ASSEMBLIES OF GOD DISTORTION OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

The doctrine of Spirit baptism as a distinct, secondary experience emerged within early twentieth‑century Pentecostal and later charismatic movements. The central question concerns whether the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a separate, post‑conversion event or is inherently tied to conversion itself. Pentecostal and charismatic traditions maintain that a subsequent Spirit baptism is necessary for empowerment and for the operation of spiritual gifts.

The phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” appears only a handful of times in the New Testament and these occurrences almost entirely refer to John the Baptist’s prophecy that Jesus would baptise in or with the Holy Spirit (Greek preposition ἐν).1 

I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11 cf. Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5,11:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Jesus promised his disciples that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would take place after His ascension.

And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-5,8).

This prophecy reaches its fulfilment in Acts 2:1–36 at Pentecost, and in Acts 11:16 Peter retrospectively identifies the same fulfilment was now extended to the Gentiles. (Acts 10:44–48; 11:15–18). 

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:2-4).

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ (Acts 11:15-16).

Further references to this phenomenon appear in Acts 8:14–17 and Acts 19:1–7, and Paul addresses the same subject in 1 Corinthians 12:12–13. Luke and Paul use the expression “filled with the Spirit” in sharply different ways. For Luke, it signifies episodic empowerment for witness; for Paul, it denotes ongoing moral transformation, the Spirit’s sustained, character‑forming work. Conflating these categories collapses two distinct frameworks and inevitably generates confusion.

The extraordinary events of Pentecost are descriptive, not prescriptive. Pentecost was a singular moment inaugurating the church age. Its dramatic signs marked the transition from the Old Covenant to the New and publicly authenticated God’s power and the reality of Christ’s resurrection. (Acts 2:32–33). A central feature of the event was its dismantling of cultural and linguistic barriers: visitors to Jerusalem heard the gospel in their own languages (Acts 2:8–11), a sign anticipating the global reach of the Christian faith and the inclusion of the nations promised in scripture. (Isaiah 49:6; cf. Joel 2:28-32).

Treating a historical narrative as a universal formula

Acts records boundary‑marking, unrepeatable events, not a normative spiritual sequence. Misinterpretation arises when isolated episodes (Acts 2, 8,10,19) are extracted from their historical function and re‑cast as a mandatory pattern for all believers. This collapses Luke’s narrative purpose into a modern experiential template and imposes a prescriptive framework the text itself does not establish.

The 20th century - enter Pentecostal theology and the "second blessing"

The modern doctrine of a subsequent post-conversion experience is only about 120 years old and has no precedent before the twentieth century. This construct arose in 1901 (Topeka) and 1906 (Azusa Street). Historically, the church held no such doctrine. Early writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen consistently tied the Spirit’s gift to conversion itself—regeneration, incorporation into the church, and the believer’s new life—not to a later crisis event. In the New Testament, Paul uses categories such as sealed, indwelt, anointed, and filled, treating the Spirit as the shared reality of all believers rather than as a second‑tier upgrade. In the 1890s, Pentecostal forerunner RC Horner, a Canadian holiness evangelist, introduced a theological distinction that became foundational for emerging Pentecostal thought. In Pentecost (1891) and Bible Doctrines (1909), Horner argued that Spirit baptism was not identical with the second blessing but constituted a third work of grace, subsequent to salvation and sanctification, intended to empower believers for service. False teacher Charles Fox Parham later built on this framework by identifying speaking in tongues as the biblical evidence of Spirit baptism.2  

The Assemblies of God (AoG), the largest Pentecostal denomination, incorporates this claimed post‑conversion baptism in the Spirit into its official confession of faith.

AoG: "All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry." 3  

Several difficulties arise from this interpretation. Paul directs believers to pursue the gifts of the Spirit, not a secondary “baptism in the Spirit”. (1 Corinthians 14:1; 12:1). The Spirit is given at conversion, and the distribution of gifts is governed by the Spirit’s own will. (1 Corinthians 12:11). The Assemblies of God adds that this alleged post‑conversion baptism is initially evidenced by the physical phenomenon of speaking in other tongues (glossolalia). The idea that Spirit baptism is a distinct, post‑conversion experience tied to tongues emerged in 1901 (Topeka) and 1906 (Azusa Street). This claim stands at odds with Paul’s rhetorical differentiation of the gifts—“Do all speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:30)—which assumes that the gift of tongues is not universally bestowed.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-31).

Pentecostal interpreters often distinguish 1 Corinthians 12:13 from the other Spirit‑baptism passages, arguing that in this verse the Holy Spirit functions as the baptizer. Certain translations (e.g., NIV, Good News Translation) render the phrase “by the Spirit”. This reading is misleading because it transfers the agency to the Spirit rather than to Christ, who is consistently presented as the One who sends the Holy Spirit in every other passage. The New Testament consistently uses the passive voice (“you will be baptised”), signalling that the Spirit’s work is God‑initiated, not something believers trigger or perform. In my assessment, Pentecostal interpreters have mishandled the word of God by introducing a division that is neither warranted nor coherent, resulting in a distortion of the cohesive passages that bear directly on the unity and health of the body of Christ. (2 Timothy 2:15). Paul states unambiguously that all believers are baptized into one body and all partake of the same Spirit.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13 cf. Ephesians 1:13-14;2:18,4:4; Titus 3:4-7).

Professor Anthony C Thiselton: "Any theology that might imply that this one baptism in 13a in which believers were baptized by [or in] one Spirit might mark off some postconversion experience or status enjoyed only by some Christians attacks and undermines Paul’s entire argument and emphasis."4  

A further argument presented by Pentecostal interpreters is that the disciples were commissioned and received the Spirit before Pentecost. (John 20:22). The apparent tension arises because scripture also affirms that the Spirit would be given after Jesus was glorified. (John 7:39; 16:7). The most coherent reading is that the disciples serve as forerunners, while Pentecost marks the point at which the Spirit is given to all believers. No single text establishes a template for a later, secondary experience.

Ellicott: "And saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.—These words are not, on the one hand, to be understood as simply a promise of the future gift of the Holy Ghost, for they are a definite imperative, referring to the moment when they were spoken; nor are they, on the other hand, to be taken as the promised advent of the Paraclete (John 14:16 et seq.), for the gift of the Holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39; John 16:7 et seq.). The meaning is that He then gave to them a sign, which was itself to faithful hearts as the firstfruits of that which was to come. His act was sacramental, and with the outer and visible sign there was the inward and spiritual grace. The very word used was that used when He said to them, “Take (receive ye), eat; this is My body” (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22). It would come to them now with a fulness of sacred meaning. The Risen Body is present with them. The constant spiritual Presence in the person of the Paraclete is promised to them. They again hear the words “Receive ye,” and the very command implies the power to obey. (Comp. Excursus C: The Sacramental Teaching of St. John’s Gospel, p. 556.)" 5

Gann: "receive ... This gift fulfilled many promises that the Spirit would be sent (John 14:16, John 14:26; john 15:26; John 16:7, John 16:13). It foreshadows the arrival of the Spirit’s empowering presence at Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5; Acts 2:1–47)."6  

Pentecostal interpreters frequently appeal to Acts 8:14–17 and 19:1–7, where individuals identified as believers or disciples receive the Holy Spirit.

 

When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. On their arrival, they prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)

And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” (Acts 19:2). 

In Acts 19:2, Paul encounters a group whose understanding of the faith had never advanced beyond John the Baptist’s message. His question—“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”—exposes the deficiency. Genuine New Covenant faith presupposes the reception of the Spirit at conversion. Their ignorance prompts Paul to proclaim the full gospel, leading to baptism in Jesus’ name and the Spirit’s immediate, visible arrival. The episode underscores that salvation and the Spirit’s indwelling are inseparable aspects of conversion, demonstrating God’s intention to equip every genuine believer with His empowering presence. This group corresponds precisely to Apollos upon his arrival in Ephesus, who likewise knew only John’s baptism (Acts 18:24–26).

The destructive implications of this doctrine are evident. Pentecostal theology effectively constructs a two‑tier hierarchy of believers, treating those labelled “baptised in the Holy Spirit” as a more committed, more spiritual, and implicitly superior class. This contradicts Paul’s insistence that all believers share one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13). The widespread carnality evident within NAR–Pentecostal circles, their recurrent mishandling of scripture, and the compromised public witness of many of their leaders collectively render the claim of “superior spirituality” illusory. Their model of “Spirit baptism” demonstrably fails to produce Christian maturity or holiness,

These problems are intensified by the additional hierarchical layers introduced through so‑called Apostles and Prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation during the 1980s and 90s. Peter C Wagner’s framework has generated further divisions and has produced an unbiblical, distorted, and frequently abusive structure that bears little resemblance to the New Testament pattern. The defective fruit produced by many NAR “apostles and prophets” indicates the operation of a different spirit. (2 Corinthians 11:4; Matthew 7:16).

1. Strong's Greek: 1722. ἐν (en) -- in, on, at, by, with, among

2. Baptism with the Holy Spirit - Wikipedia
3. Statement of Faith – General Council of the Assemblies of God of the Mariana and Palau Islands
4. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 997–98.
5. John 20 Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
6. John 20 - Gann's Commentary on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Further Links

The Hidden Origin of the Assemblies of God: Race, Power, and Pentecostal Myth | Podcast Episode 528

WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: SIMON BRAKER FALSE PROPHET: BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE

ONE CHURCH LEICESTER: DAVID HIND'S £5 MILLION SPIN

One Church Together | 31st May 2026, 11.30am

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and cry to her that her warfare is ended,
that her iniquity is pardoned,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for all her sins.

A voice cries:
“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
and the rough places a plain.
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together,
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”  (Isaiah 40:1-5).

It is remarkable how consistently David Hind alters the context and application of scripture in order to congratulate himself and align the text with his personal “vision” and building initiatives. He persistently sanitises the history of One Church, and that revisionism extends to All Nations Church (ANC), which was failing and close to collapse prior to its merger with TLC. The One Church website itself describes ANC as a “shipwreck” before the merger.1 This selective retelling of events reflects Hind’s willingness to be economical with the truth. (Psalm 12:2). In reality, the historical record is deeply concerning, as outlined in my previous posts. The false teaching and the platforming of NAR wolves by both churches is a matter that should provoke profound embarrassment, shame, and repentance. One Church continues to function as an NAR church, and with that comes the predictable abandonment of sound doctrine.

Isaiah 40:1-5 refers to the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus Christ.   

A voice cries in the wilderness.. Verse 3 introduces the prophetic voice identified in the New Testament with John the Baptist, who prepares the way for Jesus Christ and calls for repentance. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23).

If these verses teach anything, it is the call to repentance and holiness. They offer no justification for physical building projects, nor do they support ventures tied to secular sponsorship. To apply them in that direction is an exegetical distortion, not a legitimate interpretation.

The primacy of the gospel 

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10).

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4).

Whether the church should involve itself in secular partnerships—especially with corporate sponsors—raises a theological question, not merely a practical one. Scripture warns that alignment with the world’s systems signals hostility toward God, not neutrality. Any collaboration must therefore be assessed through the lens of fidelity to doctrine, not the optics of social engagement. 

Open Hands unholy history

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14 cf. Ephesians 5:7).

Open Hands Trust received a National Lottery award of £446,626 in 2014, during Adam Simmonds’ period as Director and Trustee of Trinity Life Church. Entering into a binding funding agreement with the Big Lottery Fund — and its accompanying secular value framework — represents, in my assessment, a clear departure from the Christian principles TLC claimed to uphold. The pattern is familiar: biblical standards are set aside when worldly advantage is at stake. The outcome was financially beneficial, but the method was a betrayal of biblical values. The ends do not sanctify the means.

The projected cost of the new Open Hands Centre at 12 Frog Island is a staggering £5 million! Hind has already “prophesied” that God will cover the expense, a claim that conveniently prepares the ground for yet another round of pressure on his congregation to give beyond their means. The pattern is predictable: the financial burden is spiritualised, and members are led to believe that excessive giving is an act of service to God rather than a response to institutional ambition. 

It is also necessary to consider whether Open Hands’ planned expansion represents an ethically questionable attempt to dominate the local charity landscape and marginalise smaller organisations. 96% of charities operate on incomes below £1 million, yet the majority of available funding is captured by the largest entities. The wider debate about the impact of large charities crowding out smaller ones is ongoing.2  

Those churches that endorse Open Hands should consider the aberrant theology of One Church before rushing to support them. Are local church leaders so short-sighted that they do not realise that good works detached from sound doctrine achieve nothing? The pastoral calling is a divine commission to shepherd, instruct, and guard the church through faithful adherence to scripture. It includes the explicit responsibility to protect the flock from error. Yet in NAR circles, false teaching is not an aberration but a defining feature, revealing a complete abandonment of the theological duty that scripture assigns to pastors.

The historical trajectory of Pentecostalism—particularly within the Assemblies of God—is deeply troubling.* Pentecostal and NAR environments are especially known for suppressing scrutiny and critical thinking. Yet it is neither wrong nor disruptive to ask searching questions; in fact, it is a biblical obligation to think carefully and to test all things by scripture. Despite this, legitimate examination is often portrayed as disloyal or even spiritually suspect, contrary to the command of 1 John 4:1. Paul did not evade criticism; he addressed it directly and transparently.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20).

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:5-10).

1. Our Story | One Church Leicester
2. Small vs. large charities: does size determine who gets funded? | Sector Debates | Plinth

* How the Assemblies of God Shaped Modern Charismatic Christianity - William Branham Historical Research

REVELATION TV: HOWARD CONDER'S COLLABORATION WITH AT BOSHOFF CRC

Revelation TV : Award Winning Christian TV

So, Howard Conder jetted off to the Revelation studios in Spain on the 22nd of May to work with the team of Christian Revival Churches (CRC). According to Leslie Conder, RTV are collaborating with CRC to "bring life to their Spanish studios". Apparently, "amazing plans" are underway with a "revival meeting" taking place the previous week on the 15th May, with more to follow: This Could Change Your Life [CRC Spain Encounter]

There is a significant problem here: CRC’s founder, At Boshoff, has generated sustained concerns across multiple platforms, yet Conder once again overlooks the red flags and aligns himself with a “church” that has been identified by some observers as cult‑adjacent. While CRC does not meet the strict sociological definition of a cult, a broader assessment finds it functions as a high‑control megachurch with clear cult‑like features. The issues centre on authoritarian structure, secrecy, and narrative management.

CRC was established by Boshoff in 1994 and presents itself as a global church movement committed to impacting nations and reaching people with the message of Jesus Christ, operating numerous campuses across various regions of the world.1  

As noted in a previous post, Boshoff, operating within the NAR framework, displays a characteristic “man‑of‑God syndrome" ~ the organisation is structured around his personal authority, marked by expectations of unquestioning loyalty and the framing of dissent as rebellion. Boshoff does not tolerate scrutiny, challenge, or meaningful accountability.2 His decision to divorce his wife without informing the congregation illustrates the pattern. Concealing major pastoral life events is a textbook form of institutional image‑protection, not normal congregational transparency. Former members also report guilt‑and‑shame dynamics consistent with high‑control environments.

It appears that no lessons have been learned by Conder and his associates, and his recent actions further demonstrate that he is not qualified to lead any form of Christian ministry. After years of receiving “prophetic words” from demonstrably unreliable sources, Conder continues to align himself with questionable figures and high‑control ministries.3 This pattern reflects a consistent failure of discernment and governance, raising legitimate concerns about his faith and suitability for leadership.

The Spanish studios were formally opened in April 2023, but activity declined soon afterwards as the organisation underwent significant operational downsizing. The facility was semi-abandoned, and continued to function at a reduced level while administrative responsibilities and much of the programme production were transferred back to the UK. The result is a semi‑active site that remains technically operational but no longer serves as the primary base of ministry operations.   

With substantial questions still outstanding, RTV has issued its own controlled account of events, attributing the situation to staffing difficulties, travel constraints, the loss of EU mobility, and the impact of COVID‑19. This explanation effectively reframes these factors as obstacles that nullified the various “prophetic words” the organisation had previously promoted, without addressing the deeper issue of why those prophecies failed or why the leadership relied on them in the first place. (Deuteronomy 18:23; 1 John 4:1). Below is an excerpt from the RTV statement.

REVELATION INTERNATIONAL CENTRE: SPAIN

SO WHAT WENT WRONG? 

"We had such high hopes for Revelation TV broadcasting from Spain, but the challenges began to build up.

We had moved our office based to Spain. There came a time when our office manager decided to retire. Another member of the office team needed to spend more time with family abroad so was unable to continue to commit to a full-time position. We advertised for several months for the post to be filled in Spain but were unable to fine admin staff with both fluent English and a good knowledge of The Bible. We had positive applications from the UK but, due to Brexit rules, they were unable to relocate to Spain to take up the position. In the end it became necessary to move the office and administration back to the UK as we had no staff!

However much our guests were willing to travel to Spain to be interviewed and share in programmes, there were always key people who could not or would not do so. It was expensive to pay for airfares, accommodation, and food as well as transport to and from the Spanish airport, and we found such guests questioning why we hadn’t simply brought them to our London studios!
We found that after we exited the EU there were far fewer suitable guests living in Spain.
We had always found it necessary to maintain a (small) studio in the UK which necessitated presenters and production staff being in the UK, but we were finding that we were becoming increasingly busy in London, and decreasingly busy in Spain.

As a leadership we found we were needed in both London and Spain. With Howard, who doesn’t like flying at the best of times, increasingly he found he was needed for interviews and programmes in the UK. It always seemed to be that we arrived in one country only to find we were needed back in the other because an issue had arisen. We had a good staff team, but all staff need management, and we were missing too much by being spread thinly.

Covid only acerbated the situated as the leadership were stuck in the Uk whilst most of the staff team were in Spain. Even so, we pressed on..

It was the Revelation Foundation trustees in the end who met and took the decision that Revelation needed to be based in one place. After much prayer and discussion, the decision was taken to move the base back to the UK. To all the Spanish team, we offered relocation to the UK … or a redundancy package.

As a leadership, we struggle to understand all that has gone on. Did we get our guidance wrong? Did we not hear from God correctly? We don’t have the answers, but leaders must make decisions and that is what we have done. We value your prayers. As I write we are seeking to understand the next step as to what the future should be for the Revelation International Centre."4

   

1. CRC Bloemfontein | Christian Revival Church
2. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: AT BOSHOFF: ANOTHER TOXIC PASTOR TO MARK AND AVOID
3. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: REVELATION TV: SPAIN ~ HOWARD CONDER'S WHITE ELEPHANT
4. Revelation TV : Award Winning Christian TV

Further Links

I Can't Believe How Arrogant This Pastor Is | At Boshoff Exposed
Pastor Ed Young & At Boshoff on Serving Man Rather than God
Ex CRC Members, what is the it really like? : r/southafrica

Megachurch Pastor With 120K Members Secretly Divorces Wife, Doesn't Tell Church - Protestia
The CRC phenomenon (2) - the concerns are valid

NEPHILIM NONSENSE? JUSTIN PETERS, JIM OSMAN, DANIEL LONG

Airbnb “Prophets” Compare the Virgin Birth to Alien Encounters: With Justin Peters and Jim Osman

"Charismatic "prophets" Mike Signorelli, Joseph Z, Alan DiDio, and others claim they were called to a secret meeting in the middle of nowhere — phones on airplane mode, assumed identities, the works — to be briefed on coming "alien disclosure" and save the church from deception. But what came out of that meeting may be some of the most blasphemous teachings we've ever covered on this channel, including a direct comparison between the Virgin Birth of Christ and fallen angels having relations with women. Justin Peters and Jim Osman join me to expose the secret meeting, dismantle the bad theology behind the Nephilim/alien hybrid claims, address Joseph Z's failed "prophecy" over Joni Lamb, and explain why none of this — biblically, theologically, or even scientifically — holds up. If you're a former Charismatic trying to think clearly about all the alien talk flooding social media right now, this episode is for you."

Above is the response from Justin Peters, Jim Osman, and Daniel Long to the recent claim that a “secret meeting” occurred in an Airbnb in Tennessee involving Mike Signorelli, Joseph Z, Alan DiDio, and others. In my assessment, their claim was an attempt at self-aggrandisement and clickbait that happened to gain traction. I agree with Justin Peters that, in their foolishness, charismatic NAR “pastors” often attempt to present themselves as possessing superior spiritual knowledge, in this case, insider knowledge on alleged “alien disclosure”. The accumulated failure of charismatic NAR prophets is sufficient to demonstrate that they are neither credible nor reliable sources of spiritual authority. 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).

Even so, I found several of the remarks made by Justin Peters, Jim Osman, and Daniel Long disappointing. Both Calvinist and Lutheran traditions hold amillennial beliefs that diverge sharply from the scriptural witness and from the eschatology of the early church. Amillennialism remains confined within an Augustinian Roman‑Catholic inheritance rather than engaging in the whole counsel of God, resulting in an eschatology that is scripturally and historically deficient. (Acts 20:27).

Although I reject DiDio and his associates ' claim of a “secret meeting" it is not impossible that government agencies might share information with certain church leaders. Osman’s categorical assertion that such cooperation would never occur is therefore not especially convincing. One could just as easily ask why Donald Trump includes NAR‑charismatics within his inner circle—an arrangement that many Christians find difficult to make sense of. And if any weight is given to Andy Woods’ testimony, who claims that a government agent approached him in 2024 regarding UFO disclosure.1 

While Peters, Osman, and Long dismiss the prospect of alien disclosure, it is noteworthy that the U.S. Department of War treats the subject with sufficient seriousness to release a growing body of declassified UFO (UAP) documentation.

U.S. Department of War: "In response to President Donald J. Trump’s directive for transparency on U.S. government information regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), the Department of War (DOW), with support from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is overseeing government wide efforts to expeditiously find, review, identify, declassify and publicly release unresolved UAP-related records and historical documents in the federal government’s possession. This is an unprecedented, historic undertaking that requires coordination between dozens of agencies and the review of tens of millions of records, many existing only on paper, spanning many decades. Given the scope of this task, the Department of War will be releasing new materials on a rolling basis as they are discovered and declassified, with tranches posted every few weeks.."2 

The Gerasene Demoniac discussion

Matthew 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39 cf. Matthew 12:43

Osman’s treatment of the Gerasene (Gadarene) narrative is methodologically weak. His question—why the demons did not simply relocate to another host elsewhere in Judea to avoid Jesus—is hypothetical. The popular “demon‑slayer” assertion that demons seek human bodies to gratify their own lusts has no textual foundation. Scripture does not provide a behavioural psychology of demons, and responsible exegesis does not fill those silences with speculative constructions. However, Osman’s corrective claim that demons “do not like to be in an embodied form" is inaccurate according to reliable commentaries on Matthew 12:43. The New Testament’s actual data is limited but consistent: demons harm, degrade, and afflict. Their activity is destructive rather than expressive. (Matthew 9:32–34; Mark 3:20–27; 5:9,14–29). Nothing in these passages indicates that demons pursue embodiment to satisfy their own lustful appetites; rather, the pattern is impairment, torment, and attempted destruction.

If Osman intends to correct doctrinal error, the task requires him to remain within the boundaries of what scripture records rather than constructing hypothetical demon behaviour to fill the explanatory gap. This was a weak and poorly reasoned response from someone presenting himself as a pastor, and it reflects a limited grasp of demonology. His inaccuracies and unfounded assertions place him much closer to those he critiques than he seems to realise. The task is to present what is true in order to correct what is false, not to substitute one set of personal opinions for another.     

Bengel's Gnomon: "Matthew 12:43. Ὅταν, κ.τ.λ., when, etc.) Having rebuked and dismissed the interruption of the Pharisees, Jesus pursues those matters which depend upon Matthew 12:30; cf. Luke 11:23-24.—ἐξέλθῃ, has gone out) as had been said in Matthew 12:29.—διέρχεται, he goeth through) one after another.—ἀνύδρων, without water) Where there is no water, men do not dwell; see Psalm 107:35-36.—ἀναπαύσιν, rest) Rest is wished for by every created being. The devils think that man is their proper resting-place.—οὐχ εὑρίσκει, findeth none) sc. except in man. It is miserable always to seek and never to find it."3

Study Bible: "The unclean spirit's search for rest indicates its desire for a place to inhabit and exert influence. In the cultural context of the time, spirits were believed to seek embodiment to fulfill their purposes."4

Barnes: "Art thou come hither to torment us? ... - By 'the time' here mentioned is meant the day of judgment. The Bible reveals the doctrine that evil spirits are not now bound as they will be after that day; that they are permitted to tempt and afflict people, but that in the day of judgment they also will be condemned to everlasting punishment with all the wicked, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6. These spirits seemed to be apprised of that, and were alarmed lest the day that they feared had come. They besought him, therefore, not to send them out of that country, not to consign them then to hell, but to put off the day of their final punishment."5 

Barnes: "Seeking rest, and findeth none - These desolate and dry regions are represented as uncomfortable habitations; so much so, that the dissatisfied spirit, better pleased with a dwelling in the bosoms of people, as affording an opportunity of doing evil, seeks a return there."6  

The Nephilim question

Genesis 6:4 presents the contested identification of the “sons of God”, whether as the Sethite line or as angelic beings whose union with human women produced the Nephilim. The evidence is sparse but adequate to justify inquiry into the involvement of fallen angels. The designation Nephilim—“fallen ones”—identifies them as obscure figures tied to the pre‑flood narrative. 

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:4).

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 13:33).

The Anakim are identified in Deuteronomy 9:2 and Joshua 11:21–22 as a race of giants, noted for their exceptional size and strength, whose presence in Canaan seriously intimidated the Israelite spies. Their association with the Nephilim suggests a formidable lineage. Archaeological and textual indications place the Anakim in the hill country of Hebron, a strategically significant and fertile region. I am not dogmatic on the matter, but I see no difficulty in understanding the Anakim as literal hybrids rather than merely human“men of renown”. The Old Testament contains sufficient references to the physical disimilarities between the giants and other populations to render this interpretation credible—for example, Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4; 2 Samuel 21:19), his brothers Lahmi, Ishbi‑Benob, Saph, and the six‑fingered giant (1 Chronicles 20:5; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20), as well as Og king of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:11). Viewed this way, the Old Testament's depiction of Canaan's inhabitants makes the severity of the genocidal conquest commands more intelligible. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17). It also makes sense of Jude 1:6 and the connection with Sodom and Gomorrah and the pre-flood narrative, which is replicated in the days leading up to the Parousia. (Luke 17:26). 

Regarding the argument that when God created everything "after its kind" in Genesis 1:25. This is a descriptive narrative of creation, not a violation of it. The existence of a divine design does not preclude transgression of that design.

The appeal to Matthew 22:30 ("angels do not marry nor are given in marriage”) does not resolve the question of Genesis 6, because the two passages address different categories and different contexts.

Contextual Scope of Matthew 22:30 > Jesus’ statement concerns the marital status of resurrected humans and uses angels as a comparative model. The passage is not intended as an ontological description of angelic capacities but as a functional description of their heavenly mode of existence.

Heavenly Angels vs Fallen Angels > Matthew 22:30 refers specifically to angels “in heaven”. Genesis 6 and Jude 6 describe angels who “did not keep their own domain”. The texts therefore concern different angelic states, and conclusions drawn from one cannot be automatically transferred to the other.

Marriage vs Procreation > The argument assumes that the inability to marry entails the inability to procreate. This is a category error. The text states that angels do not marry; it does not state that they lack the capacity to assume physical form capable of biological interaction.

Embodiment in the Old Testament > Multiple Old Testament narratives depict angels taking embodied form indistinguishable from human males. (Genesis 18–19). These accounts demonstrate that angels can assume physicality with functional human characteristics.

Second Temple Interpretation > Jewish literature of the Second Temple period—including 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Philo, and Josephus—consistently interpreted Genesis 6 as referring to angelic beings. This indicates that Matthew 22:30 was not understood as contradicting that reading.

Jude 6–7 and Boundary Violation > Jude links the sin of the angels to Sodom’s pursuit of “strange flesh”, suggesting a transgression involving sexual boundaries. This intertextual connection supports the reading that Genesis 6 involves an illicit crossing of created categories

Justin Peters and his colleagues' abrupt dismissal of the substantial body of material concerning Nephilim hybrids simply exposes their predisposition to reject anything that even marginally challenges their established worldview. I do, of course, agree that none of this is vaguely relevant to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, scripture indicates that the closing phase of this age will involve spiritual deception on a scale without precedent. The exact form this deception will take is not disclosed, but it would be unwarranted to dismiss unusual claims outright. The Antichrist will present a counterfeit resurrection, and God Himself will send a strong delusion. Because biblical prophecy is interpreted literally throughout scripture, Revelation should not be treated as an exception. Within that eschatological framework, the range of possible end‑time manifestations should not be reduced or denied through allegorisation. Jesus issued a specific warning so that believers would not be caught off guard: “See, I have told you beforehand.” (Matthew 24:25).

The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. (Revelation 13:11-18).  

1. Worried About UFOs And Aliens? Watch This!

2. Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters | U.S. Department of War
3. Matthew 12:43 Commentaries: "Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it.
4. Matthew 12:43 Study Bible: But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the person, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it.
5. Matthew 8:29 Commentaries: And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
6. Matthew 12:43 Commentaries: "Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it.

JOEL RICHARDSON: GOG IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST

Gog and Magog: Gospel of the Skull Crusher Bible Study 34

Joel Richardson presents himself as a prophecy expert, yet his material raises significant concerns. This post isolates his handling of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38–39. As noted previously, Richardson’s effort to identify Gog with the Antichrist is exegetically untenable.

In this video, Richardson's attempt to merge Agag and Gog in Numbers 24:7 is not serious exegesis; it is a contrivance. 

How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your dwellings, O Israel! They spread out like palm groves, like gardens beside a stream, like aloes the LORD has planted, like cedars beside the waters.Water will flow from his buckets, and his seed will have abundant water. His king will be greater than Agag, and his kingdom will be exalted. God brought him out of Egypt with strength like a wild ox, to devour hostile nations and crush their bones, to pierce them with arrows. He crouches, he lies down like a lion, like a lioness—who dares to rouse him? Blessed are those who bless you and cursed are those who curse you.” (Numbers 24:5-9).

Brenton Septuagint translation: There shall come a man out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased. (Numbers 24:7).

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (3rd–2nd century BC). Its purpose was accessibility, not strict one‑to‑one lexical reproduction. The LXX sometimes reflects different Hebrew source traditions or uses interpretive renderings rather than literal ones. The Agag > Gog shift in Numbers 24:7 is linguistic speculation and a translation variant, not a theological identification. The divergence does not establish a theological identity between Agag and Gog. 

Agag is not another name for Gog in the Hebrew Bible. The two names are etymologically distinct, refer to different figures, and belong to different historical–theological contexts. Agag (אגג) and Gog (גוג) are different roots. The similarity in consonants is insufficient to claim identity. A few later interpreters conflate them, but the biblical text itself does not. The Hebrew text still reads Agag.

 

“Agag” was the title carried by Amalekite kings (1 Samuel 15:8). Amalek stood for opposition to God’s people (Exodus 17:16). Predicting a king “greater than Agag” means Israel’s future ruler will decisively outclass every hostile monarch.

Pulpit Commentary: "The name Agag (אַגַג, the fiery one) does not occur again except as the name of the king of Amalek whom Saul conquered and Samuel slew (1 Samuel 15.); yet it may safely be assumed that it was the official title of all the kings of Amalek, resembling in this 'Abimelech' and 'Pharaoh'."1 

Below, in brief, are three additional defects in Richardson’s Islamic‑Antichrist thesis. A full rebuttal has already been set out in detail in my earlier analyses.*

* And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Daniel 9:26)

Daniel 9:26 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. As such, "the prince who is to come” is widely viewed as being the Antichrist. Since it was the Romans who destroyed the city and the Temple, it is commonly believed that the Antichrist will, in some sense, be of Roman derivation and will come from a revived Roman Empire.

* “Thus says the Lord God: On that day, thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil scheme and say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will fall upon the quiet people who dwell securely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having no bars or gates,’ (Ezekiel 38:10-11).

Gog will come against the land of unwalled villages etc. This description certainly does not describe Israel or Jerusalem, either now or at any time before the end of the age, no matter how Richardson tries to spin it. 

* You shall fall on the mountains of Israel, you and all your hordes and the peoples who are with you. I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and to the beasts of the field to be devoured. You shall fall in the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God..  On that day I will give to Gog a place for burial in Israel, the Valley of the Travelers, east of the sea. It will block the travelers, for there Gog and all his multitude will be buried. (Ezekiel 39:4-5,11).

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. (Revelation 19:20).

A clear inconsistency emerges in Richardson’s construction. Ezekiel identifies Gog as a figure who is killed and buried in the Valley of the Travelers within Israel (Ezekiel 39:4–11), whereas Revelation states that the beast—the Antichrist—is seized and thrown alive into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20). The two destinies are irreconcilable.

Joel Richardson reports receiving a “prophetic endorsement” in 1992 from Paul Cain—a central figure in the Latter Rain movement whose so‑called personal prophecies once operated as a fast‑track to platform visibility within charismatic networks. In light of the documented exposure of Cain’s fraud by John Collins (Leaving the Message) and others, that boast now functions as a liability rather than a credential. Richardson’s subsequent associations have likewise involved a long list of demonstrably unreliable teachers and platforms, including Glenn Beck, Jim Bakker, Sid Roth, Mike Bickle, Walid Shoebat, Paul Wilbur, TBN, the 700 Club, CBN News, Joel Rosenberg (listed 2009), IHOP, Jonathan Cahn, Mark Biltz, Chuck Missler, Daystar TV, Vlad Savchuk, Chris Reed, and Dalton Thomas. Richardson's further doctrinal errors include Identificational Repentance and the Metatron heresy.

* WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Joel Richardson

1. Numbers 24:7 Commentaries: "Water will flow from his buckets, And his seed will be by many waters, And his king shall be higher than Agag, And his kingdom shall be exalted.

The Islamic Antichrist Debunked - Gog as the Antichrist

The Paul Cain Tapes: How Spiritual Blackmail Shaped the Charismatic Movement | 51

ADAM FANNIN: BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION OF "ALL ISRAEL"

Romans 11 Debunks Zionism - All 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋 Saved not the JEWS

Supersessionist Adam Fannin is on a fanatical mission to discredit the future of ethnic Israel. In this video, he advances a series of fallacious arguments, claiming that Romans 11 is one of the most misquoted passages of scripture, insisting that it does not refer to ethnic Israel. 

Error 1: Romans 11:1 "his people" does not refer to ethnic Israel.

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. (Romans 11:1).

Commentaries uniformly identify “his people” in Romans 11:1 as ethnic Israel. The surrounding context from Romans 10:18-11:36 consistently addresses ethnic Israel. Fannin’s view is isolated, incoherent and exegetically non-viable.

Berean Study Bible: "Paul raises a rhetorical question to address concerns about God's faithfulness to Israel. This question reflects the tension between the Jewish and Gentile believers in the early church. Historically, Israel was chosen as God's covenant people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). The question implies a deep theological inquiry into God's promises and their fulfillment. The context of Romans 9-11 deals with the mystery of Israel's partial hardening and the inclusion of the Gentiles."1

Meyer: "Romans 11:1. Λέγω οὖν] corresponds to the twofold ἀλλὰ λέγω, Romans 10:18-19, but so, that now this third interrogative λέγω is introduced in an inferential form. In consequence, namely, of what had just been clearly laid down in Romans 10:18 ff., as to the guilt of resistant Israel in its exclusion from salvation in Christ—over-against the Gentiles’ acceptance of it—the difficult question might arise: Surely God has not cast off His people? Surely it is not so tragic a fate, that we must infer it from that conduct of the people? Paul states this question, earnestly negatives it, and then sets forth the real state of the matter. The opinion of Hofmann, that the apostle starts this question because the scriptural passages Romans 10:18 ff. show that it is to be negatived, is the consequence of his incorrect interpretation of those scriptural sayings, and is confuted by the fact that the negation is first given and supported in what follows, not drawn from what precedes, but made good by a quite different scriptural proof, Romans 11:2."2 

Error 2: Dispensationalism teaches salvation for ethnic Israel apart from Jesus Christ, a crossless gospel without repentance, and works‑based salvation across eras. 

Fannin’s depiction of dispensationalism is not an interpretation but a mischaracterisation of the actual view. A fundamental feature of dispensationalism is its emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church: Israel receives the earthly covenants and promises, while the church receives New Testament spiritual blessings. Dispensationalists do not claim that ethnic Israel can be saved apart from Christ, repentance, or regeneration, nor do they teach that regeneration is imposed without consent. Well-known dispensational theologian Peter Goeman articulates the standard view and explicitly teaches a future national repentance of ethnic Israel, grounded in Romans 11, Zechariah 12, and Matthew 23:39.3

Scripture presents a clear pattern of end‑time repentance for ethnic Israel: Zechariah 12:10–13:1 depicts a national mourning over the One they pierced and a subsequent cleansing; Jesus ties His return to Israel’s future confession in Matthew 23:39; Paul affirms in Romans 11:11–15 and 25–27 that Israel’s present hardening will be removed, leading to their “fullness” and salvation when the Deliverer comes from Zion; Hosea 3:4–5 and 5:15 describe Israel’s latter‑day return to the Lord after a prolonged period of estrangement; and Ezekiel 36–37, Joel 2:28–32, and Daniel 12:1 frame this repentance within Israel’s eschatological restoration, spiritual renewal, and deliverance. Together, these passages form a consistent biblical expectation of a future, corporate turning of ethnic Israel to Christ in the last days.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves. (Zechariah 12:10-14 cf. Zechariah 13:1; 14:1-11).

"And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression,” declares the Lord.
“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.” (Isaiah 59:20-21 cf. Romans 11:26-27).

Error 3: Christ is the tree, the root, and the firstfruits.

If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. (Romans 11:16).

Romans 11:16 uses two parallel metaphors—firstfruit/lump and root/branches—to express the same point. Both images assert that the patriarchs, as the consecrated origin of Israel, impart a covenantal holiness to the nation that descends from them. The two phrases reinforce one idea, not two.

Throughout the Old Testament, Israel is often metaphorized as an Olive Tree. The Apostle Paul uses this metaphor to illustrate the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles. The root of the tree symbolises the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and the covenants made to them by God. The natural branches represent the Israelites, while the wild olive shoots symbolise the Gentiles who have come to faith in Christ.

Pulpit Commentary: "Verse 16. - And if the firstfruit be holy, so also is the lump; and if the root be holy, so also are the branches. By the firstfruit and the root is signified the original stock of Israel, the patriarchs; by the lump and the branches, the subsequent nation through all time. The word ἀπαρχή, being here connected with φύραμα, may be understood as referring to Numbers 15:19-22. The people are there enjoined to take of the first dough (φύραμα) kneaded after harvest a cake for a heave offering, called ἀπαρχή φυράματος (LXX.). This consecrated ἀπαρχή sanctified the whole φύραμα. Romans 11:16".

Ellicott: "The firstfruit . . . the lump.—The allusion here is to the custom, described in Numbers 15:19-21, of dedicating a portion of the dough to God. The portion thus taken was to be a 'heave-offering'—i.e., it was to be 'waved,' or 'heaved,' before the Lord, and was then given to the priest."

Gill: "For if the firstfruit be holy,.... Some by 'the firstfruit' and 'root' understand Christ, who is sometimes called, 'the firstfruits of them that slept', 1 Corinthians 15:20, and 'the root of Jesse and David', Isaiah 11:10, and indeed of all the righteous; and certain it is, that since he is holy, has all the holiness of his people in him, and is sanctification unto them, they shall be holy likewise; have it imparted to them in this life, and perfected in them in another: but this does not seem to agree with the apostle's argument.4  Gill, dismisses both readings—that Christ is the firstfruit and that Abraham’s descendants are the firstfruit—and instead proposes, incorrectly in my assessment, that the "firstfruits" refers merely to the earliest Jewish converts in the Gospel era. He identifies these initial believers in Judea, who received the firstfruit of the Spirit and were the first among the Jews to trust in Christ, as the referent. This interpretation is a departure from the standard Calvinist view, which understands the "firstfruit" as the patriarchs.

Error 4: The mark of the beast is available before the abomination of desolation.

The claim that the mark of the beast becoesmes available before the abomination of desolation lacks any scriptural foundation. Fannin provides no demonstrable proof texts to corroborate this assertion. (1 John 4:1). Scripture consistently places the mark in direct association with the abomination of desolation, which is established at the midpoint of Daniel’s seventieth week (Daniel 9:27). Prior to this midpoint, the Antichrist has confirmed a covenant with many and functions as an ally to Israel. The mark is not introduced until he takes his seat in the temple of God and proclaims himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The Antichrist appears in Revelation 13 as the beast rising from the sea, possessing ten horns and receiving authority to act for forty‑two months—marking the midpoint of the seventieth week and the beginning of his war against the saints. (Revelation 13:5–7). Only after this does the second beast arise, instigating the image of the beast and enforcing the mark. The sequence is explicit: the abomination, the image, then the mark—not before.

The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for 42 months. And the beast opened its mouth to speak blasphemies against God and to slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven. (Revelation 12:5-6).

Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. This beast had two horns like a lamb, but spoke like a dragon. And this beast exercised all the authority of the first beast and caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed.

And the second beast performed great signs, even causing fire from heaven to come down to earth in the presence of the people. Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived. The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.
And the second beast required all people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark—the name of the beast or the number of its name. (Revelation 12:11-17). 

The third angel’s warning in Revelation 14:9 indicates that the mark of the beast has only recently been introduced.

And a third angel followed them, calling out in a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on his forehead or on his hand, he too will drink the wine of God’s anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. Day and night there is no rest for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Revelation 14:9-11).

Given the explicit warning in Revelation 22, one would expect a high degree of caution in handling the word of God. Yet it is remarkable how many disregard that warning and distort it regardless.

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)

Adam Fannin's rejection of the biblical teaching that ethnic Israel retains a defined role in eschatology does not withstand elementary scrutiny. Believers should exercise extreme caution before dismissing the Jewish people or the prophetic promises concerning the land of Israel. The consequences of distorting the word of God at this point are severe. Scripture describes those who repudiate Israel—the apple of God’s eye—and who oppose His explicit word as acting in arrogance. (Romans 11:19-21). This posture invites serious error when eschatological events emerge on the world stage.

Although I reject key elements of dispensationalism—particularly the pretribulation rapture—it is unacceptable to misrepresent any position we dispute. Accuracy is a matter of integrity and is not negotiable. The central distinction between pretrib and prewrath interpreters is that prewrath denies a pretribulation rapture and holds that God works with both Israel and the church concurrently during Daniel’s seventieth week.5  

1. Romans 11 Berean Study Bible
2. Romans 11:1 Commentaries: I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
3. Should We Expect a Future Kingdom for National Israel? – PeterGoeman.com
4. Romans 11:16 Commentaries: If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
5. God Will Work With Israel and the Church at the Same Time in the Future | Bible Prophecy Answers with Alan Kurschner

Further Links

The Book of Obadiah — Jacob and Esau at war — A prophecy on the End Times

Has the Church Replaced Israel?

Is Modern Israel God’s Doing What the Bible Says

Romans 9 to 11 and the Future of Israel

ONE CHURCH LEICESTER: SUSAN HIND "FREEDOM"

 FREEDOM | Susan Hind (26th April 2026)

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:17-22).

Many false teachers are in the habit of quoting single verses of scripture out of context. The verse below is a conditional promise made by Jesus > If you abide in my word.. the truth will set you free.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32).

Susan Hind: "We are going to position ourselves for an encounter with Jesus.."

There are several red flags in what Susan Hind presents in this video. She is clearly reading from a prepared source, and it raises the question of what material she is relying on. It would be important to identify whether her script is connected to Sozo or another inner‑healing model that lacks biblical grounding.

Much has already been written by various critics on the dangers of “inner healing”, and I have included some links at the end of this post. My concern is straightforward: the kind of “freedom” promoted by Susan Hind functionally displaces the role of the Holy Spirit and pushes people into an endless search for hidden causes they are then expected to “work through” on their own. Susan Hind proposes that the root issue may be generational—family problems supposedly passed down the line, unknown to us, requiring cutting off. Scripture does not support this framework. Any so‑called generational issues were dealt with decisively at the cross. A true believer has already been set free from the past. To revisit what Christ has already resolved is to step into unbelief and to treat His finished work as insufficient.

Susan Hind repeats Derek Prince’s category error when she claims, “A Christian can have a demon but not be possessed by one.” The statement is incoherent. It blurs the biblical distinction between demonic oppression and demonic possession and creates a third category that scripture does not recognise. 

She then expands the framework: believers supposedly grant “permission” to demonic spirits through fear, trauma, repeated lies, curses, occult involvement, or careless words spoken over themselves. According to her model, these  "open doors" form “strongholds” and may require special prayer or deliverance to be broken. This teaching is not merely unbiblical; it is accusatory and harmful. The claim that demonic oppression requires the believer’s permission shifts blame onto the Christian and undermines the finished work of Christ. Scripture states that anyone who is truly born again is a new creation—the old has gone, the new has come. The cross has already dealt decisively with the past. 

Susan Hind recounts various experiences, including direct words from God, visions and other claimed encounters. These alleged accounts should be approached with extreme caution. Many who have gone through the full cycle of deliverance practices—rebuking or expelling demons, making declarations, breaking family curses, and revisiting past wounds in pursuit of “freedom”—are left traumatised, disillusioned, and spiritually destabilised. The addictive nature of inner‑healing models often produces deterioration rather than growth, creating a constant sense that still more “deliverance” is required. Scripture teaches that on the cross, Jesus Christ removed the believer’s guilt and the penalty of sin. When a person is saved, they are pronounced NOT GUILTY - they are JUSTIFIED (Galatians 2:16), THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (2 Corinthians 5:21). TRUE BELIEVERS ARE BLESSED – THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT CURSED (Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:3). This teaching is foundational to Christianity; it is not secondary. If any true believer is struggling with the truth of these statements, they should confess unbelief and petition the Lord for His help rather than revisiting the past. (1 John 1:9; Hebrews 5:7; Philippians 3:13). 

It is beyond dispute that One Church operates within the NAR framework and promotes doctrines and practices that are deeply problematic. The issues have already been documented at length in earlier posts. The only responsible response is to return to scripture and to sever ties with charismatic systems that promise instant solutions while drawing people into confusion, dependence, and false hope. None of these teachings has any biblical foundation. It is neither healthy nor scriptural to search for hidden reasons behind every feeling or difficulty. 

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2).

SOZO - AN EVIL INNER HEALING "MINISTRY"
NAR Deliverance Ministers EXPOSED! - Revival History - Episode 185 Branham Research Podcast

Derek Prince & Dark Legacy of the Shepherding Movement | Revival History | Charles Paisley | Ep 383

EP 22 | Is the Pressure to "Hear God's Voice" Preventing You from Actually Knowing Him?
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: Search results for derek prince