The Message on Trial - Part 2: Difference between revisions
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Allistair Francis}} | {{Allistair Francis}} | ||
=PART 2: THE COUNTERATTACK= | =PART 2: THE COUNTERATTACK= | ||
This article is a responses to Allistair Francis' video - ''"Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet — The Message on Trial P2"''<ref>This document references the timestamped transcript of Allistair Francis's video "Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet — The Message on Trial P2," available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe7L-xxVGcg . All timestamps refer to the video's runtime. Direct quotes are transcribed from the video audio.</ref> | |||
=VIDEO SUMMARY= | =VIDEO SUMMARY= | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
====The Revealing Admission.==== | ====The Revealing Admission.==== | ||
Francis says critics "end up saying things that the prophet taught" when answering his questions. He frames this as a gotcha — but it actually demolishes his own narrative. If people who have left the Message still find theological value in some of Branham's teachings, that proves they are nuanced thinkers, not blind haters. It is entirely possible — indeed, it is intellectually honest — to acknowledge that someone taught some true things while also acknowledging they made demonstrably false claims. A broken clock is right twice a day. Acknowledging that Branham occasionally quoted Scripture correctly does not vindicate his failed prophecies, his fabricated stories, or his "Thus Saith the Lord" statements that never came to pass. Francis knows this. He is counting on his audience not to notice. | Francis says critics "end up saying things that the prophet taught" when answering his questions. He frames this as a gotcha — but it actually demolishes his own narrative. If people who have left the Message still find theological value in some of Branham's teachings, that proves they are nuanced thinkers, not blind haters. It is entirely possible — indeed, it is intellectually honest — to acknowledge that someone taught some true things while also acknowledging they made demonstrably false claims. A broken clock is right twice a day. Acknowledging that Branham occasionally quoted Scripture correctly does not vindicate his failed prophecies, his fabricated stories, or his "Thus Saith the Lord" statements that never came to pass. Francis knows this. He is counting on his audience not to notice. | ||
Additionally, as you can see from [[List of Issues with the Message|the vast amount of articles on this website]], we do not use the rational that Branham used. We apply logic and reason, things that God gifted humans with and things he expects us to use responsibly, We also shun from personal (ad hominem) attacks. If you can find any, please let us know and we will remove them immediately. | |||
====Allistair rejects the scriptural pattern==== | |||
Paul the apostle, by his own conduct, refutes Allistair's argument: | |||
:Acts 9:22 - Saul grew more and more powerful and '''baffled''' the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah. | |||
:Acts 9:28-29 - Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and '''debated with the Hellenistic Jews,''' but they tried to kill him. | |||
:Acts 17:17–18 - So he '''reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks''', as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to '''debate''' with him. | |||
:Acts 18:28 - For he vigorously '''refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate,''' proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. | |||
We have issued Allistar Francis a public invitation to have a discussion of all of these issues on our podcast, [[List of Off The Shelf podcast episodes|Off The Shelf]]. | |||
====> Fallacy Identified: Poisoning the Well / Avoiding Engagement.==== | ====> Fallacy Identified: Poisoning the Well / Avoiding Engagement.==== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 57: | ||
The young prophet in 1 Kings 13 was killed by God precisely because he listened to a prophet who lied to him. The moral of the story is not "ignore what prophets do and focus on the word." The moral is: God holds people accountable for following a lying prophet, even when the lie comes from a legitimate prophetic figure. If anything, this story is a warning to Message believers to test prophetic claims rigorously — because God does not excuse those who follow prophets uncritically. | The young prophet in 1 Kings 13 was killed by God precisely because he listened to a prophet who lied to him. The moral of the story is not "ignore what prophets do and focus on the word." The moral is: God holds people accountable for following a lying prophet, even when the lie comes from a legitimate prophetic figure. If anything, this story is a warning to Message believers to test prophetic claims rigorously — because God does not excuse those who follow prophets uncritically. | ||
====The Critical Distinction Francis Ignores.==== The old prophet's lie was about a personal instruction (come eat with me). The young prophet's actual prophecy about Israel remained true. This story distinguishes between a prophet's personal behavior and the content of tested, fulfilled prophecy. The criticism of William Branham is not merely about personal behavior — it is about the content of his prophetic claims themselves. When Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" about the brown bear, or "Thus Saith the Lord" about Donny Morton's healing, or "Thus Saith the Lord" about the India crusade — and these prophecies did not come to pass — the problem is not his character but the prophecies themselves. When his stories about historical events change across tellings, the problem is the content of those stories. This is the opposite of the 1 Kings 13 scenario. | ====The Critical Distinction Francis Ignores.==== | ||
The old prophet's lie was about a personal instruction (come eat with me). The young prophet's actual prophecy about Israel remained true. This story distinguishes between a prophet's personal behavior and the content of tested, fulfilled prophecy. The criticism of William Branham is not merely about personal behavior — it is about the content of his prophetic claims themselves. When Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" about the brown bear, or "Thus Saith the Lord" about Donny Morton's healing, or "Thus Saith the Lord" about the India crusade — and these prophecies did not come to pass — the problem is not his character but the prophecies themselves. When his stories about historical events change across tellings, the problem is the content of those stories. This is the opposite of the 1 Kings 13 scenario. | |||
====The Question Francis Should Be Asking.==== | ====The Question Francis Should Be Asking.==== | ||
| Line 87: | Line 104: | ||
At [51:58–54:06], Francis presents Jonah 3:4 as a parallel to Branham's failed prophecies: "Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." He points out that Nineveh was never destroyed after 40 days and asks: "Was he false? Was Jonah giving a false prophecy?" ([53:10–53:22]). | At [51:58–54:06], Francis presents Jonah 3:4 as a parallel to Branham's failed prophecies: "Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." He points out that Nineveh was never destroyed after 40 days and asks: "Was he false? Was Jonah giving a false prophecy?" ([53:10–53:22]). | ||
===REBUTTAL:=== | ===REBUTTAL:=== | ||
The conditional vs. unconditional prophecy is perhaps the most common defense offered for failed prophecies, and it collapses under the slightest scrutiny. It is used repeatedly by most message ministers to justify William Branham's failed prophecies | |||
====Allistair is ignorant of the biblical explanation==== | |||
The prophet Jeremiah spoke of this very situation and stated that God would withhold his judgment, delivered via prophecy, to a nation that repented of its evil ways (Jer. 18:7-10): | |||
====Jonah's prophecy was conditional — and the text makes this explicit.==== Jonah 3:10 states: "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." The people of Nineveh repented. God relented. The condition was met. The prophecy functioned exactly as intended — as a warning that prompted repentance. This is standard prophetic conditionality, explained | :''If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.''<ref>The New International Version (Je 18:7–10). (2011). Zondervan.</ref> | ||
Prophecies of impending judgment because of sin are ALWAYS conditional based on Jeremiah's word from God. How did Allistair not know of this? | |||
====Jonah's prophecy was conditional — and the text makes this explicit.==== | |||
Jonah 3:10 states: "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." The people of Nineveh repented. God relented. The condition was met. The prophecy functioned exactly as intended — as a warning that prompted repentance. This is standard prophetic conditionality, as explained above because of Jeremiah 18:7–8. | |||
====Branham's "Thus Saith the Lord" Prophecies Were Unconditional.==== | |||
The real issue is not the 1977 prediction — which Branham himself hedged as a "prediction" rather than a prophecy — but the actual "Thus Saith the Lord" statements that failed without any condition being involved. The documented failures are numerous and devastating: | |||
*The Brown Bear Prophecy: Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" regarding a brown bear that he would kill — a prophecy that remained unfulfilled at the time of his death. There was no condition. The prophecy simply did not come to pass. | *The Brown Bear Prophecy: Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" regarding a brown bear that he would kill — a prophecy that remained unfulfilled at the time of his death. There was no condition. The prophecy simply did not come to pass. | ||
*The India Crusade Prophecy: Branham prophesied "Thus Saith the Lord" that the Bombay crusade would see "tens of thousands times thousands" saved. He declared: "Mark my word; write it in the pages of your Bible, for it's THUS SAITH THE LORD, 'Remember, when we land in India, you're going to hear of tens of thousands times thousands being saved.'" | *The India Crusade Prophecy: Branham prophesied "Thus Saith the Lord" that the Bombay crusade would see "tens of thousands times thousands" saved. He declared: "Mark my word; write it in the pages of your Bible, for it's THUS SAITH THE LORD, 'Remember, when we land in India, you're going to hear of tens of thousands times thousands being saved.'" | ||
| Line 110: | Line 138: | ||
*Who repented to prevent the brown bear prophecy from being fulfilled? | *Who repented to prevent the brown bear prophecy from being fulfilled? | ||
*Who repented to stop Donny Morton from being healed — or Jean Thompson, or Agnes Shippy? | *Who repented to stop Donny Morton from being healed — or Jean Thompson, or Agnes Shippy? | ||
*What condition was met to cause "tens of thousands times thousands" (at least 10 million people) in India to become a | *What condition was met to cause "tens of thousands times thousands" (at least 10 million people) in India to become a relatively small handful of converts? | ||
*Who repented to prevent the entire nation of Israel from being converted in one day? | *Who repented to prevent the entire nation of Israel from being converted in one day? | ||
*What sin caused the South Africa vision to fail? | *What sin caused the South Africa vision to fail? | ||
| Line 121: | Line 149: | ||
A more sophisticated apologetic might argue that all prophecy has implicit conditions — that God's sovereignty and human response always qualify prophetic statements, even when conditions are not explicitly stated. Jeremiah 18:7-10 establishes a general principle: God may relent from announced judgment if a nation repents, or withdraw promised blessing if a nation turns to evil. | A more sophisticated apologetic might argue that all prophecy has implicit conditions — that God's sovereignty and human response always qualify prophetic statements, even when conditions are not explicitly stated. Jeremiah 18:7-10 establishes a general principle: God may relent from announced judgment if a nation repents, or withdraw promised blessing if a nation turns to evil. | ||
This argument fails for several reasons. First, if all prophecy is implicitly conditional, the Deuteronomy 18:22 test becomes meaningless — no prophecy could ever be judged as failed, since we could always posit some unknown condition that wasn't met. This interpretation makes the test useless for its stated purpose. Second, the Bible itself treats some prophecies as unconditional — Messianic prophecies, for example, were fulfilled regardless of human response. Third, and most importantly, Branham's own framing explicitly rejected conditionality. He said: "Write it in the pages of your Bible, for it's THUS SAITH THE LORD" (India crusade). He said: "I lay my life right there, it's going to be just that way" (Tent Vision). He said: "I've never seen one time that it didn't come to pass just exactly the way He said it." These are not hedged, conditional statements. Branham himself presented them as certain, and the burden falls on the apologist to identify which specific condition wasn't met — not merely to speculate that "maybe something" prevented fulfillment. | This argument fails for several reasons. First, if all prophecy is implicitly conditional, the Deuteronomy 18:22 test becomes meaningless — no prophecy could ever be judged as failed, since we could always posit some unknown condition that wasn't met. This interpretation makes the test useless for its stated purpose. Second, the Bible itself treats some prophecies as unconditional — Messianic prophecies, for example, were fulfilled regardless of human response. Third, and most importantly, Branham's own framing explicitly rejected conditionality. He said: "Write it in the pages of your Bible, for it's THUS SAITH THE LORD" (India crusade). He said: "I lay my life right there, it's going to be just that way" (Tent Vision). He said: "I've never seen one time that it didn't come to pass just exactly the way He said it." These are not hedged, conditional statements. Branham himself presented them as certain, and the burden falls on the apologist to identify which specific condition wasn't met — not merely to speculate that "maybe something" prevented fulfillment. | ||
====Deuteronomy 18:22 is unambiguous:==== | ====Deuteronomy 18:22 is unambiguous:==== | ||
Francis Himself Knows This. Notice that Francis, after raising the Jonah comparison, never actually explains how the two situations are parallel. He does not identify what condition was attached to Branham's failed prophecies. He does not explain who repented to prevent them. He simply presents Jonah, asks "was he a false prophet?", and moves on — hoping his audience won't notice that the analogy doesn't work. He does not address the conditionality because doing so would destroy his own argument. | [[Deuteronomy 18:20-22|Deuteronomy 18:22]] states: | ||
:''"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously."'' | |||
Branham spoke in the name of the Lord. The things did not come to pass. The text tells us what to conclude. | |||
====Francis Himself Knows This.==== | |||
Notice that Francis, after raising the Jonah comparison, never actually explains how the two situations are parallel. He does not identify what condition was attached to Branham's failed prophecies. He does not explain who repented to prevent them. He simply presents Jonah, asks "was he a false prophet?", and moves on — hoping his audience won't notice that the analogy doesn't work. He does not address the conditionality because doing so would destroy his own argument. | |||
====Even Branham knew this==== | |||
It is clear that William Branham considered himself to be an Old Testament prophet and that, as a result, he was not subject to the judgment of the church. He also stated the test in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 applied to him: | |||
:''“'''But the only person that has a right to say, THUS SAITH THE LORD, is an a vindicated prophet'''. '''You never seen anybody judging Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or those people.''' They were prophets, foreordained and borned in the world to be prophets. And they foresaw the thing by a vision, and then said, “THUS SAITH THE LORD,” for the Lord had already said it.<ref>William Branham, 50-0405 - Expectation, para. 16</ref> | |||
:''You can go to my hometown and '''find it one time, in all the times that It’s ever told anything, that didn’t come to pass''' just exactly the way It said. '''Now, you pin a sign on my back as a false prophet,''' and I’ll walk through your streets. Cause it’s not myself, I’m a man, but He’s God. And He’s the One Who does the saying. If I would say it, it could be a lie, ’cause I’m subject to any mistakes, lies, anything else, like anybody else.<ref>William Branham, 53-1106 - Do You Now Believe?, para. 10</ref> | |||
:''Prophets are foreordained. They’re prophets. Now, there’s a gift of prophecy in the church, that could be on one, then the next one, the next one, the next one, and so forth—of prophecy. Paul said you may all prophesy one by one. But there’s a lot of difference between a prophet and a prophecy. A prophecy has to be judged by three witnesses (two or three) before it can be given or accepted in the church, according to the Scriptures. '''But a prophet, like the Old Testament prophet, t'''hey had the Word of the Lord. The translation was right to them. And they were known, because the Bible said, “If there be one among you spiritual or a prophet, I, the Lord, will make Myself known unto him, speak to him in visions, and reveal Myself in dreams. '''And if what this man says comes to pass, then hear him, for I’m am with him. If it doesn’t, then don’t hear him.''' I’m not with him. Don’t fear him.”<ref>William Branham, 61-0205E - Jesus Christ The Same Yesterday, Today, And Forever, para. 12</ref> | |||
:''And you who will not come back, I want you to do me a favor, mark a little piece of paper, and put it in your Bible, and say, “Brother Branham said, ‘THUS SAITH THE LORD.’” Then if God lets us live, watch what this thing’s coming to. If God lets us live for a few more years and I pass through Phoenix, get that—get a little yellow piece of paper out, and walk up to the pulpit and say, “'''What about this, Brother Branham?” Then I’ll tack it on my back, and you get in your car, and drive me down the street, as a sign on my back, “A false prophet.”'''<ref>William Branham, 57-0306 - God Keeps His Word #1, para.42</ref> | |||
:''God always sends a prophet. The Word comes to the prophet; the written Word, a discerner of the thoughts of the heart. Did you always notice? The prophet, being that he knowed that he was a prophet, is because that the Word of God discerns the thought that’s in the heart, foretells things, forth-teller and teller-forth. Did you ever take the dictionary, the old Hebrew dictionary, and see what the word seer means? It’s the one that has the Divine revelation of the written Word. And how it’s vindicated, he foresees things that he foretells, and they come to pass. 42 Now, how does that type in with the Scripture? Just exactly. “If there be one among you, who is spiritual or a prophet, I the Lord will make Myself known to him, speak to him in visions. '''And if these things comes to pass, then it’s God. If they don’t come to pass, then don’t hear him; don’t fear him at all, but just ignore it.'''”<ref>William Branham, 64-0120 - His Unfailing Words Of Promise, para. 41</ref> | |||
:''The Bible said, “'''If there be one, and what he says comes to pass, then you hear him; but, if it doesn’t, don’t believe him, don’t fear him''', but My…if—if My Word is not in him. But if it does come to pass, then My Word is in him.” That’s his identification. That’s the characteristic of a prophet.<ref>William Branham, 64-0320 - God Identifying Himself By His Characteristics, para. 85</ref> | |||
:''Now, prophets. There’s such a thing as “gift of prophecy” in the Church; but a prophet is predestinated and foreordained for the hour. See? Yes, sir. Now, if a prophecy goes forth, two or three has to set and judge whether that’s right or not, ’fore the church can receive it. '''But nobody set before a prophet, ’cause he was—he was absolutely the Word of God. He was that Word in his day. You seen God reflect. Now, God has promised to send us that again in the last days''', to bring the Bride out of that ecclesiastical mess, in the only way it can be done.<ref>William Branham, 65-1204 - The Rapture, para. 136</ref> | |||
====> Fallacy Identified: False Analogy.==== | ====> Fallacy Identified: False Analogy.==== | ||
| Line 134: | Line 187: | ||
Earlier, at [26:18–26:28], Francis dismisses critics: "ALL THEY KNOW IS Deuteronomy 18 and um mark a prophet whose word doesn't come true. That's all you know. And yet you don't go to the entire Bible." | Earlier, at [26:18–26:28], Francis dismisses critics: "ALL THEY KNOW IS Deuteronomy 18 and um mark a prophet whose word doesn't come true. That's all you know. And yet you don't go to the entire Bible." | ||
===REBUTTAL:=== | ===REBUTTAL:=== | ||
The Text Says the Opposite. Read Deuteronomy 18:20-22 in full context: | ====The Text Says the Opposite.==== | ||
Read Deuteronomy 18:20-22 in full context: | |||
:"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." | :"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." | ||
Notice the structure. Verse 20 identifies two categories of false prophets: | |||
Notice the structure. Verse 20 identifies two categories of false prophets: | |||
#those who presume to speak in God's name what He did not command, and | |||
#those who speak in the name of other gods. | |||
Verses 21-22 then answer the question: "How shall we know?" The test given — whether the prophecy comes to pass — is specifically for prophets who claim to speak "in the name of the LORD." | |||
====Francis Misreads His Own Proof Text.==== | ====Francis Misreads His Own Proof Text.==== | ||