Jump to content

William Branham and Arianism: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
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?=
=Did William Branham teach Arianism?=


William Branham taught that Jesus Christ was a created being:
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>
:''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>
Line 57: Line 57:
:''“Oh, I don’t think I can take that.”
:''“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>
:''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:
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: