Eternal Sonship: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An example of William Branham's [[Lazy Theology|lazy theology]] is his approach to the concept of the eternal sonship of Christ. | An example of William Branham's [[Lazy Theology|lazy theology]] is his approach to the concept of the eternal sonship of Christ. | ||
=William | =William Branham's Position= | ||
He ridiculed the idea throughout his ministry as being a Catholic doctrine: | He ridiculed the idea throughout his ministry as being a Catholic doctrine: | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
O Eternal Father, send the Gospel Light across this city, through this coming week of convention. <ref>ONE.IN.A.MILLION_ LA.CA V-18 N-1 SATURDAY_ 65-0424 </ref> | O Eternal Father, send the Gospel Light across this city, through this coming week of convention. <ref>ONE.IN.A.MILLION_ LA.CA V-18 N-1 SATURDAY_ 65-0424 </ref> | ||
=How can a Father be Eternal?== | |||
Can a father be a father without a son? To use William Branham's own reasoning, how can a father be eternal? How could he be a father before he had a son? However, if the Father is eternal, then why can't the Son be eternal likewise? | |||
=The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position= | |||
<ref> </ref> | <ref> </ref> | ||