William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine: Difference between revisions

William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine (view source)

Revision as of 03:14, 1 June 2013

5,336 bytes added , 10 years ago

no edit summary

Admin

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

11,141

edits

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 It is important to notice that William Branham's critique of the doctrine of the Trinity is not backed up by a lot of scripture.  This is another example of his [[Lazy Theology|"lazy" theology]].
-=The Basic Definition=
+==The Basic Definition==
 So that we are all on the same page, a basic definition of the Trinity is necessary:
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Commonly referred to as "One God in Three Persons", the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identified as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases," who share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.
+==Three Gods==
+:''A man come to me the other night to show me where I was wrong, or to talking about the trinity. I got thousands of good trinity friends. They're in that Babylon. I got a lot of Oneness friends in that Babylon, too. See? But what happened? He said, "It's terminology, Brother Branham. You believe in the trinity?"
+:''I said, "Certainly." I said, "I'll take your word: terminology." I said, "How do you believe it?"
+:''He said, "I believe in one God."
+:''I say, "You do well." See?
+:''He said, "I believe there's one God, and three persons in the Godhead."
+:''I said, "Aren't you a--a student of BIOLA?"
+:''He said, "Yes."
+:''I said, "Sounds like it." I said, "That don't speak very good for your education." I said, "Three persons, and one God?" I said, "According to Webster, there, it has to be a personality before it can be a person. You believe in three gods, mister." You cannot be a person without being a personality, 'cause it takes a personality to make a person.
+:''So they say... He said, "Well, Mr. Branham, you know, even the--the theologians can't explain it."
+:''I said, "That's exactly right. The Word don't come to a theologian." Uh-huh. I said, "The Bible is all tied into the Revelation, 'Upon this rock I'll build My Church, and the gates of hell can't prevail against It.'" See? Amen, there you are. See? But then when it comes to those things... Oh, my!<ref>WHO.DO.YOU.SAY.THIS.IS_  PHOENIX.AZ  V-6 N-9  SUNDAY_  64-1227</ref>
+So it is clear that William Branham clearly understood that the doctrine of the Trinity did not teach that there were three gods but chose to ignore the reasons for this position.  Instead of focusing on the reasons that the church had adopted this position for millienia, he chose to reject it simply on the basis that it didn't make sense to him.
+However, his position disagrees with all of the great spiritual men of the church that preceded him, and he chose to ignore them as well:
+:''The evangelist clearly differentiates between the Word and the Person of the Father. He stresses the fact that the Word was a Person distinct from the Person of the Father, with whom He was. He was entirely separate from the Father. John wishes to say: “The Word, who was in the beginning, was not alone but was with God.” Just as if I should say: “He was with me; he sits at my table; he is my companion.” This would imply that I am speaking of another, that there are two of us; I alone do not constitute a companion.  Thus we read here: “The Word was with God.”
+:''According to reason, this would mean that the Word is something different from God. Therefore he continues and drives home his point: “And God was the Word.” He does so, in order to forestall any attempt to separate the Word from God, that is, the Son from the Father, in view of the statement: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” Now this gives the impression and sounds as if there were more than one. “You are right,” he says, “inasmuch as you distinguish between the Person of God and the Person of the Word, since God is one Person and the Word is another. Despite this, the Word, i.e., the Son, is and remains eternal and true God together with the Father.”
+:''Our reason makes an entirely different deduction and says: “If you insist that the Word is with God, then are there two Gods?” Therefore St. John wants the three Persons distinguished from one another within the one divine essence. '''And then he joins Them together again in order to avoid the impression that They are divided into three Gods''', and in order to stress that '''there is only one God''': God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by whom all things were made. It is as if St. John were to say: “I wish to preach of a Word who became flesh but who was with God and beside God from the beginning. He could not be elsewhere than with God, since no creature existed as yet. It is true, I make mention of two, namely, God and the Word, i.e., the Father and the Son. But this Word was with God, yet not as a separate, distinct God; no, He was the true, eternal God, of one essence with the Father, equal in might and glory. The distinction is that the Father is one Person, and the Son is another Person. Although the latter is a different Person, He is nevertheless the same God as the Father. Although there are two of Them, yet the Son remains the one true God with the Father. The two Persons are distinguished thus: It is the Father who speaks; the other Person, the Son, is spoken.”
+:''There are two distinct Persons; and still there is one single, eternal, natural God. The Holy Spirit is likewise a Person, apart from the Father and the Son; and at the same time the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one divine essence and remain one God, three Persons in the one divine essence. Therefore the Holy Trinity must be spoken of correctly and accurately: The Word, which is the Son, and God the Father are two Persons but nevertheless one God; and the Holy Spirit is another Person in the Godhead, as we shall see later.<ref>Martin Luther, vol. 22, Luther's Works, Vol. 22: Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 1-4, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, 15-16 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999).</ref>
 =Limitations=