William Branham - what do you make of him?

[markporter]

OK, so I was browsing the apologetics index and came upon the name of William Branham...

There are a number of points that worry me;

- they seem to imply that he was to a degree one of the fathers of the modern charismatic movement

- they also point out a number of worrying issues;
- his modalism
- his dependence on an 'angel' for everything he did
- various spurious revelations regarding various theological topics
- various doctrines that seem very new age

see http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l06.html or http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain3.htm or http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm for a bit more detail.

So I was wondering....

firstly; do you guys think all the stuff he ministered was from God despite his extremely dodgy claims.

and

secondly; does this have any implications for the modern charismatic movement of which I am a part - churches in the UK such as HTB and my home church St Aldates.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Mark,

I'm in a charismatic church too…

- they seem to imply that he was to a degree one of the fathers of the modern charismatic movementThat is possible, at least as far as giving people reason to believe that God heals today.

- they also point out a number of worrying issues;

- his modalismThat is indeed bad.

- his dependence on an 'angel' for everything he didThat doesn't worry me so much, they are indeed ministering spirits, if it was indeed an angel.

do you guys think all the stuff he ministered was from God despite his extremely dodgy claims.I would be concerned, especially if his persistence in doctrinal errors was willful (I'm not sure one way or the other) and if people seemed to become preoccupied with him, and with healing, which it seems did actually happen, though it also seems he tried to deflect the attention to himself, as far as I can tell.

secondly; does this have any implications for the modern charismatic movement of which I am a part - churches in the UK such as HTB and my home church St Aldates.I don't think so! God healing people stands on its own merits, and there are good examples of people with gifts of healing, who are neither wild, nor wooly, except insofar as they are sheep...

Blessings,
Lee

[markporter]

I don't think so! God healing people stands on its own merits, and there are good examples of people with gifts of healing, who are neither wild, nor wooly, except insofar as they are sheep...

Sure, I was thinking of situations like what we get with all the Toronto stuff where Rodney Howard Brown comes to a meeting in Toronto and stuff starts going on there...then the Toronto leaders come to HTB in the UK and stuff starts happening etc. etc. - situations where we seem to get some kind of chain of people in leadership each released into their stuff by someone higher up in the chain.

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Mark,

... we seem to get some kind of chain of people in leadership each released into their stuff by someone higher up in the chain. The miraculous loaves and fishes chain! A different kind of food chain...

I have heard such special moves of the Lord described as waves, my pastor back in Chicago said he was there when the Toronto blessing started, in a pastor's meeting, though some (as you mention) would point to Rodney Howard-Brown.

But even if we view it as a continuous chain, there are people before the healing movement that William Branham was associated with (A.B. SImpson, wasn't he before that era?) and people within the movement of Branham's time who had similar gifts, and who did better doctrinally, and in not becoming so adulated, Paul Cain comes to mind, who, as you are probably aware, is still ministering. Branham did consider Paul Cain his successor, I have heard, and yet Paul's gits and ministry came to him quite independently of any contact with Mr. Branham.

And the chain of healing in the Christian church started with Peter saying "Get up and walk!" Actually, it started with Jesus, who even promised "greater works, because I am going to the Father," so what we have seen is not to be compared with what will happen eventually!

Blessings,
Lee

[markporter]

Hi again, Mark,

The miraculous loaves and fishes chain! A different kind of food chain...

I have heard such special moves of the Lord described as waves, my pastor back in Chicago said he was there when the Toronto blessing started, in a pastor's meeting, though some (as you mention) would point to Rodney Howard-Brown.

But even if we view it as a continuous chain, there are people before the healing movement that William Branham was associated with (A.B. SImpson, wasn't he before that era?) and people within the movement of Branham's time who had similar gifts, and who did better doctrinally, and in not becoming so adulated, Paul Cain comes to mind, who, as you are probably aware, is still ministering. Branham did consider Paul Cain his successor, I have heard, and yet Paul's gits and ministry came to him quite independently of any contact with Mr. Branham.

And the chain of healing in the Christian church started with Peter saying "Get up and walk!" Actually, it started with Jesus, who even promised "greater works, because I am going to the Father," so what we have seen is not to be compared with what will happen eventually!

Blessings,
Lee

Yeah, I guess the chain thing perhaps isn't as real as it may first appear, a lot of stuff did occur independently, and then perhaps people would minister at each others churches etc. alongside that or were influenced in a more subtle way by reading testimonies etc.

____

Hmm, came across one more slightly disturbing claim in reference to his ministry;


Another evidence is the fact that neither Edwards nor Branham were able to perform cures when faced with born-again Christians who had committed themselves to the protection of Christ. In the case of Branham, I have experienced this myself. When he spoke in Karlsruhe and Lausanne, there were several believers among the audience -- including myself -- who prayed along these lines: "Lord, if this man's powers are from You, then bless and use him, but if the healing gifts are not from You, then hinder him." The result? On both occasions Branham said from the platform, "There are disturbing powers here. I can do nothing."

I guess there are probably ways of dismissing it, not sure though.

[Sparko]

I actually know William Branham's grandson, Paul. His family runs a tape ministry called Voice of God in Jeffersonville, Indiana, where they sell tapes and videos of William's radio sermons and speeches.

Paul is a pretty nice guy and seems to be a nice ordinary Christian until you dig into their beliefs. They do have some strange unorthodox beliefs.

You can go to www.branham.org (http://www.branham.org) to look through their stuff.

Some of the strange unorthodox stuff they believe:

1. William Branham was one of the two witnesses fortold in Revelation (That is why they sell his tapes and call it Voice of God. they consider W. Branham to be Elijah the prophet)

2. They do not believe in the Trinity, or at least have a twisted view of it.

3. They think the original sin, the eating of the fruit in the garden of eden, was not literally eating fruit, but a euphamism for Adam and Eve having sex.

[lee_merrill]

Well, that is disturbing, and certainly wrong in doctrine, and I don't think Branham was Elijah, either.

And as far as Mr. Koch's testimony of "I can do nothing," it seems the same thing happened with him and Kathryn Kuhlman (http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/kuhlman.htm):

A third experience made me begin to have doubts. It was during a personal interview with Kathryn. She suddenly began to pray with me. She held her hands about six inches above my head. At once I began to pray in my heart, "Lord Jesus, if this woman gets her power from You, then bless both her and me. If she has gifts and power which do not come from You, protect me from them. I do not want to come under an alien influence." While Kathryn was praying, two ushers came and stood behind me to catch me as I fell. I felt nothing, however, and stood like a rock without losing my consciousness in the least. Then came a second surprise. Kathryn nudged me gently, probably in order to make me fall. She did not succeed. Then she asked me, "Do you have a healing ministry yourself?" I answered, "In my pastoral counseling it has happened occasionally, but that is not my calling: my task is to preach the Gospel and bring people to salvation."

Since this experience, I have for years kept my eyes and ears open to try to discover the truth behind these enormous healing demonstrations.

Maybe he meant going up for prayer in a meeting was a personal interview. But if that was what he did, then her suddenly beginning to pray would not be notable. But a real personal interview with two ushers is rather unusual, too. I don't know, but maybe I have my eyes and ears open about Mr. Koch! Especially if he puts Kathryn Kuhlman in the same boat with William Branham.

And especially, if he says "since this experience," implying that was when he began to doubt, except! William Branham certainly ministered before Kathryn did, and he had the same experience there. But maybe he didn't realize the implication, until Kathryn prayed for him. Maybe...

Blessings,
Lee

[Preacherman]

after reading thru the posts, and at risk of getting bashed, I will say unequivocally that W. Branham was a flake...very decieved, and in my opinion, willfully decieved people.....
but i will caution...: in light of the warnings in the bible about turning from the truth, and accepting a lie...then God sending more deception...ie: 2 Thess...

just be careful, a little poison, well it can be fatal.

[markporter]

The Kuhlman incident doesn't bother me so much TBH, I don't think it really reflects on her ministry, although I don't know what implications it has for Koch

[kenod]

These days there is a diversity of groups claiming to follow what William Branham taught, and consequently there are many misunderstandings of what he really said.

Even though I have obtained two university degrees through 8 years study, I find there is a deeper truth in the simplicity of this man's words than in all the theological treatises I have ever read.

A study of Rev chapters 2 & 3, along with church history, convinced me that God's plan has been unfolding historically over the past 2000 years. The role of men such as Martin Luther and John Wesley has been pivotal in the development of our understanding of the Scriptures.

Now that we are all so well educated, it is difficult for us to accept that God could use a man to restore truth to the Church today.

Why do I believe that William Branham was such a man? Well, it's a combination of factors really:
1. His role in the spread of penetcostal/charismatic teaching;
2. His ministry of verified supernatural manifestation;
3. His interpretation of the Scriptures, particularly the book of The Revelation;
4. The degree of animosity his ministry evokes;
5. His humble, honest life;
6. An inner conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Here are two interesting sites - the first written by a supporter, the second by a critic.

http://www.bibleway.org/wmb/default.asp

http://www.christianword.org/revival/healing.html
(scroll down to: "The Enigma of William Branham")

Here is another very critical site:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b05.html

But even here the admission is made that: "Branham worked astounding miracles of healing in his crusades. To this day his gifts of supernatural knowledge of those to whom he ministered remains unparalleled, even among modern healing evangelists".

So many of the objections to William Branham's ministry are just plain silly when one takes time to understand what he was really saying.

I have studied the Message of William Branham for some years now, and I have never found an objection that would stand up under close scrutiny.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

William Branham was utterly vicious in his attacks on the Trinity. Without shame he boldly declared that "Trinitarianism is of the devil. I say that, and thus saith the Lord!" He offered numerous similar statements.

It does trouble me that a number of Pentecostals/Charismatics who gained noteriety in the 90s (such as Kenneth Copeland and Rodney Howard Browne) make it clear that they look up to Branham as a great man of God. But then, Howard Browne and Kenneth Copeland have their fair share of serious problems quite apart from that...

[kenod]

[QUOTE=Theonomy]William Branham was utterly vicious in his attacks on the Trinity. Without shame he boldly declared that "Trinitarianism is of the devil. I say that, and thus saith the Lord!" He offered numerous similar statements.
QUOTE]

It is true that William Branham was strongly opposed to traditional Trinitarian teaching. There is little point in debating the Scriptures concerning the Godhead, because we all know them so well, but it is helpful to know that Brother Branham did not teach that Jesus was a created being. He taught that Jesus was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9); that the Father dwelt in Him; that He was fully human and fully divine.

I find that many Christians intuitively believe the same when you speak to them at a deeper level. Very few expect to arrive in Heaven and see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - they expect to see Jesus. Most do not have a relationship with the Holy Spirit as a separate "Person" - they know that the Holy Spirit is God's spirit, and was the same spirit that dwelt in Jesus Christ.

John 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[jason]

OK, so I was browsing the apologetics index and came upon the name of William Branham...
One word to describe him, and that word is wackjob.

I was seduced by one of his followers when I was a young christian.

- they seem to imply that he was to a degree one of the fathers of the modern charismatic movement
I wouldn't know. He was clearly "charismatic" in nature though, even if not a father of the movement. He was of the "tent revival healer" types who left a lot of sick people who later died after being "healed" in his wake. He also looks like he was quite the pseudo-occultist.

firstly; do you guys think all the stuff he ministered was from God despite his extremely dodgy claims.
No I don't think so. I think he was an under educated country boy who was possible misled by the evil one. Which is harsh, but I fear accurate.

secondly; does this have any implications for the modern charismatic movement of which I am a part - churches in the UK such as HTB and my home church St Aldates.
Maybe. Do the follow the teachings of this nutball ? If so then you have a problem.

Jason

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It is true that William Branham was strongly opposed to traditional Trinitarian teaching. There is little point in debating the Scriptures concerning the Godhead, because we all know them so well, but it is helpful to know that Brother Branham did not teach that Jesus was a created being. He taught that Jesus was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9); that the Father dwelt in Him; that He was fully human and fully divine.Oh, I realise that. That's because Branham was a modalist, who taught that Jesus and the Father are the same person.

[kenod]

Oh, I realise that. That's because Branham was a modalist, who taught that Jesus and the Father are the same person.

Well, not really, because then Jesus would be his own father - William Branham taught that the Father dwelt in, and was revealed through, the human body called Jesus. God (not the second person of the Trinity) came down and lived in Christ. "I and my father are one" (John 10:30) "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10)

This article is written from a Trinitarian perspective but outlines Modalism quite well: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a63.htm

In part it states: "Actually, what the Trinity doctrine teaches is that while the three Persons are distinct as Persons, they are not separate Beings, but aspects of one Being, which is God. Just as the three dimensions of space are aspects of one space even though they are distinct as dimensions, so the three Persons of the Trinity are aspects of one God even though they are distinct as Persons."

While that may sound quite good from an intellectual perspective (to some at least), the average Christian does not relate to God through an intellectual faith, but a faith that is wrapped in feeling and emotion, especially when the going is tough! A rote definition of the Trinity does nothing to bring us closer to God. Ask a Christian to describe his personal relationship with the Holy Spirit and you'll see what I mean.

[kenod]

I was seduced by one of his followers when I was a young christian.

While you continue to use words like 'wackjob' and 'nutball', some people will think that you are still a young Christian, Jason.

Here's a tip: Pick a point, give some evidence, then express an opinion - minus the juvenile gibes.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, not really, because then Jesus would be his own father - No, that's incorrect. While modalism teaches that Jesus and the Father are the same person, it doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father. Rather it teaches that Jesus and the Father are two different expressions of the same one person. In other words, Jesus Christ was not a person distinct from the Father, but was a human expresson of the Father.
William Branham taught that the Father dwelt in, and was revealed through, the human body called Jesus. God (not the second person of the Trinity) came down and lived in Christ. "I and my father are one" (John 10:30) "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10)Yes, I'm familiar with the way modalists use such texts to deny the Trinity.
In part it states: "Actually, what the Trinity doctrine teaches is that while the three Persons are distinct as Persons, they are not separate Beings, but aspects of one Being, which is God. Just as the three dimensions of space are aspects of one space even though they are distinct as dimensions, so the three Persons of the Trinity are aspects of one God even though they are distinct as Persons."A person can write an article to define Trinitarianism any way they like. The fact is, it has already been defined. The Father Son and Spirit are totally distinct people who completely share one essence. To attempt to confuse the people or to attempt to divide the essence or nature is heresy.
While that may sound quite good from an intellectual perspective (to some at least), the average Christian does not relate to God through an intellectual faith, but a faith that is wrapped in feeling and emotion, especially when the going is tough! A rote definition of the Trinity does nothing to bring us closer to God. Ask a Christian to describe his personal relationship with the Holy Spirit and you'll see what I mean.I wouldn't ask such a question. But that same Christian, while he might be fuzzy on the details, does not say that Trinitarianism is of the devil. Not understanding the details clearly might be harmless enough. Denying them intentionally is not.

[kenod]

No, that's incorrect. While modalism teaches that Jesus and the Father are the same person, it doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father. Rather it teaches that Jesus and the Father are two different expressions of the same one person. In other words, Jesus Christ was not a person distinct from the Father, but was a human expresson of the Father.

I can accept that as a fair assessment of what William Branham taught, as long as it is understood that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

The Father Son and Spirit are totally distinct people who completely share one essence.

And I accept that as a fair assessment of the Trinitarian view. In my view though that is three gods, and idolatry.


Obviously the Jewish understanding of the OT view of God did not encompass a Trinity. In the NT, we are told that the Scriptures contain things “hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:16) , and Jesus Himself said the Truth is hidden from the “wise and prudent” (Mat 11:25) and “revealed unto babes”. Many scholars believe that the literal text of the Bible can support either a Trinitarian or Oneness interpretation. Just like a juror on a jury, we will find some evidence more convincing than other evidence. We will also be influenced by the theology in which we have been raised and trained. In other words, we will see what we look for.

The history of the Trinitarian view is rather suspect, with various councils enforcing this view on the church, which at times, executed those who disagreed with this doctrine. The role of Constantine the Great in the early church, and the first Nicaea Council is also cause for concern.

None of these things in themselves is proof, of course, but should be sufficient for us to look again at what we had handed to us by the Roman Catholic church.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm certainly not about to have a debate about whether or not the Trinity is true. It is what my religion teaches, and I consider it necessary for Christianity. If somebody denies it, I will leave him to his own religion. No offence, and I'm sure you sympathise with that approach (although the other way around).And I accept that as a fair assessment of the Trinitarian view. In my view though that is three gods, and idolatry.I cannjot understand how one can conceive of three gods with only one essence, but so be it. I realise that is how modalists see the Trinity.
Obviously the Jewish understanding of the OT view of God did not encompass a Trinity.It could certainly "encompass" a Trinity, since I consider the idea of a Trinity to be a further refinemnt of monotheism, adding deatils rather than changing them.
Many scholars believe that the literal text of the Bible can support either a Trinitarian or Oneness interpretation.Yes, some honestly and sincerely believe the Bible contains contrary statements abt God. I do not.
Just like a juror on a jury, we will find some evidence more convincing than other evidence. We will also be influenced by the theology in which we have been raised and trained. In other words, we will see what we look for.That is certainly true a lot of the time, yes.
The history of the Trinitarian view is rather suspect, with various councils enforcing this view on the church, which at times, executed those who disagreed with this doctrine. The role of Constantine the Great in the early church, and the first Nicaea Council is also cause for concern.I sympathise with that, but for two things: Firstly to allow those facts to weigh against the truth of the Trinity is the genetic fallacy. And secondly, if Arinaism or Modalism had won out, the same would have been done to the Trinitarians. Constantine will be constantine. :wink:
None of these things in themselves is proof, of course, but should be sufficient for us to look again at what we had handed to us by the Roman Catholic church.Roman Catholics believe that theirs was the church of the first few centuries, and so whatever teaching emerges from that time is "ROman Catholic" teaching. I do not believe that the church of the first few centuries was Roman Catholic, and the Trinity was, as best I can tell, the view that was held in those years over and above competing views of God. I understand that there were not as many detailed statements made, just as there were not as many statements made about, say, healing or prophecy as the statements that the church made later. But I would certainly never yield to the claim that the doctrine is a Roman Catholic one, or that Roman Catholicism gave us the doctrine. Roman Catholicism received it along the road.

[kenod]

I cannot understand how one can conceive of three gods with only one essence, but so be it. I realise that is how modalists see the Trinity.

Take a block of wood and carve three figures out of it - same substance but three different figures ... three idols, if you worship them.

Ask the average Christian to define "essence" and see what he/she says ... or doesn't say.

Christianity is a religion the common people can understand - it is not the preserve of theologians who know a lot of tricky definitions.

[Gottfried]

Hallo Mark,

So I was wondering....

firstly; do you guys think all the stuff he ministered was from God despite his extremely dodgy claims.

Yes, I believe that everything he ministered was of God. I believe his doctrine.

and

secondly; does this have any implications for the modern charismatic movement of which I am a part - churches in the UK such as HTB and my home church St Aldates.

Oh! It has major implications for your church and all churches! William Branham indicted all churches on charges of crucifying Jesus Christ the second time.

And I want to kind of use it more like if it was like a room of a courtroom, where there was... And after all, the pulpit and the church is a courtroom. The Bible said, "It's a judgment seat, that--that it must begin at the house of the Lord." And this is like the--the throne and the--and the jury, and the witnesses, and so forth. And I have, today, for my witness, is God's Word. And my indictment is against the churches of today. Now I--I'm not bringing the sinner into this. I'm just speaking this to the church. And it's--it's to be in the--the--the tapes now, and I--I'll try to get through as quick as I can. I indict this generation for the second crucifixion of Jesus Christ.-William Branham, The indictment, 7 July, 1963Here is one reason why they are indicted and found guilty.

And today there is not a reader that cannot read Acts 2:38 the same as I can read It, and the rest of It, just the same as I can read It. But because of their creeds, and because of their denominational tickets that they got in their pocket, the marks of the beast that they're packing around as fellowship cards; and taking those things, they crucify to themselves Jesus Christ afresh, and crucify Him before the public, and blaspheme the very God that promised to do This, bringing damnation upon the race.
Now, there, "they," not the sinner. "They," that is, the church of that day, they found fault with the Man Who was the Word. Is that right? They found fault with the Man Who was the Word. Now they find fault with the Word working through the man. See, they just vice versa it. Which, is in the person, This, the Holy Spirit is working through, is God's vindication. - William Branham, The indictment, 7 July, 1963Acts 2:38 reads that we must be baptised (immersed) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; yet, churches baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and others in the name of Jesus Only, and some probably don't even baptise.

[Gottfried]

Hallo Sparko,

I also believe William Branham's Message.


Some of the strange unorthodox stuff they believe:

1. William Branham was one of the two witnesses fortold in Revelation (That is why they sell his tapes and call it Voice of God. they consider W. Branham to be Elijah the prophet)


I just want to make a correction to your statement above. We do not believe that William Branham was one of the witnesses of Revelation 11. The two witnesses are Moses and Elijah or two men with the spirits of Moses and Elijah. The Elijah of Revelation 11 is not William Branham. William Branham is the angel to the Laodiean Church Age and the seventh angel of Revelation 10:7. He is the Elijah of Malachi 4:5. You must have misunderstood Paul Branham.

Geoffrey

[Gottfried]

Hallo Jack,

It does trouble me that a number of Pentecostals/Charismatics who gained noteriety in the 90s (such as Kenneth Copeland and Rodney Howard Browne) make it clear that they look up to Branham as a great man of God. But then, Howard Browne and Kenneth Copeland have their fair share of serious problems quite apart from that...

Kenneth Copeland and Howard Browne are false anointed ones as per Matthew 24:24. I know this because their doctrine is contrary to that brought by the vindicated prophet, William Branham. If they really looked up to him, they would have preached the same doctrine, because a great man of God is one who teaches sound doctrine. They're lying and have nothing to do with William Branham.

Geoffrey

[Gottfried]

Hallo Jack,

Oh, I realise that. That's because Branham was a modalist, who taught that Jesus and the Father are the same person.

Have you read or listened to some of William Branham's sermons?

He did not teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person. He taught that they are two separate persons. During the ministry of three and a half years, the one person, the Father, was in the other person, Jesus. That is how they were one. They were one in the sense that they occupied the same body of flesh.

Also, bear in mind that the:

Father's name is Jesus and the the firstborn inherited the Father's name.
Son is not God. Only the Father is God.
Holy Spirit is the FatherHere is what William Branham said:


Look. When He was here on earth, how many knows that that was the Pillar of Fire that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness, that It was Christ, the Angel of the covenant? All right. And how many knows that that was Jesus in Jesus, that same Spirit? - William Branham, We Would See Jesus, 12 June 1958
Here is another quotation:


He said, "For My..." That's the reason people couldn't understand Him. Sometime it was Christ speaking... or was the Son speaking. Other times it was the Father speaking. He was a dual person. He was one Man, the Son. God was in him, which was tabernacling in Him.- William Branham, Jehovah Jireh, 29 April 1956
William Branham did not teach Oneness Theology. He said so explicitly on several occasions. Neither did he teach the Trinity.

Geoffrey