Question 12 (ABM) - A Biblical Perspective on William Branham's Lies: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Question 12 (ABM) - A Biblical Perspective on William Branham's Lies (view source)

Revision as of 23:05, 13 January 2019

11,924 bytes added , 5 years ago

no edit summary

Admin

Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, nuke, Suppressors, Administrators

11,144

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Top of Page}}
-{{ABM Q&A}}
+{{ABM Q&A re Credibility}}
 =Question 12 (ABM) - A Biblical Perspective on William Branham's Lies=
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 I would like to present the biblical perspective on your view and would welcome your comments.
-==Does the Old Testament prohibit lying?==
+===Does the Old Testament prohibit lying?===
 :In looking at what the Old Testament says about lying, the following is from a paper entitled, "Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible” by Yael Shemesh, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel:
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ::The biblical narrator also takes a favorable view of fraud when the object is some religious goal in keeping with the general outlook of the Bible. An example is Jehu’s lying to the worshippers of Baal, which is aimed at killing all the prophets of Baal and eradicating his worship from the country (2 Kgs. 10:18–28). In one case we even find God twisting the truth in order to preserve amicable relations between Abraham and Sarah and to prevent Abraham’s feelings from being hurt. Upon overhearing the prediction that she was about to become pregnant, Sarah laughs, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment— with my husband so old?” (Gen. 18:12); God, however, quotes her in Abraham’s hearing as having said, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?” (Gen. 18:13), making no reference to Abraham’s inadequacy. This episode was used by the Sages of the Talmud as a proof-text showing that it is permitted to deviate from the strict line of truth in order to establish peace (BT Yeb. 65b; BT B.M. 87a).
-===What does the Old Testament teach about prophets lying?===
+====What does the Old Testament teach about prophets lying?====
 :Again, the following are some comments on the issue from a paper entitled, "Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible” by Yael Shemesh, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel:
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 There are other examples that we could refer to but, I think the examples above allow us to draw some conclusions.
-===Conclusions===
+====Conclusions====
 :(1) In contrast to those theologians and philosophers who reject any kind of lying under any circumstances, from the perspective of the Jewish scholar quoted above, the Old Testament recognizes that certain situations justify and even require deceptive measures. This is true even regarding God’s prophets.  Nevertheless, the Bible avoids ascribing outright, undisguised falsehood to God or to the prophets (and on occasion is equally reticent in regard to other positive figures).
@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 Those who practice lying in an effort to make God look better are to be CONDEMNED.  Thus William Branham’s conduct is that unbecoming of a man of God.
-==Conclusion==
+===Conclusion===
 We have shown repeated examples of William Branham lying over the pulpit and we will provide more.  This repeated pattern of unbiblical behaviour must be addressed from a biblical perspective.  These were not mere exaggerations or embellishments.  They go far beyond that.  If a child were to tell the tales that William Branham did, they would simply be described as “lies”.
@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 BTS
+==Response==
+BTS,
+I appreciate your research on this subject. I think ultimately this is an issue were we are just going to disagree. I am glad to engage on this point once again though.
+You state "These were not mere exaggerations or embellishments.  They go far beyond that.  If a child were to tell the tales that William Branham did, they would simply be described as “lies”. You also state "He lied to promote himself and to “vindicate” his status as a prophet." I disagree with both of these assessments. The potentially serious issues you have raised which would support this viewpoint all have plausible explanations that would not lead to these conclusions. You have no definitive proof for the most serious of your accusations. I understand why you make such a conclusion. If you believe everything is suspect and a likely hoax, then these are nice comforting conclusions because it allows one to dismiss troubling things that would have to be confronted otherwise. But the thing you run into continually is people are so convinced that what they saw was real, you cannot talk them out of. Could I convince one healed of a birth defect that their healing was imaginary? Or that it was a false prophet by which their healing came?
+Indeed there are some areas where it can be proved he embellished things, but these are all of a minor nature and with scriptural precedent. If one believes Bro. Branham was a coming of the Elijah anointing, then one can also accept that he was in the mold of an Old Testament prophet, and not a New Testament prophet, and therefore would hold him to the standards of the Old Testament prophets.
+In a review of your quotation of Yael Shemesh, I generally agree with his assessment, and I think he it harmonizes well with my position. I also agree with you that the standard of the New Testament is higher than old. And I agree, his exaggerations are certainly not becoming of the conduct of a minister. On all these points we agree. But where we disagree is on this point: A man who has a personal failing, and who has failed in some things, does not have his calling or the good he has done by the spirit invalidated by the bad. I also disagree that his personal failing in this area is as severe as you believe it to be.
+You conclude that there are no examples in the new testament of men having personal failings. I disagree, again there are multiple examples. In Galatians 2:11-14, we find yet another personal failing of Peter. This time after he was converted. His conduct was unbecoming of an apostle, and he was called out for it, and justly so. But did that then negate his calling? Should we then reject the work he did in the name of the Lord? I believe Peter acknowledged his mistake. (Just as Bro. Branham acknowledged his.) Other examples are plentiful if sought. In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas have an argument, fail to reconcile, and break company. This is contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. More serious examples could be found among believers who were not ministers - Ananias and Sapphira, two believers, lied and died as a result. Or perhaps worse, the fornicator in the Corinthian church of which Paul said let his flesh be destroyed, yet his soul shall be saved in the day of Jesus Christ. The principle remains the same - believers can have personal failings. These failings are not without consequences. But the failings do not invalidate the calling placed on them.
+Paul again speaks along this line in 1 Cor 3:10-14 were he instructs the care to be taken by minister in their doctrine. He said, (paraphrasing) "Take heed how ye build thereupon, for every man's works shall be tried by fire. The bad will burn up, but the good will remain." You, though, would have us throw out the good, along with the bad. As I am letting you take the lead in the topics to be discussed, we are generally focusing on the bad, or that which is perceived to be bad, but the good is monumental in the case of Bro. Branham. I yet to see a reason to reject it. Read carefully the statements you have quoted from Paul. He indeed calls for us to reject that which wrong, but he never calls on us to reject the good along with the bad.In fact, as I have shown in 1 Cor 3:10-14, Paul believed there are indeed cases of where the results will be mixed.
+A simple analysis of 1 Cor 3:16-17 will establish this fact. Paul states: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." We are not the temple of God except the spirit of God be in us. By definition, it would not be possible for us to defile the temple of God, except we be the temple of God. Paul entirely leaves open the possibility (which we see acted out different times in the new testament) whereby a holy ghost filled believer comes up short of standards of the gospel.
+Bro. Branham can be proven to have exaggerated at often, he acknowledged it. But his personal failings do not invalidate the message he brought or the good accomplished through his ministry.
+Regards,
+ABM
+=Follow up question=
+Dear ABM,
+This is a follow-up question to Question 12 which deals with the issue of William Branham's lies.
+You misquoted me when you stated,  "You conclude that there are no examples in the new testament of men having personal failings."
+That was not my conclusion.
+I stated that there were no examples of apostles, prophets or Christian leaders lying in the New Testament after the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Peter was in error by not wanting to associate with Gentiles in the presence of Jews.  As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul corrected him.  Barnabas wanted to bring Mark with them but Paul did not want to have someone accompanying them who had exhibited spiritual immaturity by abandoning them. Later when Mark matured, he became of use to Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), but at the time of the disagreement with Barnabas, Mark was not a leader in the church.  The fact that Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement does not indicate moral failing and certainly did not involve lying.  Peter also acknowledged Paul's leadership in 2 Peter 3:15.  In fact, he referred to Paul's letters as scripture.
+Those in the message hold out William Branham to be the equivalent of Paul today.  In fact, many would state that he ranks even greater than Paul.
+Can you find any indication of one of the apostles lying even once?  Is there any record of the apostle Paul exaggerating to the point that William Branham did?
+I appreciate that you do not consider William Branham's wild exaggerations to be lies.  But that is what they are.
+He didn't lie to save someone's life.  He was practicing deception... over the pulpit.  He presented a false impression. He deliberately caused those in the audience to believe something that was not true.
+To repeat myself, Paul CLEARLY addressed the type of falsehood that William Branham engaged in and rejected such behavior as ungodly:
+:''Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say — “Let us do evil that good may result”?  Their condemnation is just!  (Rom. 3:7-8, NIV)
+There is a higher standard for those in Christian leadership, particularly when they are ministering.  Why did William Branham lie?  To make himself look better.  To justify his self-proclaimed status as a prophet.  This is not acceptable behavior based on the clear meaning of scripture.
+Shalom,
+BTS
+==Response to follow up question==
+BTS,
+I offer my apologies for misstating you in Question 12, I clearly overstated your position. I agree with you, there are not examples of ministers of God lying in the new testament. I also agree with you: Paul clearly condemns it.
+Allow me to restate my point differently. Lying is in the category of personal failures, just as any number of things are personal failures. And there are clearly personal failings in the life of New Testament Christians. Why would Paul feel it necessary to preach to people to tell them not lie, except it was occurring? Why would Paul feel it necessary to tell them to avoid fornication, except it was occurring? These things were occurring in the church among believers. Ananias and Sapphira are an example of believers who lied.
+John speaks to this 1 John 5:16. There is a sin which can occur in the life of a believer which can be forgiven, and there are sins that can occur in the life of believers that will lead to death.
+We do indeed disagree about the severity of Bro. Branham's embellishments. So I do not want to belabor the point. In my assessment his exaggerations are minor. I believe that the cases you put forward to prove his embellishments are more than minor are mistaken interpretations of his statements and events and have other correct or equally plausible interpretations that do no lead to your conclusions.
+But even if they were not minor personal failings - that alone is not grounds to reject him as a false prophet. It would be enough for him to have to step down from the ministry. That is a far cry different than being a false prophet. The Old Testament if clear: failed prophecy is the grounds to reject a false prophet. The New Testament is clear, the grounds for rejecting someone as a false prophet is that they teach false doctrine contrary to the scripture.  Not their own personal failings. So you can chose your standard. I know we disagree on this point as well, but I do not see a way to reject him as a false prophet under either of those criteria. Paul plainly states in 1st Cor that if a man build wood, hay, or stubble, it will burn. But the gold and precious jewels will remain. To label Bro. Branham as a false prophet, we have to conclude that his entire ministry was inspired of Satan. There is far too much good that occurred through his ministry for me to be able to accept that it was all inspired of Satan.
+I am not alone in this assessment. Bro. Branham is still highly regarded for his early ministry in charismatic circles. Robert Lairdon summarizes the predominant view of charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity towards Bro. Branham well in his book, "God's Generals".  There was and is a broad acceptance of his ministry during the years of the healing revival, and he is viewed as going off track at the end of his ministry. The good is accepted, the bad rejected. I disagree with Lairdon on various points, but his viewpoint is far more prevalent than your own and Lairdon's viewpoint is representative of the broader Charisimatic viewpoint. Mainline denominations completely reject Branham, but they also generally rejected the healing revival. But in Charistimatic Christianity it is a different story.
+Your argument to reject Bro. Branham as false prophet is not merely an argument against the Branham movement. It is an argument against mainstream Charismatic Christianity. I hope you can see that. I do not consider myself to be part of the Charismatic movement, but I am well familiar with it and how they view these things. Bro. Branham is still highly regarded for his role in the healing revivals and very widely accepted as a prophet, and remains regularly cited in positive ways on TBN and by many prominent charistimatic ministers.
+You state: "Why did William Branham lie?  To make himself look better.  To justify his self-proclaimed status as a prophet." I understand your rationale, but as we have went along so far, you have not yet produced a compelling lie. Everything so far is explained either a minor embellishment or exaggeration, Bro. Branham just being mistaken, or a misreading of his quotes.
+Regards,
+ABM
 {{Bottom of Page}}
 [[Category: Unfinished articles]]
 [[Category: Questions and Answers]]
+[[Category: Questions and Answers - Series 1]]