April 25, 2008...
Video of the week. 4/25/08
Jump to Comments
Guess what everybody, according to Roland Baker (husband of Heidi Baker) the most anointed person since Jesus Christ is…. a full blown, no doubt about it… heretic.
Oh, and the Bakers travel all over to certain American churches and are seen as prophets.
46 Comments
April 26, 2008 at
He was so anointed that he denied the trinity and called it a doctrine from hah heh heh heh ha ha ha. His alone time made him powerful heh heh haha. he trained paul cain and promoted the manifest sons of God doctrine, which most of us deny while embracing heh heh haha ha ha. oy vey. i used to know another preacher who would laugh like that while he spoke great swelling words of lion tamers and un sinful pot smoking. ha ha ha heh. makes me hurt so bad to hear crap like that. yeah heretics can do sings and wonders. God says they can but their annointing is not from God.
April 26, 2008 at
Jarrod,
At least you weren’t a retarded lion.
Anyway, is this guy speaking at the airport Vineyard church? The podium says ‘airport’ on it. Whatever, just curious. Sadly, most Charismatics wouldn’t know William Branham from William Tyndale.
April 26, 2008 at
A really sad thing about it is that promotors of the Bakers always say “how can you say they aren’t from God, look at all the good they do in Africa.”
I usually respond by mentioning that Oprah does good things for Africa also, and she denies Christ, what does that make her?
Lord help us.
April 26, 2008 at
Yeah, Bentley was talking about the Branham anointng tonight, and then stated that we never have to age.
Hah heh heh heh ha ha ha.
Nat- yeah that’s at TACF.
-Bill
April 26, 2008 at
Bill,
Could you give us any more of a quote on what Bentley said? I want as much proof as I can about various ones MSOG beliefs.
April 26, 2008 at
Cheryl,
Check out Paul Keith Davis’s “revelatory encounter” titled ‘Dark Night of the Soul - Preparation for God’s Army of Light’.
April 26, 2008 at
desean jones,
Thanks for the link above. This is MSOG for sure:
“It is the Lord’s intent to MAKE us the promise. We are to become the Living Word.”
These doctrines are extremely frightening.
April 27, 2008 at
I’m no expert on Branham. But, from what I can see, Branham did deny the doctrine of the Trinity, as charged, but did so because he erroneously thought it was a non-Biblical, Catholic dogma that entailed there being three gods rather than one. Lest anyone jump to a hasty conclusion, Branham also denied the Oneness view. The problem, as I see it, is that he had not been properly instructed in the true doctrine of the Trinity. He didn’t so much reject the truth as fail to learn it. I’d say that he was more ignorant than heretical (though since he chose to teach I’d concede that his ignorance was at least somewhat culpable).
That isn’t to say that Branham was free of doctrinal error. But, he apparently had only a 7th grade education. So, while I don’t approve Branham’s doctrine, I think the man himself deserves some slack. He did a lot with a little and was probably no further outside the theological box than many third-world pastors who arise from roughly similar circumstances. They need to be loved and taught rather than vilified. I think he deserves the same courtesy: don’t approve the doctrine but don’t judge the man.
As to Rolland, I’d be happier if he had acknowledged that when Branham–near the end of his career–began teaching, the results were not pretty. But, Rolland may not be fully aware of the facts since at least some accounts of Branham’s life, and many of Branham’s sermons, give no clue as to his anti-Trinitarian views.
In any case, Rolland’s comments–taken for what they are rather that what they might seem to some to imply–seem to me accurate and defensible. Branham ended badly. But, by all accounts, he was responsible for about 500,000 professions of faith in Christ and worked many amazing miracles in Jesus’ name–almost certainly more than any other individual in the modern era.
As I hear him, that’s all that Rolland is saying. He’s not offering a theological critique. As someone who lives among the African poor, theology is simply not his grid.
Bottom line: I don’t think we can legitimately reason from Rolland’s approving comments about Branham as a minister/man to a conclusion that Rolland is a heretic. More to the point, I don’t think we can reason from Branham’s theological ignorance to a conclusion that his works were Satanic. Life’s not quite so tidy as that–at least, not where I live.
devin, unlike the New-Age, Jesus-is-one-way-among-many, God-is-within-you, TV-queen Oprah, Rolland and Heidi actually live in Africa, among the poor to whom they minister. They also preach the Gospel as clearly as anyone I’ve heard. Comparison of Heidi/Rolland with Oprah doesn’t seem to me to show many points of resemblance apart from similar numbers of body parts.
BTW, my research indicates that Rolland’s message, captioned “Faith Working Through Love,” was given Oct. 9, 2004, at TACF. The video seems to me to include the complete, relevant context of Rolland’s remarks.
April 27, 2008 at
cs
i technically for years had the equvilent of a 9th grade education. and wasnt a believer until i was 20 and yet i have never called the trinity a doctrine from hell. i still dont understand the great mystery of the triune God. and yet i accept it. if rollands grid is not theology then why let him instruct the church in matters concerning an old teacher. heresy isn’t the unpardonable sin and can be repented of. however never calling anything heresy cant be fixed. cant get the cure unless you have the disease. Branham was in doctrinal error on much more than the trinity. i think that is clear to many and if he was the most annointed man since Jesus i would expect him to know the truth in some close measure to Jesus as well. at least better than most ministers do. cant seperate power and annointing from the truth. they go together or not at all. Si Bah bah could levitate heal people read minds and make things appear from his hands like candy and diamonds. but he also claimed to be God on earth in a pantheistic sense. what should i say oh what an annointing. devoid of truth yet gripping in power? no i think not. i dont know about rolland myself. this is the first time i have ever heard of the cat. but i have heard of branham many times and whether from ignorance or volition heresy is heresy.
April 27, 2008 at
cs
Re Branham
How do you know the accuracy of:
“But, by all accounts, he was responsible for about 500,000 professions of faith in Christ and worked many amazing miracles in Jesus’ name–almost certainly more than any other individual in the modern era. “
On Wikipedia it states “he had a conversion experience and later was ordained as an assistant pastor at a Missionary Baptist Church in Jeffersonville.” I would guess that he was ‘properly instructed in the true doctrine of the Trinity” at that point.
Ignorance - “he erroneously thought” as you put it, even though sincerely believed, does not excuse heretical beliefs.
Re Rolland. Theology - Merriam-Webster defines theology as “the study of God and God’s relation to the world” is the ‘grid’ for all responsible Christians.
April 27, 2008 at
Regarding the comment above about Rolland Baker: “theology is simply not his grid.”
According to their own website, both Heidi and Rolland went in 1992 to Kings College, University of London to pursue their PhD degrees in systematic theology. Heidi says in an article she wrote that she has a PhD in theology. I haven’t been able to verify if Rolland completed his or not. At any rate, it sounds to me like there is a lot of strong theological background in the family. He ought to know what he is talking about theologically! He ought to be able to detect false teaching or heresy when he sees it.
April 27, 2008 at
On the other hand, maybe the Baker’s grid has seriously changed. At one time theology must of been mighty important to spend 10 years getting a PhD in it. But Heidi has said that she learned more in one week of soaking at TACF than she learned in all of those 10 years. Still it is frightening to me to think of setting all of those years of theological education aside, (if that is what he has done), and now putting so much emphasis on the anointing even when there are huge doctrinal errors present. The whole philosophy that doctrinal truth isn’t all that important any more is terrible.
April 27, 2008 at
CS
When I think of somebody simply being ignorant of a core doctrine, I think of someone who, when shown the truth of the doctrine, is willing to correct their thinking. Branham taught against the Trinity. I think that stands on its own. Look at the website that his followers produced http://www.williambranham.com they sure seem to get that picture also since they have an anti-trinitiarian article on the front page.
Ultimately, IMO, you seem to be saying that if someone hasn’t learned that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they still do some ‘miracle’ working, or they preach the gospel, then they are basically off the hook because of ignorance. I’m not wise enough to say yes or no on that because I know how tricky it can get. Something I do know is that just because Branham wasn’t a theologian, he sure was a heretic. He held to baptismal regeneration, and denied the trinity. It’s one thing to be living in a place and not have any outside influences on whatever you think you see in the Bible. This wasn’t the case for Branham, he was in America. He had heard about the Trinity, and he had heard about water baptism, and knew that both of those doctrines were taught one way, what’s known as the orthodox view, but he, and his colleagues taught against those things. But, due to Branham’s true ignorance, he taught against them by saying they were from the devil, and even tossing in “Thus saith the Lord”.
If there are some third world christians out there who genuinely haven’t heard systematic teachings of the scriptures out there, then they are what they are, but Branham doesn’t fit the bill to be compared to them.
The fact that Mr. Baker is up in a pulpit teaching about a heretic is scary in the first place. Either Baker knows about all of the bad doctrine that came from Branham and just doesn’t care saying “he was misunderstood”. Or he doesn’t know some SERIOUS issues about the man he said was the most anointed person since Jesus Christ. Rolland cannot be left off the hook on that.
From the sound of much of Branham’s work, I can’t say the whole “loved and taught” swing would work for him. Especially after his claims of heavenly visitations.
Also, I never called Rolland a heretic. That was not my final conclusion. My final conclusion was that Branham is a heretic, and Rolland is promoting Branham. So from that we can give caution to the thousands who just love the Bakers.
So, as far as Branham goes, I am not afraid to say that his teaching against the trinity, and his teaching of faith by works… were satanic.
I can’t say I’ve heard the flat out gospel from the Bakers, I also haven’t listened to many hours of their teachings. But something that I have heard is the weird laughter and travailing. I don’t know what you think about that, but if anything, they scare me. I am familiar with the Kathryn Kuhlman, “Oh it’s so simple” thing, then the roll into the Holy Spirit heebeejeebees.
So, I don’t see a huge difference in my comparison of Oprah and the Bakers. CS, I know that you are a smart person, you got what I was implying. Mostly, just because somebody is a sweetie pie, and does good things in Africa, it doesn’t give them the heresy hall pass.
Also, on the whole numbers of who Branham healed, and who he got converted, does it really matter if they all went on thinking that baptism saves them, and denying the Trinity. I know that at most of those revivals, he probably didn’t teach that. But what should we learn from Branham’s falsehood? That just because somebody is a heretic, they can still get people healed and converted?
Only God knows.
April 27, 2008 at
Devin
i would shudder to think that is what we could learn from branham. but here is the way i see it. if you have a doctorate in theology or heck even a masters or an associates in biblical studies then it is a stretch to say its not in my grid somewhere. i agree being a good guy dont get you a heresy hall pass. Gahndi was a good guy and he liked jesus. but lets bring this closer to home. by all historical accounts Arios was a very energetic and likable guy. and over half of the church leaned toward his views. It just a few that withstood him like this 27 year old punk named Athenasius . i mean what did he know any way and Arius was such a nice guy. or pelagius he was incredibly popular and whenever he was confronted for his teaching would either refuse to answer or say you misunderstood what he was saying. he was picking up speed until a few north African bishops withstood him. and what did they get for their trouble? public censure from the bishop of Rome who saw no heresy in what pelagius taught. if not for this guy from hippo we might have no doctrine of atonement to fight for. the cult of personality is a strong one and all to often those who stand against false teachers look like ogres and nit pickers. this is the truth of history even and especially within the church. those who will cry heretic had better be prepared to also in the words of Shakespeare cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. simply because a good heretic knows how to hide within just enough ambiguity to seem not all wrong all the time and maybe just right enough to let the heresy go because they are personally so cool. i could give a whole lot more examples but i think you get the point.
April 27, 2008 at
Here are some very tellling quotes I found from Willilam Branham from the following link. I know nothing about this website, so I am not recommending it. I just found these quotes very informative.
http://www.oaim.org/latterdayrain.html
Branham: “What is God? God is a great Eternal. At the beginning, way back before there was a beginning, he wasn’t even God. Did you know that? A god is an object of worship, and there wasn’t nothing to worship him; He lived alone. And in him was attributes. What is an attribute? A thought.” (The Spoken Word, Vol. 3, p. 79)
Branham; (Speaking of Christ) “In Jn.1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and was God. and the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us. Now, in the beginning was the word. A word is thought expressed. In the beginning He wasn’t even God.” (THE MIGHTY GOD UNVEILED BEFORE US, p.11)
Branham: “The Holy Spirit is the ‘Word-Manifested Thought’.” (W. M. Branham, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, p. 155).
Branham: -”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt with us . . . ” God dwelt with us in flesh. He was the Word. Before a word it’s a thought, and a thought has to be created. All right, so God’s thoughts became creation when it was spoke by a word. That is when He presents it to you as a thought, your thought, and it is revealed to you, then it is still a thought until you speak it. “(The Revelation of the Seven Seals p.242)
Branham: “MY REVELATION by the Holy Spirit is: Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the self same person, only in a different form… I Now, that is one of the mysteries of the last days, how that Christ can be the three persons in One. It is not three different people–Father, Son, and Holy Ghost–being three gods as the trinitarians try to tell us it is. It’s three manifestations of the same Person, or you might call it three offices….Notice now, the Holy Spirit and the revelation and Christ is another form That’s right. ” (The Revelation of the Seven Seals, p.156-157)
Branham; “In them days it was God in a man, His Son, Jesus Christ. We believe that. Not just a prophet, not just an ordinary man, ordinary human, It was God In Christ, God, in a man, the fullness of the Godhead bodily In a man. God, in a man; now, it’s God in men. See? The fullness of God in the Godhead bodily in His entire Church, manifesting Himself, fulfilling His Word.” (THE MIGHTY GOD UNVEILED BEFORE US, p.20 ).
This is not the God of the Bible he is talking about. And note the manifest sons teaching in the last quote where the church is equated with Christ. If these things don’t make a man a heretic, I don’t know what does.
April 27, 2008 at
People who support Branham’s ministry are either ignorant or heretical. Those are the only two choices. Branham’s message was sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. I could not label fellowship with a willing Branham supporter Christian fellowship.
April 27, 2008 at
Anyone know info about the claim that everyone Branham prayed for was healed? Thats a large claim for 20 years of public healing meetings.
Also I watched a film clip of Branhams ministry - Looked very familiar to those in the conference circuits of today. I remember at conferences being told this is a new this and new that etc. etc. - and 60 years old/new?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2iQyTFfZbc
April 27, 2008 at
I don’t know if I should put this here or on ask away. Since we have been discussing Branham here, guess I’ll put it here.
I hope I’m not repeating an observation already made somewhere that I missed. But I find it very interesting that Todd Bentley, that has been discussed quite extensively on the other thread, claims to have seen the angel called “Healing Revival” that God told him worked with john Lake, William Branham, and John Knox in the past. God told him that means that there is to be a renewing of the healing revival now like there was in Branham’s time. I don’t know much about John Knox, but I do know John Lake had a lot of far off doctrines too.
Since we all agree that Branham was pretty heretical, what does this association alone say for Todd Bentley? Any thoughts on that one?
April 27, 2008 at
cheryl u.,
Look here:
http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/todd-bentley-ministering-in-auburndalelakeland-florida/#comment-5080
April 28, 2008 at
Here’s a post from signofjonah from about a year ago on Branham:
http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/false-doctrine-i-know-its-ugly-but-can-we-keep-it/
April 28, 2008 at
Has anyone read the stuff that Zack Hensley has written about the Lakeland ‘revival’ and Todd Bentley the neo-Branhamite? I threw-up a little in my mouth when I read it. Psychotic syncretism is starting to characterize the radical charismatic sects. I don’t care how many x-rays are produced–working under the power of ‘Branham’s angel’ denotes a deviant agenda. I just don’t know anymore. I probably shouldn’t be surprised. Whatever. I was just really disturbed to see this stuff on Zack’s blog.
http://zackhensley.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/revival-in-lakeland/
April 28, 2008 at
nat
man. thats intense. really like ol Zack. so i’ll be prayin and talkin at him. its so hard to think that we lived in that world of offended minds and revealed hearts. man i wish i had a video tape i could show folks. cause when that heart gets revealed it never turns out good. God protect us from deception and give us grace to discern truth from lie.
April 28, 2008 at
It all begs the question, should we pursue and follow the power or should we pursue and follow the truth? Power and truth are certainly not mutually exclusive (see Jesus, apostles, etc.). However, what do we do when we come across a man that demonstrates such seemingly divine power but veers substantially from the truth? For me, and I would be interested to hear what the rest of you think in the context of Mr. Branham and his ilk, my belief in supernatural healings, signs, and wonders is foundational to my belief in false prophets and powerful deceivers. Unless one man’s snake eats another man’s snake (see Moses and Pharoah’s magicians), it is difficult to discern the real deal, because whether something supernatural happens is not the only threshold test to being “of God”. I would posit that the difference between a prophet and a false prophet is not the prophet part but the false part. The same holds true to miracle workers and those producing signs and wonders.
April 28, 2008 at
I was just reading Matthew 7:15-23
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Verse 20 leaps at me whenever I read this. It would be interesting to see what fruit, other than the healings of late, Todd Bentley’s ministry has produced and then weigh it out. I am checking this out and will share anything I find.
I am very cautious to label this either way. I know what my discernment gut says, and I need a Tums. With that said, I have some friends that are taking their father who has cancer, to Lakeland. All the hype aside, I pray that their father is healed. It is my hope he comes back restored.
Blessings
April 28, 2008 at
chuck scott,
Yes, it will be interesting to see the fruit later on down the road; but, there is bad fruit even today. The bad fruit of false doctrine, lack of reverence for God, lack of the gospel being preached, etc. This whole thing has a shaky foundation to say the least.
As I pointed out on another blog — why is Bentley “anointing” people who have already been healed? I watched a bit on godtv on the web; and, he calls those who’ve been healed down to the stage, they give brief testimonies, then BAM! he slays ‘em. And, there are quite a few times that he BAMs ‘em in midsentence. Some he even BAMs more than once — the ones who jerk the most or make the most noise. And, Bentley does it with this grin on his face.
Go with your gut.
April 28, 2008 at
chuck scott,
The verses in Matthew 7 that always jump out at me are 22 and 23 where people talke about all the wonders they have done in His name and He says He never knew them. I remember in the not so distant past reading those verses and not being able to figure out how such a thing could be. In the last few years with all I have seen going on in the supposedly Christian world, it is no longer a mystery to me.
April 28, 2008 at
>As I pointed out on another blog — why is Bentley “anointing” people who have already been healed?
Prescreened and with handlers. Because that’s how Jesus did it.
April 28, 2008 at
I know people are said to receive healings in the Mormon church and from occult practices in other religious settings. Does anyone know a good resource that documents any of these things? Since all the healings being done are one of the standard things folks fall back on to say “it has to be of God”, I think it would be good to have some solid proof to the contrary.
April 28, 2008 at
Cheryl,
I’m with you on Matthew 7:22-23. Supernatural in not only God.
Just googled ‘the class on miracles’ plenty of examples.
Here’s one I read the first couple of paragraphs:
http://www.summum.us/potpourri/miracles/dying.shtm
April 28, 2008 at
Cheryl,
I’m with you on the Matthew 7:22-23.
The supernatural is not only God - that is why we are to test the spirits from 1 John 4:1-16.
Just did a google search - lots and lots there. Key words used were class or course, miracles. It gives me the creeps looking at that stuff!
April 28, 2008 at
Are you guys reading my mind?
I am sure that this is the logical progression here, but I keep asking myself, “Can satan heal?”.
I have heard about non christian faith healers but cannot find anything to support it.
Anybody have any info?
April 28, 2008 at
Ward is right. The willingness to claim kinship with William Branham’s ministry, annointing, and ‘angel’ are key elements which mark Bentley as heterodox. The fact that he may have power simply serves as further indictment in my mind, not corroborative evidence.
April 28, 2008 at
Chuck,
Good to see you chime in man. Here’s something for starters: http://in.geocities.com/healmohan/Hindu.html
But, there’s plenty more where this came from.
April 28, 2008 at
Thanks for the last link, Nat. The similarities between this man’s healing techniques and what we often see in third wave circles today is startling.
April 28, 2008 at
I am new, first time to comment.
Miracles by LDS
read this
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0371759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
April 28, 2008 at
Bill, you slay me
April 30, 2008 at
There are (at least) two senses of the word “heretic.” The first, objective sense is one in which a heretic is anyone who teaches heretical doctrine. In that sense, I concur that Branham was a heretic.
However, I prefer a second, moral sense of the word that defines a heretic as someone who knowingly and unrepentantly teaches heretical doctrine. It’s not clear to me that Branham was a heretic in this sense. I see in his sermons a commitment to the authority of the Bible and a openness to challenge of his (badly mistaken) interpretations of Scripture.
Nat said it well. Anyone who teaches as Branham did is either ignorant or a heretic. I don’t think we can say for sure which of these terms best applies to Branham. Possibly, they both apply.
tgc, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. You were clear. I was objecting to a possible implication of the reasoning you offered.
devin, my research indicates that Branham fell into doctrinal error only near the end of his career. Some of his peers go so far as to suggest that God took Branham home to shut down the errors he had begun to promulgate. His peers more or less disfellowshipped him in his later years. The resulting isolation, unfortunately, seemed to accelerate and deepen his doctrinal slide. For those reasons, I don’t see any reason to question the fruit of the earlier years of Branham’s career in which he worked as an evangelist and left the teaching to others.
All my quibbles concerning Rolland’s statement aside, I agree there is a recent excess of unqualified approving statements of Branham. The most concerning statement I’ve noticed to date occurs approximately 6 minutes into the video titled “Patricia King–Lakeland Revival” available at http://www.extremeprophetic.com/articles_teachings_extreme_moments_video.htm.
I heard Todd Bentley express admiration for Branham a week or so ago. Subsequently, I visited Todd’s chat room and read that one participant had just obtained Branham’s sermons and was looking forward to auditing them. I tried to post a warning message but I never saw it appear on the chat room log. I am concerned that theology-laden comments may be censored by the chat-room moderators. I am very disturbed that folks who may not be able to discern Branham’s errors may be led into his teachings by the approving statements of prominent figures, such as Todd and Patricia.
April 30, 2008 at
From what I have read, I get the definite impression that Branham’s doctrine was off from the beginning but that it became increasing worse as time went on. The link below has an interview done with Ern Baxter in New Wine Magazine years ago. He worked with Branham from 1947 to 1953 or 54 when he said he had to leave because he was saying, “some seriously wrong things”, by that time. He said he was aware that there was a mixture from early in his ministry. Ern Baxter’s theology was way off if I’m not mistaken, so if he thought Branham was really bad–I can only imagine!
Here is the link:
http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/false-doctrine-i-know-its-ugly-but-can-we-keep-it/#respond
See the comment by Richard on 6-11-07.
April 30, 2008 at
Cheryl, that’s a very interesting account. Thanks for the link.
Accepted at face value, it seems to indicate that Branham was ignorant and had bad theology from the beginning. It also seems to indicate that those around him had kept him from teaching so that his errors wouldn’t be discovered/communicated. What the account seems to add is that he was privately in error long before his errors became public.
I’ll study the account further and try to corroborate it. But, I don’t see any obvious reason to question its credibility. It seems to be a primary source.
April 30, 2008 at
Here is another link regarding Branham:
http://www.faithtabcullman.com/index.php?p=1_16
This is a short biography from a source that very much approves his ministry. Notice the “word” he received in 1933 telling him his message would forerun the second coming of Christ in the same way John the Baptist’s message foreran his first coming.
And again it is noted that from the mid fifties onward, he became more vocal about his beliefs.
For any one that doesn’t know, the “serpent’s seed” doctrine teaches that Satan had sex with Eve in the Garden of Eden and that is how Cain was born. It also has many racist implications.
May 1, 2008 at
Cheryl, I don’t find the article at #38 as credible as the earlier one. The site seems to be maintained by contemporary fans of Branham (though not the Branhamite cult). These fans would seem to have an axe to grind that could lead them to report supernatural signs intended to accredit Branham that Branham himself might have denied or interpreted differently. I don’t mean to overcorrect for potential bias. My best guess is that they’re credible. But, I’d prefer to do more than guess. Since Branham’s sermons are widely available, I’m hoping to find more information there and in the Voice of Healing, another primary source.
Meanwhile, I think I’ve tracked the origin of Patricia King’s provocative comments to a March 2008 conference titled “Honoring the Fathers,” sponsored by Rick Joyner’s MorningStar ministry. There, Paul Keith Davis spoke on Branham in a talk titled “Honoring the Life of William Branham,” in which he claimed there was little in Branham’s theology that can’t stand up to scrutiny, a claim most here would summarily reject. In his talk, Davis didn’t appear to offer evidence in support of his claim. But, I continue to listen to all his sessions, just to be sure he didn’t return to the topic of Branham.
May 1, 2008 at
Notice the “word” he received in 1933 telling him his message would forerun the second coming of Christ in the same way John the Baptist’s message foreran his first coming.
This is the same thing IHOP/modern prophetic/NAR believes. In fact, they believe Jesus Christ CAN’T return until our part is done. That is how they promote Dominionism.
For any one that doesn’t know, the “serpent’s seed” doctrine teaches that Satan had sex with Eve in the Garden of Eden and that is how Cain was born. It also has many racist implications.
IIRC, Branham was also somewhat if not overtly sexist believing most women evil seductresses based on this same doctrine.
May 1, 2008 at
Derek Prince on Branham:
Then there was William Branham. I had a little association with William Branham at the closing period of his ministry. I was on the same platform with him two or three times with the Full Gospel Businessmen. William Branham had, in some ways, one of the most remarkable ministries that I know of. He was a very gentle, humble, loving man. His ministry of the word of knowledge was absolutely legendary. No one ever heard Branham give one false word of knowledge.
I was with him in a meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. He was on the platform and he picked out a woman in the audience and he said, “Now, you’re not here for yourself. You’re here for your grandson.” And then he told her her name and her exact street address in New York City. They were about 2,000 miles away from New York City at the time.
Unfortunately, after exercising his gift two or three times, he just collapsed and his men came and gathered him up and carried him away. He explained that by the statement of Jesus that “power has gone out of Me.” But Jesus did not collapse. I do not believe that was the Holy Spirit. I believe it was demonic.
Later on I was close friends with Ern Baxter who was, for quite a considerable period, the Bible teacher in Branham’s evangelistic meetings. Ern loved Branham dearly, but his heart was broken over what happened. One day he gathered a small group of us and said, “I want to tell you about Branham. I don’t want you to talk to anybody about it, I just want you to know.”
Now, since all the people concerned have passed from the stage of time, I feel free to share what Ern said about Branham. He said, “Branham had two spirits; one was the Spirit of God, one was not.” At one point they were together and Branham pointed to a light bulb hanging from the ceiling and said, “The power I have can make that bulb move.”
I believe Branham remained in Christ to the very end, but he was taken over by people who wanted to exploit him. Although he did not call himself “Elijah,” he permitted his followers to do so. He was killed through an automobile crash when his car was run into by a drunk driver. His followers embalmed his body to keep him there until Easter Sunday, being convinced that he would be resurrected. He was not.
When he was in the Spirit, under the anointing, he was almost unchallengeable. At one time, a demonized man came to attack him in a meeting. Branham commanded the man to kneel down and stay there until he finished his message. The man stayed kneeling in the same posture for the whole period of Branham’s sermon. But I would have to say his end was … perhaps the best you could say, disappointing.
May 2, 2008 at
Bill, thanks for much for the remarks by D. Prince. Do you know the source in which the remarks were reported? I don’t have any reason to doubt their authenticity. But, neither Google nor Google Books turned up any further context or related comments. I’m curious to read more.
Prince seems to express what I’d call radical ambivalence about Branham. I wish I knew more about Prince’s reasoning. He states his conclusions quite clearly. But, the basis of his conclusions is mainly implicit.
May 6, 2008 at
I have continued to look into the “honoring the fathers” movement that seems likely to be the source of Todd Bentley’s approval of Wm. Branham (though apparently not Rolland Baker’s, which seems to predate the recent up tick in interest in Branham and his contemporaries). In particular, I’ve found that Paul Keith Davis has a message and book titled “Examining the Life of Wm. Branham.” I’ve audited the message and plan to read the book.
In the message, Davis downplays Branham’s theological errors, claiming they appear in only about two of over 1,000 of his sermons. Davis omits mention of Branham’s anti-trinitarianism, though he refers–without much explanation–to the Serpent’s Seed teaching. He labels that teaching as one that he cannot yet receive but doesn’t squarely state it to be in error, as I would insist would have been appropriate and necessary.
Davis’ approval of Branham apparently has its source in Joyner’s book The Final Quest. In the chapter titled “Overcomers” (p. 144 of at least one of the many editions), Joyner recounts (allegedly) meeting Branham in heaven. In the book, Branham is not mentioned by name. However, Davis cites a private conversation in which Joyner confirmed that the account relates to Branham.
The argument for approval is basically this: if God has welcomed Branham into heaven, we should not emphasize his doctrinal errors. In his book, Joyner abstractly refers to Branham’s doctrinal errors. But Davis essentially whitewashes them, IMO. Those who hear or read Davis without other sources of information concerning Branham may tend to uncritically accept his rather optimistic perspective on Branham’s ministry.
I plan to survey Branham’s sermons with a view to evaluating Davis’ claim that very few contain serious error. Based on the seriousness of errors I’ve already seen, I am skeptical that the errors were rare.
At root, this movement to vindicate Branham seems to be the result of preferring subjective revelation (i.e., Joyner’s Final Quest) to theology that has been agreed since the early fourth century.
May 6, 2008 at
My research into Branham’s sermons was much easier than anticipated. Not later than 1954, Branham was teaching anti-trinitarian doctrine (cf. http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=174). I easily found a dozen or more sermons in which he did so.
Therefore, IMO, the only way in which one could accurately claim that Branham’s errors were confined to a few sermons is from an anti-trinitarian perspective. I know that some of the folks inhabiting the New Prophetic space, or whatever one might call it, are Oneness Pentecostals. This view may be more prevalent than I’d supposed (though I claim no knowledge of any particular person’s position on this point, in particular the views of Joyner or Davis).
BTW, I don’t mean to suggest that Branham espoused Oneness. He opposed both Oneness and Trinitarianism. His views on the Trinity seem to me more or less unique.
Leave a Reply