cei) Dewar heads the Diocese of Providence and was formally "enthroned" as Bishop Ordinary during a September 2026 ceremony. A prominent CAC "vicar" is Chris Wickland. Wickland regularly issues first-person prophetic declarations, presenting them as direct communications from God. Critics argue that the failure of some predictions constitutes evidence against the validity of his prophetic claims, citing biblical passages that identify accuracy and fidelity as essential markers of genuine prophetic ministry (Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Matthew 7:15; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Cei Dewar's public endorsement of Chris Wickland is a matter of significant concern, particularly regarding standards of prophetic credibility and accountability.

Christendom is saturated with religious titles such as Reverend, Bishop, Archbishop, Apostle, Cardinal, Father, Pastor, and Pope. The New Testament certainly recognizes forms of leadership, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, elders, overseers, and servants. The central question, however, is whether these leadership roles were ever intended to create a distinct religious class marked by honorific titles, hierarchical rank, elevated social status, and distinctive robes and vestments that set them apart from other believers.

The title "Reverend" is a post-biblical ecclesiastical honorific and does not appear in the New Testament as a title for Christian leaders. Moreover, Psalm 111:9 contains the only occurrence of the English word "reverend" in the KJV, where it is attributed to God alone. Consequently, critics question the appropriateness of applying to ministers a title that scripture reserves for God: He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. KJV

Those who place confidence in outward rank and flaunt religious garb are glorying in their shame. As scripture warns, their minds are set on earthly things, and they serve their own interests rather than the Lord (Philippians 3:19; cf. Romans 16:18).

Jesus confronted this practice directly when speaking of the scribes and Pharisees. Their desire for public honor, prominent status, and distinguished forms of address provided the context for his instruction to his disciples. 

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matthew 23:1–12).

Significantly, Paul defines leadership by character rather than by outward distinctions such as religious dress, hierarchical rank, ceremonial privilege, or institutional status.

If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7 cf. Titus 1:5-9).

How we define Christian leadership is critically important. Scripture calls for honor without exaltation and respect without the creation of status distinctions. Jesus settled the question of greatness among his followers when he declared:

The greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matthew 23:11).

In the New Testament, honor is consistently linked to character, faithfulness, sacrifice, and service rather than to titles, rank, or privilege. Christian leaders are to be recognized not for elevated status but for exemplary conduct and humble service.

Peter described leadership in the following terms:

"..shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Likewise, Paul instructed believers to appreciate and respect diligent leaders because of their work rather than because of any official title or position: But we ask you, brothers, to acknowledge those who work diligently among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

The pattern is consistent. Christian leaders are to be honored for their character, faithfulness, and service to the body of Christ, not elevated through honorific titles, hierarchical rank, distinctive status, or external symbols of religious authority.

The group known as the "Five Fathers" within the CAC includes Cei Dewar, Phil Harris, who uses the title "Canon", and Calvin Robinson, who is styled as "Father". Strangely, the identities of the other two purported "fathers" are not readily apparent from the available source material. Several CAC-associated clergy, including Brett Murphy, Chris Wickland and Cei Dewar, have participated in, or publicly supported, events linked to Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom movement. Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) is commonly classified by scholars, major media organisations, and monitoring groups as a right-wing, more specifically far-right, political activist, and is best known as the co-founder and former leader of the English Defence League (EDL).

My concern is that the CAC has emerged within a climate of dissatisfaction with the Church of England and wider political and cultural tensions, particularly immigration. While its public profile is strongly associated with opposition to contemporary "woke" ideology, it is less clear that its theological distinctives are more firmly rooted in scripture than those of other denominations. Consequently, its anti-woke emphasis may be viewed as a defining feature of its public appeal rather than evidence of greater biblical fidelity.

1.What is the Confessing Anglican Church - Confessing Anglican Church

CHRIS WICKLAND'S ADMISSION THAT HE IS A FALSE PROPHET

apology for an incorrect prophetic word

Here we have Chris Wickland's admission that he is a false prophet!

Wickland refers to a prophecy he delivered in 2023 in which he predicted a general election. He insists 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." 

Wickland then misrepresents the prophetic ministry with reasoning that is incoherent and doctrinally unsound. He argues that evangelists, pastors, teachers, and even apostles may operate with success rates well below 100%, yet prophets alone are held to what he calls “pretty brutal standards”. By his own criteria, however, he concedes that he qualifies as a false prophet, since his record does not meet the standard he claims is unfairly imposed. His comments appear to be a response to sustained public criticism, and an attempt to justify his failed prediction. 

Wickland further promised that if the various prophetic words he had issued—many of which were due to expire within twelve months of 24 May 2024—did not come to pass, he would never deliver another prophetic word. The difficulty is obvious: the very prophecy for which he issued an apology did not come to pass, yet he treats this failure as if it does not fall under the terms of his own promise. After a year he announced that his “time of silence is now over” and resumed issuing prophecies, including those he claims to have received during the silence.1 It raises the obvious question: by what authority does anyone grant himself permission to suspend prophetic activity after a failed prediction and then resume it at will? In this further video, Wickland invoked the standard defence of false prophets—“we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9)—as if limitation of scope implied tolerance for inaccuracy. The phrase refers to partial knowledge, not defective fulfilment. When taken out of context and used in this manner, this verse becomes an instrument for evading accountability, legitimising any utterance, and removing all constraints on prophetic speech (1 John 4:1). The biblical standard remains unchanged: first‑person prophetic declarations must be 100% accurate, and any failure constitutes false prophecy. Wickland's ecumenical posture only reinforces the disqualification.

Mike Bickle is a clear example of a false prophet employing the same rationale. He publicly taught that prophetic words do not need to be 100% accurate, proposing an approximate 80% accuracy threshold—a standard directly at odds with the biblical requirement of total precision in Deuteronomy 18. This rhetoric functions as an unbiblical escape mechanism, a way for false prophets to evade the biblical criteria and justify their continued authority despite demonstrable failure.

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.

Cei Dewar’s recent affirmation of Wickland is reckless and unbiblical. He charged the congregation to trust Wickland even when his actions or statements appear contradictory, insisting they stand with “this man of God” regardless of what they see or understand. His declaration that Wickland is hearing a divine voice others cannot hear—and is leading them toward “purpose” and “promise” even when the situation resembles a wilderness—functions as a cultish unconditional loyalty demand, not a biblical test of prophecy or leadership.2

Given the evidence previously outlined, I identify Chris Wickland and his associates as New Apostolic Reformation‑aligned false teachers, exhibiting the characteristic markers of that movement and the recognisable traits of false prophets and teachers to mark and avoid (Romans 16:17-18).

1. My time of silence is now over 

2. Life in the wilderness by Bishop Cei Dewar

How to Identify False Teachers (12 Biblical Marks)

CEI DEWAR'S SUPPORT FOR FALSE PROPHET CHRIS WICKLAND

Life in the wilderness by Bishop Cei Dewar

..while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13).

Cei Dewar’s unwavering endorsement of Chris Wickland is deeply concerning. His insistence that the congregation trust “this man of God” without testing the spirits is not merely irresponsible—it is alarming.

Before identifying the concern, I will briefly address Dewar’s assertion that “when the priest’s garment is torn, the priesthood has left him." This claim has no textual grounding in the Old Testament and represents pure eisegesis. No Old Testament passage states that tearing priestly garments removes the office. In the Torah, tearing the high priest’s clothing is a prohibited act, not a ritual signal of disqualification. The high‑priestly robe is explicitly constructed so that “it will not be torn” (Exodus 28), and priests—especially the high priest—are forbidden to tear their garments (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10). A torn garment therefore indicates violation of priestly sanctity, not loss of priestly status. Caiaphas’ action in Matthew 26 follows rabbinic courtroom custom, not Mosaic law. The tearing signaled a judicial declaration of blasphemy, a conventional expression of outrage and condemnation. In doing so, he simultaneously broke the very prohibition binding the high priest, making his act unlawful rather than symbolic of priesthood transfer. Christ’s resurrection inaugurated a heavenly priesthood that was not yet manifested on earth; the high priest’s earthly office did not end through his own unlawful act. Theologically, the Levitical priesthood concluded at the cross (Hebrews 7-10). Historically, it ceased with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (Matthew 24:2; Daniel 9:26-27). Since that point, no functioning Levitical priesthood has existed.

Dewar: "God sets up a man of God in the Old Testament to say 'I will show you where to follow'. And in the New Covenant brings him into a relationship that now says, 'Don't just follow me. walk with me'. ...today I charge you in the name of God to stand when nobody else will stand with this man of God. When you don't understand why he's saying what he's saying or doing what he's doing that you charged in the name of God will trust this man is listening to the voice that I do not hear and leading us to the place of purpose, to the place of promise, even when it looks like we're stuck in the wilderness, because Israel would have got through the wilderness a whole lot quicker had they just trusted the one God put to lead them through. How many seasons of our lives have been delayed or lengthened simply because we did not obey an instruction from a man of God."  

This is the stuff of cults! 

Dewar effectively argues that allegiance to the “man of God” should outrank allegiance to Christ. His model suppresses critical discernment, removes the believer’s right to test Wickland’s extravagant claims, and elevates trust in a self‑appointed prophet above the authority of scripture. In doing so, both men displace the role of the Holy Spirit and encroach upon the prerogatives of Christ Himself.

The Man of God syndrome is the Moses Model

There is no textual or historical basis for any pastor or leader to appropriate the title "the man of God" as an exclusive, elevated status over fellow elders. Such self‑designation reflects an inflated view of one’s own authority and aligns with the arrogance scripture explicitly warns against (Romans 12:3; Galatians 6:3). A leader who adopts titles of superiority demonstrates a disposition incompatible with legitimate pastoral responsibility (Matthew 23:8).

In contemporary usage, "man of God" has shifted to describe a self‑appointed apostle, prophet, or pastor who operates without meaningful accountability. This figure claims special powers—healing, predicting the future, or functioning as the exclusive conduit of divine blessing—and becomes someone the congregation fears and reveres. In some cases he is treated as the sole channel through which God acts, a posture that edges toward functional worship

The contemporary “man of God” posture reflects a Moses‑style leadership model that has no relevance for New Testament ecclesiology. The Old Testament used "man of God" as a generic designation for prophets and divine messengers—applied to figures such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, as well as unnamed prophetic voices (e.g., 1 Kings 13; 20:28). In the New Testament, Paul applies the term to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:11) as a minister of the gospel, a usage that extends naturally to all faithful ministers and, by extension, all faithful believers.

Biblical leadership remains accountable and subject to rebuke and correction. A plurality of elders is required to ensure mutual oversight. Where humility and teachability are present, a healthy church is more likely to emerge. A leader confronted with concerns does not pull rank but examines himself honestly to determine whether the charge has merit. Where this posture is absent, the system becomes authoritarian and predictably collapses, leaving many exposed to spiritual harm.

I have already demonstrated in earlier posts that Wickland is a proven false prophet. He is openly ecumenical, and scripture instructs believers to mark and avoid such men (Romans 16:17-18). The clearest example is his failed “prophetic vision” for the UK delivered on 31 July 2022, built on Joshua 1, in which he announced an imminent national “shift”. None of the predicted outcomes—the disappearance of major denominations, the collapse of the liberal left, the breakdown of economic systems, or the fall of the government—has occurred in any identifiable or concrete form.1 

Dewar presents himself as "a voice for the historic Gospel of Jesus Christ", adopting a fatherly authority and a manufactured moral gravity that relies heavily on emotional appeal. His sermons are theatrical, yet his claims are inaccurate, unscriptural, and collapse under straightforward textual examination. He is part of a group called The Five Fathers, who lead online prayer for the United Kingdom on Sunday evenings. Dewar serves as a missionary bishop in the Confessing Anglican Church (CAC), attached to the Missionary Diocese of Providence (UK). His public ministry is branded through CAC platforms and media appearances, where he advances a politically charged form of Christianity described by mainstream reporting as militant and confrontational. The CAC functions as a small, independent Anglican jurisdiction outside the historic Anglican Communion, and Dewar’s role reflects a self‑contained ecclesial identity rather than recognised Anglican oversight. The movement has gained traction in the vacuum created by the Church of England’s failures and the current political climate; however, its theological foundations are questionable.

I recommend John Collins’ Leaving the Message material, which provides valuable analysis and practical lessons drawn from the corrupt Branhamism cult and the subsequent development of the New Apostolic Reformation.

Collins: "Leaving the Message is a project of William Branham Historical Research, critically examining William Marrion Branham (a.k.a. William Marvin Branham, 1907–1965), a Pentecostal revivalist and doomsday prophet whose teachings gave rise to authoritarian cults and spiritual abuse. We trace his influence into N.A.R., Latter Rain, Word of Faith, and Deliverance ministries." 

(547) Leaving the Message - YouTube

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.. (1 Timothy 2:5).

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1).

I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; (Acts 20:29).

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3).

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CHRIS WICKLAND: 2022 FAILED "PROPHETIC VISION"

CHRIS WICKLAND DECLARES NIGEL FARAGE AS “A NEW CYRUS”

Nigel Farage?

Here is another a prophetic word from Chris Wickland in which he declares that Nigel Farage will be our next Prime Minister and will usher in a new era for Britain.

Wickland’s record already identifies him as a proven false prophet. His repeated first‑person declarations allegedly from the Lord are deeply concerning, particularly for those who accept them uncritically. A claim of this kind cannot be meaningfully tested, as it lacks any time‑specific criteria. What we can assess is his prior track record, which is unreliable. Wickland’s latest diatribe on 26 September 2026, titled 'It’s now too late', makes no reference at all to his earlier prediction that Nigel Farage would become Prime Minister—a conspicuous omission that directly undermines the coherence of his prior claim.1  

The Old Testament gives some valuable pointers about true and false prophecy.

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.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

A true prophecy must occur exactly as spoken; one failure is decisive. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 adds that even accurate predictions are invalidated if the prophet promotes syncretism or any departure from exclusive loyalty to Yahweh. Wickland’s ecumenical stance directly contradicts biblical fidelity, and ecumenism is incompatible with genuine prophetic authority. A true prophet of God cannot be ecumenical. In addition, authentic prophecy never contradicts scripture. The Old Testament consistently marks corruption, manipulation, self‑promotion, and reckless speech as indicators of false prophecy (Jeremiah 23; Ezekiel 13). Genuine prophecy is concrete and falsifiable; vague, open‑ended predictions do not meet the biblical standard. Wickland’s pronouncements therefore align with the classic profile of presumptuous speech rather than authentic prophetic authority. 

Wickland: "This prophetic word is called 'Nigel Farage?'. It came to me on the 12th of February 2025. Psalm 8:6 is the base text or the meditation text: 'Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet'. And this is what I believe uh the Lord gave to me today. 'There are times and there are epochs and there are eras. The new era for Britain is coming. One that will change everything for this nation. In the days of great darkness the burning lamps of churches will again shine throughout this land indeed My church will be needed required and instrumental in the years ahead for this nation and indeed the nations. I am raising up a man for this time for this coming season to usher in the new era for this nation. Before I raise him up chaos, chaos everywhere will ensue. Your current leader is going to wreck and destroy this nation, but in part I've allowed this as a sign of my chastisement to this wicked nation. I will show all firsthand what foolish evil half-thought through ideologies will do to this nation and the common man. It will become so stark and abhorrent that many will turn their backs on the new communism of the hour. Many will wake up in the days ahead and come to their senses finally. In that moment of chaos I'll be raising up a whole plethora of persons to help shape this nation into something both formidable and stable I will be raising political leaders, economic leaders, spiritual leaders, to have a strong voice to bring order to the ensuing chaos that is about to be unleashed upon your land over the next several years. I am raising one man. A man for the hour. One who is a strong voice at this time, but a voice I'll make so loud in the days ahead. I'm going to break your politics and your political machine. I'm going to smash it with my right hand. Your two party politics is over for a time. For I have a man that I am raising up and his party will come to power despite all the odds. But he will not come to power just yet. First there will be chaos and ruin within the parliamentary system. It will fall topple and collapse. Then this man will bring his reform to this nation and he will finally achieve his dream of being prime minister in that hour. But there is still a way to go before that hour comes. Much trouble is coming first, and then the fall of parliament. I'm going to give this man great favor, especially within my church. For in the hour of devastation to come, he will be seen as a man of common sense, whereas now the reformer is still seen as divisive and contentious. I will put around the leader of the reform many mighty and wonderful people. Yes there will be the usual suspects, but I will surround him with my choice of leaders. Some of those will be political; some from the street, that is not from the political class; and others from the best of their fields. When he comes to power it will be to rebuild everything from scratch. I'll give him tremendous wisdom through the people I surround him with for that day and that hour. Although his reign will not be a long one, nevertheless he will be my instrument, a Cyrus even, for that hour to help get this nation off her knees and back to a place of strength and dignity. Lo watch and see for here comes the reformer and watch his trail blaze across the heavens."

A true prophecy is correct in every detail. Wickland specifically declared, in the first person of God: "Your current leader is going to wreck and destroy this nation". This is demonstrably false. He was referring to Keir Starmer, who was Prime Minister at the time of the prophecy on 12 February 2025. Starmer did not “wreck and destroy” the nation, and he did not even remain in office; Andy Burnham succeeded him on 20 July 2026. The statement is therefore both inaccurate and contradicted by subsequent events.

Casting Farage in a Cyrus role simply repeats the Trump‑as‑Cyrus narrative promoted by NAR prophets in the United States. The parallels are obvious: the same political messianism, the same selective proof‑texting, and the same attempt to sacralise a political figure through an Old Testament template.

False parallels with Old Testament passages. The context of Psalm 8:6.

O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,*
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

*Cited in 1 Corinthians 15:27 and Hebrews 2:6-8 

Wickland’s use of Psalm 8:6 is a false parallel. The psalm speaks of humanity in general, not a specific political figure, and its purpose is to praise the majesty of the Lord and His creation. To repurpose this text as a prophetic template for a contemporary political individual is a distortion of its context. The presumption involved in redirecting a doxological psalm toward a partisan application is inappropriate; treating it as a cipher for a modern leader is effectively sacrilegious.

This pattern recurs with Wickland. His alleged “prophetic vision” for the UK delivered four years ago on the 31st of July 2022 titled 'The Seasons are Shifting' was again built on an improvised use of an Old Testament passage—Joshua 1 in that instance—showing the same tendency to force contemporary political narratives into borrowed biblical frameworks.

Wickland 2022: "What I felt God is saying is 'The clock is about to change and it (the church) is now on the threshold of a the next hour..'  We are about to come into a new hour, a new season.. 'Moses my servant is dead..'  the old ways of doing stuff is about to become utterly obsolete in ways that are shocking.. In the first day of the autumn of this year, the clock will change into the next hour..2 

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

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. (Jeremiah 23:16).

1. It's now too late - The Vexed Vicar

2. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CHRIS WICKLAND: 2022 FAILED "PROPHETIC VISION"