11,141
edits
William Branham and Arianism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top of Page}} | |||
{{Template:Trinity}} | |||
Arianism is effectively a belief in two gods, an uncreated and a created, a supreme and a secondary god, and thus is really heathen polytheism. It holds Christ to be a mere creature, and yet the creator of the world.<ref>Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 649.</ref> | Arianism is effectively a belief in two gods, an uncreated and a created, a supreme and a secondary god, and thus is really heathen polytheism. It holds Christ to be a mere creature, and yet the creator of the world.<ref>Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 649.</ref> | ||
Some followers of William Branham, in particular [[Vaylism|Lee Vayle and his followers]], preach a similar view of Jesus Christ. | Some followers of William Branham, in particular [[Vaylism|Lee Vayle and his followers]], preach a similar view of Jesus Christ. It is clear that Lee Vayle took his doctrine directly from the teachings of William Branham. | ||
=Did William Branham teach Arianism?= | |||
William Branham taught in numerous places that Jesus Christ was a created being: | |||
:''He was God manifested in a flesh of His creative Son. See? Now, that's, '''God created the Son'''. <ref>William Branham, August 4, 1963, Calling Jesus on the Scene </ref> | |||
:''I said, "Yes, He was Divine. '''He was the created Son of God'''." And I said, "God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself."<ref>William Branham, July 29, 1951, Lazarus</ref> | |||
:''Now notice! And after then the wise men identifying Him what He would be, and we find through the Scripture that's exactly what He was: Deity in service for death. What for? Deity in service to God for death. Jesus was Deity in service for death, to redeem the world. But what did the world do to It? They refused It. They rejected It. Why? Some of them, a big part of them, did that because this: because He did die! They said, "He couldn't be Deity and die." '''The Man (the body) was not Deity, but Deity was in the body'''. This body has to perish. The very Christ that's in you is the only thing that can raise you up. That's Deity, God in you.<ref>William Branham, December 22, 1963, God's Gifts </ref> | |||
This belief was originally taught by a man named Arius who was born in North Africa around 256 A.D. Arius became a church leader in Alexandria, Egypt and taught that Jesus was created. If Jesus was created by God the Father then there was a time when Jesus did not exist. This doctrine of Arius, referred to as Arianism spread and caused the church split into two groups.<ref>Alton Gansky, 60 People Who Shaped the Church: Learning from Sinners, Saints, Rogues, and Heroes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014).</ref> | |||
=History in the Christian church= | =History in the Christian church= | ||
| Line 20: | Line 35: | ||
Such, then, was Arianism—a theory of the mutual relations of the Persons in the Trinity based nominally on the words of Scripture, but arrived at really by the methods of the heathen philosophers.<ref>F. J. Foakes-Jackson, “Arianism,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 777.</ref> | Such, then, was Arianism—a theory of the mutual relations of the Persons in the Trinity based nominally on the words of Scripture, but arrived at really by the methods of the heathen philosophers.<ref>F. J. Foakes-Jackson, “Arianism,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 777.</ref> | ||
[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism. | |||
==Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching== | |||
Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached a form of Arianism. It is also clear that he took this teaching directly from William Branham: | |||
:''There are more verses on ‘Deity’, and you can see that '''Bro. Branham is not making Jesus ‘God’, as some would have it.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #12, The Fullness of the Godhead Bodily, July 2, 2000, para. 25</ref> | |||
:''...what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23</ref> | |||
Lee Vayle also espoused this teaching as a means of describing William Branham as being similar to Christ: | |||
:''The Son was already there. The Son was there before Adam was. The Son was there before there was anything else. He was the first-born of God. And as Bro. Branham has said, “That light came forth, like a child playing around his Father’s doorstep.” He began to create. And God would say, “That’s good. That’s fine.” And Bro. Branham went through the whole process of creation, and formation, and so on. ...And God came down and dwelt in His Son, Christ Jesus, making Him God on earth. | |||
:''Now right in there you can see this body born, was born with a personality, the man, we call ‘Christ Jesus’, and at that time, God came in to his very being, and now, as Bro. Branham said, “You have a duality.” | |||
:''The Father and the Son. “He that has seen me has seen the Father. You’re looking at him now.” | |||
:''Remember, Bro. Branham was asked the question, “What does it mean, “I and my Father are one?” He said, “You’re looking at me, aren’t you?” | |||
:''“Oh, I don’t think I can take that.” | |||
:''Well, you don’t have to take it. Goodbye, it’s been nice knowing you, or not so nice knowing you. I simply don’t have pleasure in people that don’t believe Bro. Branham. I simply don’t. I’m back there in the Ephesian Church. I believe that God visited Paul. I believe He came down in a Pillar of Fire. I believe Bro. Branham said, “Just think, how wonderful. '''The same Pillar of Fire that brought the Word to Paul is here revealing It!”''' I believe that. And this is part of it. This is explaining Luke—the virgin birth. '''This is explaining God the Father, and not God the son, but the Son of God.''' This explains Emmanuel, how God became flesh and dwelt among us. And He did! And it was a duality! And the body He prepared for Himself was the same body He prepared for His Son.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #2, Son and Virgin Birth, Delineating God and Son Using Bro. Branham’s Statements, October 3, 1999, para. 31</ref> | |||
Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons: | |||
:''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref> | :''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref> | ||
| Line 34: | Line 65: | ||
:''Now with the subject of sovereignty, what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that '''Jesus is not Deity'''. When Bro. Branham said, “He’s God, but he’s not God,” in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again. | :''Now with the subject of sovereignty, what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that '''Jesus is not Deity'''. When Bro. Branham said, “He’s God, but he’s not God,” in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again. | ||
:''... | :''...We’re going to talk about, as I said, in the fact of sovereignty, Jesus cannot be Deity. '''Now Jesus can’t be Deity when we consider true Deity'''. | ||
: | :'''''...Jesus definitely is not God'''. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.” | ||
:''What do you mean, “sons have beginnings?” Well, sons are procreated. The thought of having a son does not give anybody the ability to create one. The substance must be there in order to be passed on to that person, to bring that person in the likeness of the progenitor. | :''What do you mean, “sons have beginnings?” Well, sons are procreated. The thought of having a son does not give anybody the ability to create one. The substance must be there in order to be passed on to that person, to bring that person in the likeness of the progenitor. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 75: | ||
:'''''So, Jesus can’t be Deity, when we consider true Deity. He is the Son of Deity, Son of God''', and since elevated by God, he is worthy of worship, but not as God is worshipped. He can’t be. It is wise to regard Jesus, Son of God, in the light of Hebrews, as written by Paul, and glorifying God for His wisdom and power, for so setting us all in divine order. | :'''''So, Jesus can’t be Deity, when we consider true Deity. He is the Son of Deity, Son of God''', and since elevated by God, he is worthy of worship, but not as God is worshipped. He can’t be. It is wise to regard Jesus, Son of God, in the light of Hebrews, as written by Paul, and glorifying God for His wisdom and power, for so setting us all in divine order. | ||
:''... | :''...And, how was he equal with God? Because he was the First-begotten Son of God. So therefore, positively, he was equal in the inheritance, because it split the kingdom right down the middle. But God didn’t split Himself down the middle. God didn’t split His sovereignty down the middle. He had an equality, the same as Bro. Branham says, “Satan was one time equal with God and led in the worship.” | ||
:'''''Was he equal with God as per Godhead? Oh, don’t be ridiculous'''. Was he equal, then, in the majesty and the glory and the power? Don’t be ridiculous. He had to be a controller of some description, as the great CEOs are of all the money you’ve got invested in stock, and they act as though it were their own, with their golden parachutes, and their divvying up, and their perks, and God knows what. | |||
:''...Now again, in Jn 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (So, he’s not the Father, and '''he’s not God'''. “There’s one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” [1 Tim 2:5]) | |||
:''And It places it right there that '''Jesus is not God'''. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14: The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity, August 6, 2000</ref> | |||
=Quotes of William Branham= | |||
The following quote is from 1964, after William Branham had rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. He clearly speaks of Jesus as a created being: | |||
:''This, just the display, now it shows what’s being done. Like God becoming God when He created Angels. '''He become Son when He created Christ Jesus.''' He become Saviour when Jesus died. He becomes Healer when “He was wounded for our transgressions, with His stripes we were healed.” See?<ref>William Branham, 64-0304 - Sirs, We Would See Jesus, para. 15</ref> | |||
God was not God the Father until he created Jesus: | |||
:''But in this great God, Elohim, was attributes. There was attributes in there to be God; '''attributes to be Father;''' attributes to be Son; attributes to be Saviour; attributes to be healer. All these attributes was in God. And if you’ve ever got Eternal Life, you were in God’s attributes, because you got Eternal Life. Jesus came as Redeemer. And redeem means “bring it back to where it started from.” Right. You were in God’s thinking. He might have to breed this with that, and down here and down here.<ref>William Branham, 64-0401 - The Identified Christ Of All Ages</ref> | |||
:''There is no three or four Gods. There is only one God. '''There is three attributes of God; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost''', but they’re not three Gods. That’s heathen. See, there is only one God. And that’s attributes. God the Father was in the wilderness, as a Pillar of Fire. All right. God the Son; God the Father created the body which was God the Son, and lived in the Son. See? “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.” Do you believe that? [Congregation says, “Amen.”—Ed.] If you’re a Christian, you believe it. And, then, “A little while and the world seeth Me no more.” And now look, Jesus said, “I came from God, and I return to God.” After His death, burial, resurrection, He ascended up.<ref>William Branham, 64-0412 - A Court Trial, para. 257</ref> | |||
Jesus did not exist until he was created by the Father and at that moment God became God the Father: | |||
:''And, | :''And God could not take a human’s place, being He is Spirit. '''So God created a Blood cell, which was His own Son, Jesus Christ.''' And God came in and lived in there, and lived, identified Himself in Christ. That was God, Emmanuel. Jesus said, “I and My Father are One. My Father dwells in Me.” See? “God in Christ, reconciling the world.” '''Jesus was the body, the tabernacle, God was the Spirit that lived in Him.'''<ref>William Branham, 64-0418B - A Paradox, para. 162</ref> | ||
William Branham taught that because Jesus was created, he did not exist prior to his creation and he was not the eternal Son of God: | |||
:''... | :''Therefore, I’d like to ask the question. How could we ever make sense out of the word of “the Eternal sonship of God”? '''If He was a Son, He had a beginning. If He was Eternal Son, how could He be a Son and be Eternal?''' For, son is—is a product of something. But, if He was—He was, could not be an Eternal Son. There’s no such a thing, “Eternal Son of God.” Cause, if He—if He never had a beginning, then He cannot be nothing but Eternal. But, if He was a Son, He had a beginning, so He cannot be an Eternal Son.<ref>William Branham, 62-0401 - Wisdom Versus Faith, para. 88</ref> | ||
:'' | :''Talk about eternal sonship. '''Son has a beginning.''' Eternal can’t start, can’t begin. And there… It always has been. How can it be an eternal son? Oh, my. How you… I’m a dummy, and I know better than that. Sure.<ref>William Branham, 62-0407 - The Signs Of His Coming, para. 54</ref> | ||
:''A Son, as the Catholic puts it, “Eternal Son,” and all the rest of the churches; the word don’t even make sense. See? '''There cannot be Eternal, and then be a Son, ’cause a Son is something that’s “begotten from.”''' And the word Eternal, He cannot be an Eter-…He can be a Son, but He cannot be an Eternal Son. No, sir. It cannot be an Eternal Son.<ref>William Branham, 65-0822M - Christ Is Revealed In His Own Word, para. 53</ref> | |||
:''People talk about Jesus being the Eternal Son of God. Now isn’t that a contradiction? '''Whoever heard of a “Son” being eternal? Sons have beginnings''', but that which is eternal never had a beginning.<ref>William Branham, An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages - Chapter 1 - The Revelation Of Jesus Christ</ref> | |||
{{Bottom of Page}} | {{Bottom of Page}} | ||
[[Category: Unfinished articles]] | [[Category: Unfinished articles]] | ||