Jump to content

Humble Pie: Difference between revisions

Line 218: Line 218:
|}
|}


To the extent that William Branham’s doctrines can be supported from the Bible, they create no problems with us.  However, in some cases opposing views from those that William Branham put forward may also be capable of being supported from the Bible as well, and may even constitute the better view.   
William Branham did teach things that can be supported by the Bible.  However, some of William Branham's theology is [[Twisted Theology|just plain wrong]] and some of his teaching suffers from what we call "[[Lazy Theology]]" (he did not take the time to really understand what the Bible said on an issue).  These are both serious problems from someone that held himself out to be a divine interpreter of the Bible.   


A number of William Branham's significant teachings appear to have been borrowed in large part from other men.  The details of our finding on this issue can be found in our article on [[Plagiarism]].
Also, a number of William Branham's significant teachings appear to have been borrowed in large part from other men.  The details of our finding on this issue can be found in our article on [[Plagiarism]].
 
Some of William Branham's theology is [[Twisted Theology|just plain wrong]] and some of his teaching suffers from what we call "[[Lazy Theology]]" (he did not take the time to really understand what the Bible said on an issue).  These are both serious problems from someone that held himself out to be a divine interpreter of the Bible.


The primary purpose of this website is to provide a balanced, unbiased information on the ministry of William Branham.  We therefore have a number of articles that discuss his doctrinal teachings.  We have not removed them, but over time will be augmenting them with comments relating to how they relate to a more orthodox position.  Some of these teachings include:
The primary purpose of this website is to provide a balanced, unbiased information on the ministry of William Branham.  We therefore have a number of articles that discuss his doctrinal teachings.  We have not removed them, but over time will be augmenting them with comments relating to how they relate to a more orthodox position.  Some of these teachings include:
Line 230: Line 228:


'''[[Water baptism]]'''
'''[[Water baptism]]'''
:The early church baptized (immersed) new converts in the Name of Jesus Christ.  The book of Acts confirms this.  In practice, however, William Branham would quote Jesus’ commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit prior to baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (unless the individual was already baptized in Titles).  
:The early church baptized (immersed) new converts in the Name of Jesus Christ.  The book of Acts confirms this, although early Christian writings such as the Didache seem to point to the fact that water baptism in accordance with Matthew 28:19 was also prevalent and acceptable in the early church.  On close inspection, it appears that [[William Branham's Teachings on Water Baptism|William Branham's prescribed form of baptism cannot be specifically supported by scripture]].  


'''[[The Godhead]]'''
'''[[The Godhead]]'''
:The problem with William Branham’s teaching on the Godhead is that you can find quotes of William Branham clearly teaching both the Trinity or Oneness doctrines, and then denouncing both doctrines as false.  The article on the Godhead that you will find on this site outlines a doctrine based on William Branham’s “body/spirit/soul” teachings, and is a bridge between traditional Trinitiarian and Oneness beliefs – which is how William Braham described his doctrine.  Historically, this teaching is closest (but not identical) to Swedenborg’s explanation of the Godhead that John Wesley ridiculed.  
:One problem with William Branham’s teaching on the Godhead is that you can find quotes of William Branham clearly teaching both the Trinity or Oneness doctrines, and then denouncing both doctrines as false.  William Branham's teaching appears closest (but not identical) to Swedenborg’s explanation of the Godhead (which John Wesley ridiculed).  


'''[[The Serpent's Seed]]'''
'''[[The Serpent's Seed]]'''
:William Branham taught that Cain and Abel were twins, yet Adam was the father of Abel and the Serpent was the father of Cain.  While there appears to be some support in the scriptures for this doctrine, there are also a number of passages in the Bible that can be used to refute it.  Additionally, it is not salvational, i.e. accepting or rejecting this doctrine does not impact one's salvation.  However, even if one could trace their lineage back to Cain, Jesus still died for their sins.  
:William Branham taught that Cain and Abel were twins, yet Adam was the father of Abel and the Serpent was the father of Cain.  When examined closely, this doctrine appears to have little actual support in the Bible.  


'''[[Angel|Angels]]'''
'''[[Angel|Angels]]'''
Line 242: Line 240:


'''[[Seven Church Ages]], [[Seven Seals]], [[Mystery Babylon]]'''
'''[[Seven Church Ages]], [[Seven Seals]], [[Mystery Babylon]]'''
:These articles each present an interpretation of scripture as preached by William Branham in the 1960's.  While William Branham indicated that these doctrines were taught to him by an angel, ti appears that much of it [[Plagiarism|comes directly from Clarence Larkin’s published dispensational teachings]].   
:These articles each present an interpretation of scripture as preached by William Branham in the 1960's.  While William Branham indicated that these doctrines were taught to him by an angel, it appears that much of it [[Plagiarism|comes directly from Clarence Larkin’s published dispensational teachings]].   


:Studying the church ages is a great way to learn Church history.  Some items you may learn while studying the Church Ages as taught by William Branham are:
:Studying the church ages is a great way to learn Church history.  Some items you may learn while studying the Church Ages as taught by William Branham are: