William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine - Revision history

Admin at 20:29, 25 February 2023

2023-02-25T20:29:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 25 February 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	William Branham's rejection of the Trinity is not based on scripture, it is not based on sound reasoning and it is not based on what the church has historically taught. He simply rejected it out of hand because '''he did not take the time to understand the concepts'''.		William Branham's rejection of the Trinity is not based on scripture, it is not based on sound reasoning and it is not based on what the church has historically taught. He simply rejected it out of hand because '''he did not take the time to understand the concepts'''.

	A doctrine about the Godhead cannot be refuted simply because it "doesn't make sense". The doctrine of the Trinity was not adopted by the church because it "makes sense". It is considered orthodox because that is what comes ~~our~~ of considering the totality of scripture:		A doctrine about the Godhead cannot be refuted simply because it "doesn't make sense". The doctrine of the Trinity was not adopted by the church because it "makes sense". It is considered orthodox because that is what comes out of considering the totality of scripture:

	:A. There is one God		:A. There is one God
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:C. The three are distinct.		:C. The three are distinct.

	All heresies relating to the Godhead are the result of attempting a "simpler" explanation by removing either A, B, or C above - the result being polytheism, Arianism, or Modalism - all of which must necessarily ignore something in scripture. Much like the concept of eternity, the Trinity is difficult to wrap our heads around, but even harder to debunk with honest, responsible review of scripture.		All heresies relating to the Godhead are the result of attempting a "simpler" explanation by removing either A, B, or C above - the result being polytheism, Arianism, or Modalism - all of which must necessarily ignore something in scripture. Much like the concept of eternity, the Trinity is difficult to wrap our heads around, but even harder to debunk with an honest, responsible review of scripture.

	=William Branham believed in the Trinity initially=		=William Branham believed in the Trinity initially=

Admin at 14:07, 22 December 2021

2021-12-22T14:07:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 22 December 2021
Line 45:		Line 45:
	=William Branham's flawed view of history=		=William Branham's flawed view of history=

	William Branham believed that prior to the Council of ~~Nicea~~, which met in 325 A.D., the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist. However, his understanding was wrong. He also incorrectly believed that the Nicene Council made a determination between the doctrine of the Trinity and Oneness. The actual dispute was between the doctrine of the Trinity and Arianism, a belief that Jesus was a created being.		William Branham believed that prior to the Council of Nicaea, which met in 325 A.D., the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist. However, his understanding was wrong. He also incorrectly believed that the Nicene Council made a determination between the doctrine of the Trinity and Oneness. The actual dispute was between the doctrine of the Trinity and Arianism, a belief that Jesus was a created being.

	The problem that non-Trinitiarians must address from a historical context is that '''no significant leader in the Christian church in the last 1700 years has been non-Trinitarian.''' They all believed and stood for the doctrine of the Trinity.		The problem that non-Trinitiarians must address from a historical context is that '''no significant leader in the Christian church in the last 1700 years has been non-Trinitarian.''' They all believed and stood for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Admin: /* Must one believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? */

2020-10-07T22:06:27Z

Must one believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 ===Charles Spurgeon===
 :''I no more believe in three Gods than I believe in thirty gods. There is but one God to me, and therefore I am in that sense a Unitarian, and Socinians have no right to the name merely because they deny the Godhead of our Lord Jesus. We believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one God; but Jesus Christ is God, and whosoever casts that truth away casts away eternal life. How can he enter into heaven if he does not know Christ as the everlasting Son of the Father? He must be God, since he has promised to be in ten thousand places at one time, and no mere man could do that.<ref>C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. XXX, 46 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884).</ref>
 =Quotes of William Branham=

Admin: /* The Limitations of the Doctrine */

2020-10-07T22:05:05Z

The Limitations of the Doctrine

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 ===Charles Spurgeon===
 :''I no more believe in three Gods than I believe in thirty gods. There is but one God to me, and therefore I am in that sense a Unitarian, and Socinians have no right to the name merely because they deny the Godhead of our Lord Jesus. We believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one God; but Jesus Christ is God, and whosoever casts that truth away casts away eternal life. How can he enter into heaven if he does not know Christ as the everlasting Son of the Father? He must be God, since he has promised to be in ten thousand places at one time, and no mere man could do that.<ref>C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. XXX, 46 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884).</ref>
 =Must one believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?=

Admin: /* The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity */

2020-10-07T22:00:36Z

The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 7 October 2020
Line 141:		Line 141:

	:''In sum, then, I am suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in a liminal position between or overlapping the borders of dogma and doctrine as I described these as two of three categories (the third being opinion) of Christian beliefs. '''“Dogma”''' is the category of essentials of the Christian faith, what is required to believe in order to be considered Christian. There I would place the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation). '''“Doctrine”''' (in the sense of this taxonomy) is the category of important but not essential beliefs. There I would place, for example, universal atonement. '''“Opinion”''' is the third category in which I would place premillennialism.<ref>Must You Believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Be a Christian?, Roger E. Olson, published on www.patheos.com, February 5, 2015</ref>		:''In sum, then, I am suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in a liminal position between or overlapping the borders of dogma and doctrine as I described these as two of three categories (the third being opinion) of Christian beliefs. '''“Dogma”''' is the category of essentials of the Christian faith, what is required to believe in order to be considered Christian. There I would place the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation). '''“Doctrine”''' (in the sense of this taxonomy) is the category of important but not essential beliefs. There I would place, for example, universal atonement. '''“Opinion”''' is the third category in which I would place premillennialism.<ref>Must You Believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Be a Christian?, Roger E. Olson, published on www.patheos.com, February 5, 2015</ref>

	~~=The Historic Doctrine of the Trinity=~~

	~~So that we are all on the same page, a basic definition of the Trinity is necessary:~~

	:'''Within one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.'''<ref>James White, The Forgotten Trinity, Bethany House Publishing, 1998</ref>

	~~Commonly referred to as "One God in Three Persons", the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identified as distinct and co-eternal "persons" who share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.~~

	The doctrine of the Trinity was developed as a direct response to false doctrine that appeared in the church. Initially, the church was not in the need for a clear doctrine on the Godhead. But into the truth that Jesus and the Apostles left the church, error began to assert itself. This error finally manifested itself in false doctrine and the church responded with "right teaching" ( which is what the word "orthodoxy" means).

	~~==Polycarp==~~

	~~The martyrdom of Polycarp, perhaps the oldest martyrdom of which we have a written account (ca. early 160s A.D.), pictures the dying Polycarp addressing God in a clear Trinitarian confession:~~

	:''“O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved Son Jesus Christ … I bless you because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of the martyrs … to the resurrection to eternal life … in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit”<ref>The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1–2</ref>

	~~==Justin Martyr==~~

	An early Ante-Nicene apologist for the Christian faith, Justin Martyr (110–165 A.D.) refers to Christ in a variety of ways, including “Lord,” “God the Son of God,” and “the Word.” As the “Word,” Jesus “carries tidings from the Father to men.” The power the Word exerts, however, is “indivisible and inseparable from the Father.” How so? Here Justin employs an illustration destined to appear again and again in the trinitarian thought of the fathers. Think, Justin asks his audience, of the sunlight that reaches the earth. While this light is distinct from the sun in the heavens, it is equally “indivisible and inseparable” from it. It is much the same with a fire igniting another fire. So it is with the begetting of the Son. The unbegotten Father begets the Son, “but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided.”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 21–22.</ref>

	~~==Origen==~~

	In On First Principles (De Principiis), Origen (c. 245 A.D.), the great Alexandrian exegete, provides important and interesting examples of a theologian’s attempts to understand the biblical testimony and rule of faith concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and contributed to the development of trinitarian thinking.

	~~Origen understands that the Son was not created but was eternal:~~

	:''“For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there was a time when He did not exist.”

	In a preview of coming debates, Origen wonders how anyone could assert “that there once was a time when He was not the Son.” To assert that there was ever a time when the Son did not exist would be to contend “there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father, for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence… .”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 24.</ref>

	~~==Irenaeus==~~

	~~Irenaeus states that:~~

	:''“The Jewish Creator God is identical with the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 27.</ref>

	~~==Tertullian==~~

	Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 A.D.) wrote a book, ''Against Praxeas,'' in which we find Tertullian pondering central trinitarian issues and responding to heterodox Christian views regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In his responses and formulations, Tertullian was the first writer to use the word '''“person”''' to the members of the Trinity and the first to apply the Latin word '''“trinitas” (Trinity)''' to God, and the first to develop the formula of "one substance in three persons.” Tertullian constructed his model of God as one substance (substantia) and three distinct persons (persona) in response to the threat of both gnostic polytheism and Christian modalism.<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 29-30.</ref>

	~~==Athanasius vs. Arius==~~

	Arius argued that the Son was an exalted creature, elevated above all others, but still a creation of God. Arius writes, for instance, that “God was not always a Father,” “The Son was not always,” “the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ ” “once He was not,” “He was not before His origination,” and “He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ” “For God,” Arius taught, “was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named him Word and Wisdom and Son, that he might form us by means of Him.”

	Athanasius’ writings are inseparably linked to his lifelong battle with Arianism. His "Four Discourses Against the Arians" provide us with many examples of how Athanasius read the Bible and applied its contents to a specific theological problem of great moment. Arian Christians refused to equate the Son with the Father, basing this rejection on philosophical, theological, and exegetical reasons.

	As the Son, Christ existed as “the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom.” In the incarnation the Son willingly and lovingly took on the human flesh derived from “a Virgin, Mary, Bearer of God, and was made man.” The Word was “not external” to the humanity he had assumed. Rather, when the incarnate Son lived and ministered on earth, humanity and deity were both at work in an incomprehensible union. When Jesus healed the mother-in-law of Simon Peter, “He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely.” When he healed the man born blind from birth, “human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay.” At the raising of Lazarus, “he gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead.”49 Athanasius sees the Son’s incarnate actions as manifesting the genuine union existing in his person between his humanity and his deity. If he grieved or expressed other human emotions, such was only proper. For “it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it,” though Athanasius is uncomfortable with the idea that Christ’s human “affections” touched his deity.<ref>Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity, Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 32-33.</ref>

	=Quotes of William Branham=		=Quotes of William Branham=

Admin: /* C.S. Lewis */

2020-10-07T21:59:01Z

C.S. Lewis

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 ===Charles Spurgeon===
 :''I no more believe in three Gods than I believe in thirty gods. There is but one God to me, and therefore I am in that sense a Unitarian, and Socinians have no right to the name merely because they deny the Godhead of our Lord Jesus. We believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one God; but Jesus Christ is God, and whosoever casts that truth away casts away eternal life. How can he enter into heaven if he does not know Christ as the everlasting Son of the Father? He must be God, since he has promised to be in ten thousand places at one time, and no mere man could do that.<ref>C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. XXX, 46 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1884).</ref>
 =The Limitations of the Doctrine=

Admin: /* Quotes of William Branham */

2020-10-07T21:45:12Z

Quotes of William Branham

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 7 October 2020
Line 224:		Line 224:

	:''And you Oneness brethren, many of '''you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father.''' He can't be.<ref>59-0823, Palmerworm, Locust, Cankerworm, Caterpillar</ref>		:''And you Oneness brethren, many of '''you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father.''' He can't be.<ref>59-0823, Palmerworm, Locust, Cankerworm, Caterpillar</ref>

			William Branham believed both Trinitarian and Oneness were wrong:

			:''Now, there is a group of people, call themselves '''the “Oneness” or the “Jesus Only.” I don’t agree with them upon their theory. Neither do I agree—agree with that trinitarian group''' that says that there are three different Gods, the extreme of the trinitarian. But I believe that the three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is One, that they are three offices of one God. He lived in the Fatherhood, in the Pillar of Fire; He lived in the Sonship, in Jesus Christ; and He lives now in the Holy Ghost, in His Church. The same Lord Jesus that was made flesh and dwelt among us, is with us this day, among us, in the form of the Holy Spirit.<ref>William Branham, 61-0827 - The Message Of Grace, para.37</ref>

	William Branham incorrectly believed that the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist prior to 325 A.D.:		William Branham incorrectly believed that the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist prior to 325 A.D.:

	:''Now, I’m not a… don’t… And I say… And some people say, “He’s a ‘Jesus Only,’” You’re mistaken there. I wouldn’t have that kind of a spirit on me. There that dogmatic, ungodly thing that… No, sir. I’m not Oneness. Not at all. I’m not trinity either. I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in God manifested in three offices. Now His office is in my heart, in your heart. Not another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else. That’s as pagan as pagan can be. '''Never one time was that even thought of until the Nicene Council. Find it in the Bible, or find it in history—till that time. It’s not there.'''<ref>Wiliam Branham, 61-0318 - Abraham's Covenant Confirmed, para. 71</ref>		:''Now, I’m not a… don’t… And I say… And some people say, “He’s a ‘Jesus Only,’” You’re mistaken there. I wouldn’t have that kind of a spirit on me. There that dogmatic, ungodly thing that… No, sir. I’m not Oneness. Not at all. I’m not trinity either. I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in God manifested in three offices. Now His office is in my heart, in your heart. Not another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else. That’s as pagan as pagan can be. '''Never one time was that even thought of until the Nicene Council. Find it in the Bible, or find it in history—till that time. It’s not there.'''<ref>Wiliam Branham, 61-0318 - Abraham's Covenant Confirmed, para. 71</ref>

	~~William Branham believed both Trinitarian and Oneness were wrong:~~

	:''Now, there is a group of people, call themselves '''the “Oneness” or the “Jesus Only.” I don’t agree with them upon their theory. Neither do I agree—agree with that trinitarian group''' that says that there are three different Gods, the extreme of the trinitarian. But I believe that the three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is One, that they are three offices of one God. He lived in the Fatherhood, in the Pillar of Fire; He lived in the Sonship, in Jesus Christ; and He lives now in the Holy Ghost, in His Church. The same Lord Jesus that was made flesh and dwelt among us, is with us this day, among us, in the form of the Holy Spirit.<ref>William Branham, 61-0827 - The Message Of Grace, para.37</ref>

	William Branham incorrectly believed that the Nicene council pitted Trinitarians against Oneness believers:		William Branham incorrectly believed that the Nicene council pitted Trinitarians against Oneness believers:

Admin: /* Quotes of William Branham */

2020-10-07T21:44:04Z

Quotes of William Branham

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 7 October 2020
Line 228:		Line 228:

	:''Now, I’m not a… don’t… And I say… And some people say, “He’s a ‘Jesus Only,’” You’re mistaken there. I wouldn’t have that kind of a spirit on me. There that dogmatic, ungodly thing that… No, sir. I’m not Oneness. Not at all. I’m not trinity either. I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in God manifested in three offices. Now His office is in my heart, in your heart. Not another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else. That’s as pagan as pagan can be. '''Never one time was that even thought of until the Nicene Council. Find it in the Bible, or find it in history—till that time. It’s not there.'''<ref>Wiliam Branham, 61-0318 - Abraham's Covenant Confirmed, para. 71</ref>		:''Now, I’m not a… don’t… And I say… And some people say, “He’s a ‘Jesus Only,’” You’re mistaken there. I wouldn’t have that kind of a spirit on me. There that dogmatic, ungodly thing that… No, sir. I’m not Oneness. Not at all. I’m not trinity either. I’m a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in God manifested in three offices. Now His office is in my heart, in your heart. Not another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else; another God somewhere else. That’s as pagan as pagan can be. '''Never one time was that even thought of until the Nicene Council. Find it in the Bible, or find it in history—till that time. It’s not there.'''<ref>Wiliam Branham, 61-0318 - Abraham's Covenant Confirmed, para. 71</ref>

			William Branham believed both Trinitarian and Oneness were wrong:

			:''Now, there is a group of people, call themselves '''the “Oneness” or the “Jesus Only.” I don’t agree with them upon their theory. Neither do I agree—agree with that trinitarian group''' that says that there are three different Gods, the extreme of the trinitarian. But I believe that the three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is One, that they are three offices of one God. He lived in the Fatherhood, in the Pillar of Fire; He lived in the Sonship, in Jesus Christ; and He lives now in the Holy Ghost, in His Church. The same Lord Jesus that was made flesh and dwelt among us, is with us this day, among us, in the form of the Holy Spirit.<ref>William Branham, 61-0827 - The Message Of Grace, para.37</ref>

	William Branham incorrectly believed that the Nicene council pitted Trinitarians against Oneness believers:		William Branham incorrectly believed that the Nicene council pitted Trinitarians against Oneness believers:

Admin: /* Quotes of William Branham */

2020-10-07T18:30:08Z

Quotes of William Branham

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 7 October 2020
Line 214:		Line 214:

	The Oneness doctrine was wrong:		The Oneness doctrine was wrong:

			:''Now, of course, we people today, '''we believe that there’s three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the three persons of the one true God.''' It’s three offices, not three Gods. But that same… Listen now, we think that was ridiculous in the Catholic church, but we brought it right down here at Pentecost and tore yourselves to pieces with it—set up another organization, started something else.

			:''Instead of coming like brethren with brotherly love and with unity, the first one begin to see the—that the three Persons of the Godhead was in one Person, Christ Jesus; He was the manifestation of God in flesh, not another man. And then '''you set up and got the little dogmatic idea of the oneness''', so-called. Then you started on that, '''begin to harp on it, and you made God one like your finger, one, and you know that’s wrong.''' You better scholars know better than that. But what was it? It was because the palmerworm begin to eat first. Instead of setting and reasoning together when I come into the factions of the Pentecostals they set a table bigger than that, with their heads around, “You go this, and you can’t go to this. You preach for them, you can’t preach for me.”

			:''I said, “We are brethren. Absolutely.”

			:''And '''if the Oneness faction hadn’t have went off to one side''', and made an issue out of it, and would’ve stayed with their brethren, and let the Holy Ghost anoint them, that thing would’ve never spattered and broke up brotherhood the way it did. But what happened? The locusts begin to fly. It broke up brotherhood. You had to have a little unity of your own. Unity is not an isolated thing, brethren. Unity is for the whole body of Christ.<ref>William Branham, 57-0309B - I Will Restore, para. 32-33</ref>

	:''And you Oneness brethren, many of '''you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father.''' He can't be.<ref>59-0823, Palmerworm, Locust, Cankerworm, Caterpillar</ref>		:''And you Oneness brethren, many of '''you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father.''' He can't be.<ref>59-0823, Palmerworm, Locust, Cankerworm, Caterpillar</ref>

Admin at 18:16, 7 October 2020

2020-10-07T18:16:44Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{Template:Trinity}}
 While William Branham initally accepted and taught the doctrine of the Trinity, in the latter stages of his ministry (1958-1965) he could not accept the concept of three persons in the Godhead.  This appears to have been the result of both his [[Lazy Theology|lazy theology]] and his desire to be seen as a prophet that was restoring long-forgotten truths to the church.  '''His argument against the Trinity is referred to as a "straw man" argument''', in that he constructs what he thinks Trinitarians believe (but which in fact they deny vehemently) and then attacks that incorrect view.
@@ Line 18: / Line 22: @@
 All heresies relating to the Godhead are the result of attempting a "simpler" explanation by removing either A, B, or C above - the result being polytheism, Arianism, or Modalism - all of which must necessarily ignore something in scripture.  Much like the concept of eternity, the Trinity is difficult to wrap our heads around, but even harder to debunk with honest, responsible review of scripture.
 =William Branham's flawed view of history=