Revision as of 20:54, 1 July 2013

To followers of William Branham, "theology" is a bad word.

What they fail to realize is that the word "theology" simply means - “The study of God” and is also used as a general term for the study of all the teachings of the Bible.^[1]

William Branham and Theology

William Branham was fond of ridiculing "theology" and even making it Satanic:

Oh, oh, certainly they know all the Greek words, and they know the--their education. God isn't known by theology or education. God's knowed by faith. Knowledge takes a man away from God; faith brings him to God. That's what separated him from God in the garden of Eden. He went to the tree of knowledge. ^[2]

This is the Satan's superman with education, with wisdom, with church theology of his own word, of his own making, and he rides his white denominational horse to deceive the people. ^[3]

Then, Satan got Eve to listen to his gospel of theology, the gospel of knowledge, higher schooling, higher ethics, better civilization, higher education, and so forth; ^[4]

But he also seemed to realize that theology could be Biblical:

Now, so then God blessed him. God will bless anyone who will go back to the old landmark of the Bible and start from the Bible, not according to theology ...or some man-made theology, but from true Bible theology, and start from the old landmark and move up, God will move with you. ^[5]

William Branham did realize that he had his own theology, but that it was the only correct theology:

How would God let me tell something wrong, and stand up with my very message. These things are only to indicate a Divine a vindication that my theology is right. That's exactly right. The Word of the Lord came to the prophets. ^[6]

Lazy Theology

William Branham's approach to theology could be considered "lazy" or perhaps "sloppy".

He often did not provide any (or inadequate) scriptural backing for his theological positions and seemed to have little or no proper understanding of differing understandings of scripture.

Some examples of his lazy theology are as follows:

An eagle in the Bible is a type of a prophet
His rejection of the concept of Eternal Sonship based on his personal opinion and not on scripture.

He insisted that water baptism had to be in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet there is no record in the New Testament of anyone every having been baptized that way.

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content

References

↑ Systematic Theology: Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton, 652 (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007).
↑ ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.2_ JEFF.IN IC 35-64 THURSDAY_ 53-0326
↑ THE.FIRST.SEAL_ JEFF.IN 63-0318
↑ SATAN'S.EDEN JEFF.IN V-2 N-20 65-0829
↑ FATHER.THE.HOUR.HAS.COME_ CHICAGO.IL TUESDAY_ 56-1002A
↑ BE.NOT.AFRAID CHAUTAUQUA.OH 60-0609

[1] Systematic Theology: Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton, 652 (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007).

[2] ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.2_ JEFF.IN IC 35-64 THURSDAY_ 53-0326

[3] THE.FIRST.SEAL_ JEFF.IN 63-0318

[4] SATAN'S.EDEN JEFF.IN V-2 N-20 65-0829

[5] FATHER.THE.HOUR.HAS.COME_ CHICAGO.IL TUESDAY_ 56-1002A

[6] BE.NOT.AFRAID CHAUTAUQUA.OH 60-0609

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 He often did not provide any (or inadequate) scriptural backing for his theological positions and seemed to have little or no proper understanding of differing understandings of scripture.
-For example, his rejection of the concept of [[Eternal Sonship]] was based on his personal opinion and not on scripture.
+Some examples of his lazy theology are as follows:
+*[[The Prophet and The Eagle|An eagle in the Bible is a type of a prophet]]
+*His rejection of the concept of [[Eternal Sonship]] based on his personal opinion and not on scripture.
+*
 He insisted that water baptism had to be in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet there is no record in the New Testament of anyone every having been baptized that way.