A Scriptural Challenge to Followers of William Branham
This website contains almost 150 problems, concerns and issues relating to William Branham and his message. The number of issues rises to close to 200 when you include non-biblical doctrines found in message churches that were not explicitly taught by William Branham.
The response we get when we ask questions
When we started asking sincere questions, we received no answers that made any sense from people in the message. This just started us asking more questions. At no point in time has anyone actually given us any valid answers to the questions that we have raised.
In fact, when we raise these questions today, the responses we get are:
But the apostle Peter stated:
...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect...
The Greek word apologia is found seven times in the New Testament (Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; Phil. 1:7, 16; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:15). The English equivalent of apologia is defense (literally, “a speech for the defense”). In the original Greek language, apologia had a definite legal connotation. It was a technical term in ancient Greek law. When apologia is used in the New Testament, it describes a public defense of the gospel, as illustrated in Acts 22:1. Sometimes, in fact, this defense was carried out in a court of law (Acts 25:16; 2 Tim. 4:16).
A Challenge to ALL Message Ministers and Message Believers
To date, there has been no adequate defense of the message with respect to any of the issues, concerns and problems raised by this website and others. As a result, we make the following challenges to all followers of William Branham.
Challenge #1 - Prove us wrong!
OUR PROMISE' - If you are aware of any errors/problems/concerns with information in any article on this website, please let us know by email or by a message to us on our Facebook page. We will correct any factual errors as quickly as possible.
To date, we have received notice of several errors which we corrected immediately. To the best of our knowledge, all of the information on this website is accurate and verifiable.
Challenge #2 - Please provide a scriptural defence!
We challenge all message ministers and message believers to make a defense of William Branham and his message to all former and current message believers that have questions, as required by 1 Peter 3:15. We have presented detailed reasons why the message is false each of which constitutes asking for a "reason" for the hope that is in you.
Challenge #3 - A Challenge To A Debate
Further the challenges above, we challenge Billy Paul Branham or Joseph Branham to a debate. We also open that challenge to any credible North American message minister (one with a congregation in excess of 200 people). We would proposed to use pre-agreed upon debating rules such as the Oxford Union rules. The debate would be held at such place and time and with a moderator that both parties could mutually agree on (a neutral location). We would also require that, if it was a minister, they have English as their mother tongue. The debate would be recorded on video and a copy given to each party in the debate.
Simply email us if you are prepared to meet this challenge.
But we stress that any interaction must be done in a Biblical manner - with "gentleness and respect".
Our promise to any successful challenge
If anyone meets the criteria of any of the 3 challenges above, we will immediately provide the results of the challenge on this website.
Failed attempts to refute our facts
The website, Searchingforvindication.com, is a direct result of someone in the message trying to disprove us. The authors of Searching For Vindication spent more than 400 hours in a failed attempt to prove our facts and conclusions false as they related to the municipal bridge vision. They have now left the message.
We are aware of one message minister who tried to address our issues with the Cloud, but it was clear from his "defense" that he had never read our concerns. How can we say this? Because his "reasons" were issues that we had addressed clearly on our website. Simply ignoring the questions raised is no defense.