Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham

In December 2019, as a result of another well-respected message minister announcing that he was leaving the message, a few message ministers issued statements attempting to defend William Branham and his message. To date, it has been rare for pastors in the message to address the issues and questions that we and others have brought to the attention of those in the message. As a result, we want to respond to these "defenses" not as a challenge to the authors but rather to inform interested readers of the other side of the issues involved so that you, our readers, can arrive at your own conclusions. We would also be interested in entering into a dialogue on this subject with any of the authors. Each "defense" is included at the bottom of the article.

If you are aware of any additional defenses of the message by message minisers, please let us know and we will attempt to respond.

In summary, the purpose of this series of articles is to present a reasoned response to these "defenses".

Click on the link below to go to the specific topic. You are currently in the article that is in bold.

By way of introduction, we as editors should state our bias upfront. Some of us interacted with Tim Pruitt when we were in the message as he visited our assembly occasionally. We also interacted with him directly when the leadership of our church (3 associate ministers, all of the trustees and 10 out of 11 of the deacons) asked for the resignation of our pastor as the result of a discovery that he had covered up the sexual abuse of a minor and had been dishonest in his communications with the board of the church.

Tim Pruitt's reaction was simply to defend the pastor. He did no work to ascertain the facts nor why we, as part of the leadership of the church, had asked for the pastor's resignation. We wrote to Tim Pruitt on several occasions in this regard but he never responded.

As a result, we have little respect for Tim Pruitt and do not view him as a man of integrity.

However, with our biases on the table, we will attempt to address Tim Pruitt's defense of William Branham.

The argument that carries the whole letter

Pruitt’s entire defense rests on a single division: there was William Branham the prophet, who spoke for God, and William Branham the man, who made mistakes. When Branham said "THUS SAITH THE LORD," that was God. When he said anything that later turned out to be wrong, that was the man. Pruitt spends most of the letter stacking up quotes to prove Branham was "just a man" who could err, exaggerate, presume, and forget.

Nobody disputes that Branham was a man. That was never the question. The question is what happens when a man who claimed to be God’s vindicated prophet says something false in God’s name. And here is where the logic breaks.

Pruitt gives us no test we can apply in advance. He never tells us how to know, before the outcome is in, which words are the prophet and which are the man. The sorting happens afterward, and it always runs the same direction. Whatever came true is filed under "the prophet." Whatever failed is filed under "the man." That is not a principle. That is a way of guaranteeing the prophet can never be wrong, because every error has already been reassigned before it counts.

Philosophers have a name for a claim built so that no possible fact could ever count against it. They call it unfalsifiable. A defense that can absorb any failure is not strong. It is empty. It tells you nothing, because it forbids nothing.

The false choice at the center

Pruitt states his case most plainly here:

Should we be surprised when it is now being discovered that William Branham was a man and could actually be human enough to make mistakes, conjecture, predict and presume? ... If he’s God, he cannot, but if he’s man, he’s mortal and he can.

Read that last sentence again. Pruitt offers two boxes. Either Branham was God, or Branham was an ordinary fallible man. Since he obviously was not God, he must be the fallible man, and fallible men make mistakes, so the criticism collapses.

But those are not the only two boxes, and Pruitt knows it. The Bible has a third category, and it is precisely the one his critics are pointing at. A man can claim to speak for God and be neither God nor merely a well-meaning brother who misremembers. He can be a man who speaks presumptuously in the Lord’s name. Scripture has a word for that man. It is not "mortal." It is "false prophet."

By offering only God or ordinary-man, Pruitt quietly erases the exact option under discussion. That is a false dilemma, and it is doing the heavy lifting for the whole letter. No one is asking Branham to be infinite or to have complete knowledge from birth. We are asking a much smaller question. When he stood before people and said "THUS SAITH THE LORD," did the word come to pass?

The test Pruitt never mentions

For a letter about whether Branham was a true prophet, one passage is missing. It is the one message ministers NEVER quote and it is the one the Bible actually provides for answering the question. Deuteronomy 18 gives Israel a plain test:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

Notice what the test measures. Not the prophet’s sincerity. Not his warmth. Not how much good his ministry seemed to do. It measures one thing. Did the word come to pass? God set the bar at one hundred percent, with no margin, because a prophet claiming to carry God’s own voice cannot be allowed a percentage of error. A little error in that office is fatal, the way a little poison in the cup is fatal.

Branham himself agreed the standard was this high. He taught that only a vindicated prophet has the right to say "THUS SAITH THE LORD," and he pointed to that very test to say you should not fear a man whose word does not come to pass. Pruitt wants the authority that comes with the office of Old Testament prophet, but not the accountability the same Bible attaches to it. You cannot keep one and quietly drop the other. The office and the test come as a pair.

1977 and the word "predict"

Here Pruitt makes his sorting move in the open. He writes:

As a man he could make predictions that didn’t come to pass as he did of 1977. This was something he adamantly declared was not a prediction from God or a prophecy but a prediction based on his own assumption...

Then he quotes Branham’s own words. Read them, and watch for one phrase:

I don’t say it will be, but predict that it will end by 1977 ... But I just predict that according to a vision He showed me, and taking the time, the way it’s progressing...

There it is. "According to a vision He showed me." Branham does soften it with the word "predict," and he allows that he could be off. But the source he names for the prediction is not his own arithmetic. It is a vision God showed him. Pruitt asks us to hear "this was only a man’s guess," while the quote he supplies traces the guess straight back to a divine vision. The reclassification contradicts the very evidence offered to support it.

And the biblical test does not care which label we prefer. Deuteronomy 18 does not distinguish a "prediction" from a "prophecy." It asks whether a man speaking in the Lord’s name, on the strength of a vision he says came from God, spoke something that came to pass. 1977 came and went. The church was not raptured. The nation was not blown to bits. Calling it a prediction rather than a prophecy changes the vocabulary. It does not change the outcome, and it does not move the man out from under the standard he claimed for himself.

"A man subject to like passions": the verse that is made to carry too much

This is the heart of Pruitt’s scriptural case, and it is where Scripture is handled most carelessly. Over and over, Pruitt reaches for one phrase from James: "Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are." Branham reached for it constantly too, and Pruitt piles up six or seven of those quotes. The argument runs: Elijah was a man of like passions, Elijah had his ups and downs, therefore a prophet can be wrong, therefore Branham’s errors are no problem.

Let us actually read what James says, and why he says it.

"Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain." (James 5:17-18)

James is not writing about prophetic accuracy. He is writing about prayer. His whole point in the surrounding verses is that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and he uses Elijah to encourage ordinary believers: this mighty man of prayer was a human being with feelings just like yours, so your prayers matter too. "Like passions" translates a Greek word meaning of the same nature, of similar feelings. It points to Elijah’s humanity, his fears, his discouragement. Remember him collapsed under the juniper tree asking to die. That is the "like passions."

Now watch what the passage does to Pruitt’s argument. What is the example James chooses to prove Elijah’s prayers availed? A prediction. Elijah said it would not rain, and it did not rain, for three and a half years. Then he said it would rain, and it rained. The one prophetic word James attaches to this "man of like passions" came to pass exactly. The verse held up to excuse failed predictions is, in its own context, a demonstration of a prediction that succeeded down to the detail.

So the proof text does not merely fail to help Pruitt. It works against him. James uses "like passions" to describe a prophet’s emotional weakness while showing that the prophet’s God-given word was perfectly reliable. Pruitt uses it to smuggle in the idea that a prophet’s God-given word can fail. That is not what the verse says. That is not what any verse says. Being a man of like passions never once, anywhere in Scripture, meant a prophet could prophesy falsely in God’s name and remain a true prophet.

Abraham lied, David murdered: the wrong list

Pruitt closes with a quotation from Branham’s Church Age Book that names the flawed men God still used:

God used an Abraham (he lied), He used a Moses (he rebelled), Jonah (he disobeyed), Samson (he sinned), David (he murdered)... And those with severe blemishes far outnumber those whose histories seem to be perfect.

It is a moving list, and it is true that God uses flawed people. But look closely at what kind of flaw each example is. Abraham lied about his wife. Moses lost his temper and struck the rock. Jonah ran from his assignment. Samson broke his vows. David committed adultery and arranged a murder. Every single one is a moral failure, a personal sin. Not one of them is an instance of the man standing up and delivering a false prophecy in the name of the Lord.

That is the category error, and it is a large one. The critics have never claimed Branham was too sinful to be used. We have claimed his prophecies failed. Those are different charges, and Pruitt’s list answers the wrong one. Show me the passage where Abraham gave a "THUS SAITH THE LORD" that did not come to pass and remained a prophet in good standing. Show me where David spoke a vision in God’s name that failed and Scripture waved it through. You cannot, because that man exists in the Bible under one name only, and Deuteronomy 18 already told us the name.

David murdered a man and was still a prophet, yes. But David never prophesied falsely. That is the point the list quietly steps around. A prophet’s sins and a prophet’s predictions are judged by two different standards, and confusing them is how the whole letter keeps its footing.

Additionally, under the new covenant, leaders in God's church, Christ's body, are called to a higher standard than those under the old covenant. the old covenant is gone:

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.^[1]

The Bible plainly tells us what is expected of Christian leaders:

An elder must be blameless...^[2]
For the overseer must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work...^[3]
The overseer then must be above reproach...^[4]

And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless.^[5]

William Branham portrayed himself as a simple, honest, uneducated man who was sent from God as a prophet to fore-run the second coming of Christ. However, many of the stories that he told have been proven to be untrue and many of the doctrines that he said he received directly from God were, in fact, plagiarized from other ministers. The test for a leader in the church today is not the same test as under the old covenant. William Branham failed the test of Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and he failed the tests for New Testament leaders.

The "voice of God" that his own quotes will not let him escape

Pruitt is genuinely troubled that the publishing house is called Voice of God Recordings, and he insists Branham "was not literally the voice of God, but rather the voice of a man that God used." I take his discomfort as sincere. But his own evidence undoes him.

To make his point he quotes Branham teaching that a prophet becomes the voice of God to the people:

...And so He speaks through... And that prophet becomes the voice of God to the people.

That is the quote Pruitt chose to prove Branham was not the voice of God, and it says the opposite. Branham taught exactly the doctrine Pruitt is trying to distance himself from: the prophet becomes the voice of God to the people. The publishing company did not invent that idea. It took it directly from their prophet. Pruitt is offended at a conclusion that follows straight from Branham’s own teaching, and then defends Branham by quoting the teaching that produces it. This is the deeper problem with the whole "man versus prophet" split. When Branham exercised his authority, he did not hedge. Pruitt himself supplies the clearest example, the great 1961 sermon where Branham confronts those calling him Christ. Watch how Branham corrects them:

"That is an error! It’s falsely!" THUS SAITH THE LORD! "It is wrong! Have nothing to do with it!" I am your brother.

To say he was only a brother, Branham reaches for "THUS SAITH THE LORD," the very formula of absolute divine authority. Even his humility is delivered in the voice of infallible pronouncement. That is the tension Pruitt cannot resolve. The moment Branham wants to be believed, the man speaks with the prophet’s authority, and the two halves Pruitt has carefully separated fold back into one.

The "deity spirit" and the snake: turning disagreement into demons

A theme runs through the letter that I want to name plainly, because it is doing real work. Pruitt attributes the whole crisis to a "deity spirit," a demon, and to a "snake" whose poison bites the mind. When someone notices a flaw in Branham, Pruitt writes:

This is the poison of the snake, it bites, convincing us that in some way that the man is God and then shows us that he was a flawed human being just like us all, and then the poison sets in, destroying our faith in the messenger...

Consider what this framing accomplishes. It reclassifies honest examination of the evidence as a spiritual attack. If you study the bridge story and conclude it did not happen, that is not research. That is the snake. If you weigh the 1977 prediction against Deuteronomy 18, that is not obedience to Scripture. That is a false spirit. The very act of testing the prophet becomes proof that a demon has gotten to you.

This is what logicians call poisoning the well. Instead of answering the argument, you discredit anyone who might raise it, in advance. And it is unfalsifiable in the same way the rest of the letter is. Agreement proves you are solid. Disagreement proves the snake bit you. There is no possible finding that counts as legitimate criticism, because criticism itself has been defined as the disease.

Can you see the irony? The Bible commands us to test the spirits and to prove all things. Branham himself endorsed the Deuteronomy test. A framework that treats testing as demonic possession has set itself against the very Scripture Pruitt says is his absolute.

"Look at the results, not the stories"

Pruitt asks us to look past the troublesome accounts:

People get distracted by the stories and yet forget the results. Regardless of whether we understand the details of the boy in Finland, he raised from the dead... Can you imagine discounting any man’s ministry over a story of a bridge as remembered by 5 or 6 year old?

This sounds humble, but it quietly changes the subject. The bridge vision was not a stray childhood memory. Branham told it as one of the credentials that proved he was a vindicated prophet. And the objection was never that a small boy misremembered a detail. The objection is that the event was presented by Branham as a fulfilled vision when the record shows it was not fulfilled. That is not a fuzzy detail. That goes to whether the testimony can be trusted at all.

And here is why the "stories" cannot be waved away. The miracle Pruitt points to, the boy in Finland, has huge problems with it which we point out in Under The Halo. The bridge is one of the few claims we can check against public records. When a testable claim from the same witness turns out not to hold, that is not a distraction from the untestable ones. It is the best evidence we have about how reliable the untestable ones are. You do not get to keep the miracles and quarantine the checkable story. The checkable story is how we weigh the miracles.

"If someone has a better explanation of the cloud, let them raise the dead"

On the famous cloud photograph, Pruitt offers this challenge:

If someone has a better explanation than the prophet did of the cloud, let them raise the dead and then maybe I will give some credence to their explanation.

This is a striking sentence, and it does not hold together. Whether the cloud has a natural explanation is a question about astronomy, dates, and geography. Whether the objector can raise the dead has nothing to do with it. A meteorologist who cannot raise the dead can still correctly explain a cloud. The ability to work a miracle is not the qualification for reading a photograph. It is a red herring wrapped around a false standard, and it also reverses the burden of proof. The one making the extraordinary claim owes us the evidence. Pruitt instead demands that the questioner perform a miracle before the question may even be considered. And notice the tell in his own words: he grants that neither he nor Branham understood the cloud, yet believes anyway:

"I don’t need to understand every detail, I already believe."

That is an honest sentence, and it is the real engine of the whole letter. The belief comes first. The arguments are recruited afterward to protect it.

"The man God wasn’t ashamed to have His picture taken with"

Pruitt asks why he should be ashamed of Branham, and answers:

He’s the man that God wasn’t ashamed to have His picture taken with.

This assumes the very thing in dispute. The Houston photograph is offered as proof of divine endorsement, but whether the image is a supernatural halo of God’s approval is exactly the question on the table. To use the photograph as evidence that God endorsed Branham, you must already have decided the photograph is God’s endorsement. That is arguing in a circle. You cannot prove a claim by assuming it, and dressing the assumption in a warm sentence does not change what it is.

"We all borrow from someone"

On the charge that Branham took material from other men, Pruitt answers:

Some feel betrayed and say that he plagiarized or borrowed from someone else but the truth of it, we all borrow from someone... Yet when he was about to preach on the Seven Seals, he started to bring us some things, referencing other men’s thoughts, until the Angel came into the room and changed his thinking, and revealed to him each Seal.

The "we all borrow" line is a false equivalence. Ordinary preachers borrow, and they say so. That is not the complaint. The complaint is that material lifted from other men was presented as direct revelation, handed down by an angel in the room. Borrowing is not the sin. Claiming divine authorship for borrowed material is. Pruitt collapses those two things into one so the serious charge can hide inside the harmless one.

And notice what Pruitt concedes in the same breath. He admits Branham began the Seals by "referencing other men’s thoughts" until the angel supposedly corrected him. But the problem is that the Angel corrected him with plagiarized material.

"The Word testifies of him"

Pruitt grounds his confidence here:

This is why we believe in Elijah’s coming in this day, because the Bible said he would... Greater than any testimony that William Branham gave is the Word of God that testifies of him.

The Bible does say a forerunner in the spirit of Elijah would come and that was John the Baptist. It does not say his name is William Branham. The passage promises an Elijah and it was fulfilled. Pruitt slides from "the Bible predicts an Elijah" to "the Word testifies of him," meaning Branham, and that second step is exactly the claim in question. We answer this issue in detail in our discussion of Matthew 17:11.

So when Pruitt says the Word testifies of Branham, he has assumed his conclusion and then cited the Bible as if it agreed. It is the same circular move as the photograph, in a different suit.

Lot’s wife and "your pastor is your husband"

To his credit, Pruitt tries to defuse a genuinely dangerous teaching, that a pastor is the spiritual husband of each person in his congregation and so must never be questioned. He points to Branham’s sermon on Lot’s wife and argues Branham only meant that a husband is the pastor of his own family. But look at the line as Branham said it:

"...I’ve only got this man’s word for it, though he’s my husband. But yet..." Your pastor is your husband, spiritually speaking, you see.

In context, Branham is describing a woman deciding whether to trust her leader’s revelation, and he inserts "your pastor is your husband, spiritually speaking" to make the application to the congregation, not merely to a household. Pruitt reverses the subject and predicate to soften it, turning "your pastor is your husband" into "a husband is a pastor." That is a strained reading that runs against the plain direction of the sentence. I understand why Pruitt wants to rescue it. But rescuing a hard saying by quietly flipping its grammar is not interpretation. It is damage control.

The contradiction Pruitt cannot escape

Step back and the whole letter is caught in a bind it never resolves. Pruitt says he is offended when people point out Branham’s flaws. Yet his entire defense depends on cataloguing those flaws. He needs Branham fallible enough to excuse the failed prophecy, the exaggerations, the presumptions, the missed visions. And he needs Branham authoritative enough to remain "the Elijah that was promised," the one who "returned us to Paul’s gospel," the one without whom "we are rendered as powerless as the denominational world we came out of."

You cannot have both at full strength. If Branham is so human that any given statement might be the man rather than the prophet, then the message built on his statements rests on sand, because you can never be sure which sentences to trust. If instead his message carries the authority Pruitt claims, restoring the gospel and being required to rightly understand the Bible, then his failed prophecies land squarely under Deuteronomy 18 and cannot be excused as the harmless slips of an ordinary man. The letter needs Branham small when the evidence is against him and large when it is time to believe. He cannot be both sizes at once.

Pruitt even concedes the point without seeing it. "Without the message, we are rendered as powerless as the denominational world." That is not treating Branham as one more fallible brother like Elijah. That is treating the message as necessary to rightly hold the Bible itself, which is precisely the deification he says he opposes. The thing he is offended by is written into his own opening paragraph.

The question that was never really about being human

I want to end on one point he and I agree completely. Jesus Christ must never be demoted. Any spirit that makes a man into God and pushes Christ into the background is a spirit to be resisted. When Pruitt grieves over people baptizing in Branham’s name, calling him the Son of Man, treating a recording as the omnipresent God serving communion, he is right to grieve. Those things are idolatry, and they are terrible.

But here is what Pruitt cannot quite let himself see. Those excesses did not blow in from nowhere on a "deity spirit." They grew from the soil of the teaching itself. When a man teaches that he is the Revelation 10:7 messenger, that he becomes the voice of God to the people, that without his message you cannot rightly hold your Bible, he should not be surprised when his followers finish the thought. The deification Pruitt laments is not an alien infection of the message. It is the message followed to its conclusion.

And so the letter answers a question no one asked. Was William Branham a human being? Of course he was. He got tired, lost his temper, felt fear, made ordinary mistakes. Nobody denies it. The real question is the one Deuteronomy 18 puts to every man who claims to speak for God. When he said "THUS SAITH THE LORD," did it come to pass? On 1977, it did not. On the bridge, it did not. The Bible does not ask us to be ashamed that a prophet was human. It asks us to test whether his word was true.

Pruitt says the Bible is his absolute. If he actually believes it he should let the Bible set the test, and let it apply to everyone, with no exemption for his prophet. That is not the poison of a snake. That is obedience to the Word. And it is the kindest thing we can offer the people still inside, because their faith deserves to rest on something that can bear the weight of an honest question. --- Scripture quoted from the King James Version. Branham sermon citations follow the dates and titles used in Tim Pruitt’s original December 2019 letter. For the underlying documentation on the Municipal Bridge vision, the Cloud, the claims of the dead being raised, and William Branham’s sources, see the research collected at BelieveTheSign. ---

Tim Pruitt's original letter

From the Pastor’s Desk by Tim Pruitt (dated December 2019)

As I reflect and pray about those who are falling away, I am certainly grieved for their sakes and the sake of others. Of course, I am disappointed and offended that some that once preached the message now think of Bro. Branham as someone dishonest or perhaps even a liar. It grieves me to learn that some no longer believes in the messenger but yet claim to believe their Bible and yet see no need for a restoration of its truths. What a lie! Without the message, we are rendered as powerless as the denominational world we came out of. This message has returned us to Paul’s gospel.

However, I am even more offended at the deity spirit that has caused this. I am offended that this demon has permeated our message ranks so that we now call the publications of William Branham’s sermons THE VOICE OF GOD. William Branham was not literally the voice of God, but rather the voice of a man that God used. The Bible never says he was the voice of God, but rather the Bible identifies him as the voice of the 7th angel. (Rev 3:14;10:7). He was God’s prophet without a doubt, but God, he was not. A horrible mistake has been made by the message community in deifying William Branham by making him the absolute. William Branham was never the absolute! The Word of God is the absolute. William Branham is no different than any mortal man, for he was a man of like passions as was Elijah.

57-0127E – Blind Bartimaeus

Proves God just reveals to His prophets that what He wants them to know, nothing else. Prophets are not infallible people. Prophets are not Angels. They are men.

59-0611 – The Time Of Decision

You see, God don’t make all of our decisions. And there’s many times that God doesn’t tell His prophets just what to do, because they have to make the decision. If there is no decision that we have to make, just wait every move on God, then there is no overcoming on our part. And sometimes, they make the wrong decision. God’s anointed prophets makes the wrong decisions, and many times are deceived.

55-0607 – The True Vine & A False Vine

Look at the–this Elijah, setting there and–and here come the Shunammite women and fell down by him like that. Said, “God’s troubled her heart and kept it from me.” They don’t know all things. They just know as God will let them know. They’re not infallible people.

The Bible said, “Elijah was man subject to like such passions as we are,” his up and downs, and differences. As a man of like passion William Branham was subject to mistakes. He reasoned like all men, understood as a man, and because he grew in revelation thus gaining understanding, he changed his views on things.

54-0302 – The Resurrection Of Jairus’ Daughter

And what I read here is His Word. It will never change; It’ll never pass away. It’s eternally right. Mine may fail, ’cause I’m just a man, speak like any other man, make mistakes and everything. But when He speaks, mark His Words; it’s the truth.

63-0803E – Influence

So it’s a lesson to us, tonight, to keep our minds upon God, regardless of what man it is. Let him be cardinal, priest, prophet, whatever he might be, he is not immune from mistakes and—and error, and even death, and sin. But there is One Who is, and that’s Jesus Christ; He is the One. By this, Isaiah learned a lesson, God orders His man to place.

Bro. Branham recognized this about himself that he was human and could be wrong:

54-1203 – The Law Having A Shadow

A man can make a statement; he can be wrong, because he’s just a man. We’re all subject to mistakes. But when God makes a statement that’s truth.

This is why he prayed to the Lord asking for forgiveness of his errors and mistakes.

61-0226 – Jehovah-Jireh

Forgive me of my errors and mistakes in life as being a man. But look upon the objective of my heart and the motive.

This is why he asked for our prayers when we observed his mistakes.

63-0804E – Calling Jesus On The Scene

But the Lord sent me to pray for His sick children. And in there, what I do know about Him, I love to express it with all my heart. If I make mistakes, you pray for me. I’m not infallible. I’m your brother.

This is why he warned us not to look to him but to keep our eyes on Jesus.

63-1110E – He That Is In You

What I’m trying to say, “Don’t never lose your confidence.” Don’t let Satan tell you evil about me; ’cause, there’s much. But you keep that confidence; ’cause, if you don’t, it won’t happen. Don’t look to me, as a man; I’m a man, I’m full of mistakes. But look to what I’m saying about Him. It’s Him. He is the One.

William Branham realized that he was as vulnerable as anyone else and could make mistakes and errors in judgment and sincerely pleaded with God to never lift his helping hand.

63-1114 – Influence

And it was a lesson to Isaiah, that he mustn’t put his eyes upon human beings for an example. He must put his eyes on God. Now that’s us. Any man, any man is subject to mistakes. He is subject to error because He is human. He is subject to the violations of God’s laws. And he is subject to many things, because Satan tempts him, and he is just a human being. And if God ever lifted His hands, he would fall. That’s all.

And I’ve heard people say, “Oh, Satan can’t do that.”

Yes, you just let God lift His hand one time, and watch what happens. It’s a… I constantly plead, “God, don’t send him. Have mercy on me. Keep him away from me,” you see. I–I need God’s mercy. And we all need that.

William Branham as a man could exaggerate.

59-0301m – Strait Is The Gate

That’s all the advertisement we had. I’m not very good at making a …?… or estimating crowds, because I usually exaggerate on it.

He even prayed that God would help him not to exaggerate and asked God to help him with this.

51-0729E – The Second Miracle

May God help me not–not to exaggerate, but just be honest as I believe from my heart.

He was human as any of us and could forget details and not have perfect recall. Yet too many want to him to be God and not allow him to be a man.

As a human, he could make an error in judgment and take up for the wrong person and as a result he believed God punished him for it by allowing a gun to almost blow his head off.

62-0513M – The Way Of A True Prophet Of God

God knowed all about it, and forewarned it, and everything else. And we know it. It was partly my fault, and I had something. I-I took up for a man one time, when I should not have took up. I could have just shook the liver out of him. See? Instead of doing it, I had to pay for it. So, then, so we … That’s all right. It’s me, and it’s forgiven now. And we’ll go on.

William Branham could get in the permissive will of God and for his disobedience, God would correct him severely. His wife and baby would die because he listened to others instead of God. In South Africa, he listened to preachers and asked for the permissive will of God and would suffer the consequences of getting an Ameba and almost dying from the sickness. William Branham could make presumptions while trying to interpret or understand the visions God gave him,

62-1230E – Is This The Sign Of The End, Sir?

And maybe, tonight, Lord, I have took upon myself to interpret something to the people, without having a vision of it.

William Branham realized he was not God and knew he was only finite.

63-0113E – Perseverance

Now, we are finite. We can say something this year, and maybe even tomorrow have to alter it. Because, we’re not too sure, because we’re finite. We’re just presuming. And presume means “to adventure without authority.”

In the sermon, Souls That Are In Prison Now he made presumptions about the Lamb leaving the seat of mercy and so the mercy is now over and as a result of this, men today make the horrible mistake of thinking the mercy seat is ineffective because they deified his words, yet he plainly said it was a presumption.

63-1110M – Souls That Are In Prison Now

But I want you to know that what I’m going to say is just presuming, and the word presume means to “adventure without authority.”

William Branham could miss visions that the Lord had given him, and because of disobedience cause them not to be fulfilled as promised and would feel the need to repent before God and his church asking God for pardon of his stupidity. He made this repentance after being with Bro. Ed Byskal in Canada on a hunting trip where Bro. Byskal saw the brown bear.

62-0909E – In His Presence

My hands, Lord, is up. What will I do? Now, Father, I’ve got many things that I do wrong. I’ve just confessed my sin this morning before the church, as I confessed it to You on top of the mountain the other morning when it was blowing and snowing, and up there on top of the mountain, to how I cried out and asked You to forgive me for my stupidity. And how I dreaded to come before my brethren, who some of them regard me as Your prophet-servant. And, Lord, how I hated to come before them and tell them of a stupid act that I would do a thing like that, but, God, it’s good for my soul that I confess my sins and not hide them. So to be honest with You, and right before the people, I have confessed it, Lord. I’m wrong, I’m altogether wrong. I pray forgiveness.

And then, Father, I’ve been dilatory about You, serving You, many times maybe I could have went longer when I didn’t do it. Father, I confess my sins. I want the Angel of God to cleanse me from that, by the Blood of Jesus. Other hands went up tonight, some of them maybe has never asked forgiveness before; but I’m sure of this one thing, if we’ll confess our sins, God will blot them out, put, them in the sea of forgetfulness and never remember them no— no more. And, Father, as I confess mine, about misbehaving before them people, I didn’t carry on myself like a servant of Christ. I didn’t. I was afraid that man might be angry with me and think I didn’t want to hurt his feelings, but I didn’t think of what I was doing to You, Lord. And now I — I pray that You forgive me. And now, Father, I know that if I ask forgiveness I have forgiveness, and You’ve put them in the sea of forgetfulness, and You’ll never remember that no more. God, I’m thankful for that.

He found out the hard way that many of his visions would have to be obeyed perfectly for them to come to pass as promised.

62-0909M – Countdown

And, I find out, if God has spoken anything, then we must go with that Word in order to make It be fulfilled. We seen that, as I told you last night, of a vision just recently, see, that it… I had to be there, and warning to be there, and telling me six months before to be on that spot, and stand there and saying, “Go down there” (three times) “with them.” And I just walked on with the other men. And the vision passed right through exactly, God’s part, and I was left standing. So we want to remember, you’ve got to stay on the Word, just stay right with the Word. And where the Word leads, you go right with the Word, and It’ll bring you out all right, I’m sure.

As a man he could make predictions that didn’t come to pass as he did of 1977. This was something he adamantly declared was not a prediction from God or a prophecy but a prediction based on his own assumption of how quickly the other visions had transpired. Yet because of this prediction, he is regarded as a false prophet by the denominational world.

60-1211E – The Laodicean Church Age

We believe that the Laodicean church [age] started in A.D. 1906. I predict… Now, remember, “predict,” especially you listening at the tape. I don’t say it will be, but predict that it will end by 1977, that the church will go completely into apostasy and she’ll be ousted out of the mouth of God. And the Second Coming, or the Rapture of Christ, might come anytime. Now, I could miss that a year, I can miss it twenty years, I could miss it a hundred years. I don’t know where it… But I just predict that according to a vision He showed me, and taking the time, the way it’s progressing, I say it’ll be sometime between ’33 and ’77. At–at least, this great nation is going to strike a war that’s going to blow it to bits, see. Now that’s pretty close, it’s awful close. And I could be wrong, I’m predicting. Everybody understand? Say, “Amen” if you do. [Congregation says, “Amen!”–Ed.]

William Branham was human but many of his followers made him God. They made him so much God that when he died, some believed he would rise on the following Easter. This shows some thought him to be equal to Jesus Christ. About that same time, some formulated a teaching, saying he would soon return to finish his ministry. This was yet another manifestation of the deity spirit. Some in our movement have declared him the Absolute and final authority. Yet, William Branham was never our absolute. Nor was he, his own absolute. His absolute was the Bible and the final authority was God.

62-1230M – Absolute

And if your absolute is in some organization, or some sensation, or something else besides the Person of Jesus Christ, you’ll come to the same portion of shame, only worse, see, if your absolute is not Christ. That’s the only center post of the human life, and Christ is the Word; not your church, your word. The Word! See? “Upon this absolute I’ll build My Church,” upon Christ, the Word.

Others declare that every word was inspired and even as Jesus said, “Verily, Verily”, so every stutter of I-I-I and the-the-the was as God speaking. However, what Jesus said was not a stutter when He said verily, verily, it was adding emphasis on what He was saying.

We hardly raised our eyebrows when the publishing company for his sermons was named The Voice Of God Recordings, thus publicly declaring that Willam Branham was the Voice of God. Yet William Branham knew he was not the voice of God, but rather the voice of a man that God used and he knew the difference between when God was saying something and he was saying something and made it clear it was when the Angel of the Lord moves down, It becomes then a Voice of God to you.

Even though Bro. Branham acknowledged that God uses man and thus the man becomes God’s voice to the people, he understood it was God using a human vessel. Never once did he claim that every word he spoke was Thus Saith The Lord.

64-0500

...God, on–on the mountain that time, blasted out from the Mount Sinai, and they said, ‘Don’t let God speak. Let Moses speak.’ And He said, ‘I’ll send them prophets.’ See, a prophet. And so He speaks through… And that prophet becomes the voice of God to the people.

He understood that prophets had the Word of the Lord but once out from under the inspiration, the prophet and his words were only human.

64-0614M – The Unveiling Of God

Moses had the Word. Now remember, after the Word was made manifest, Moses was Moses again.

He knew the difference between his own self and God.

57-0810 – Jehovah-Jireh

But when you say —hear it say, “THUS SAITH THE LORD, it’ll certain-certain thing happen.” That’s Him speaking. Now, this is William Branham now. That was Him a few minutes ago.

He knew that things he said as a man could be a million miles off and his presumptions could fail.

63-0324M – Questions And Answers On The Seals

Now, remember, this is William Branham (See?), speaking. This is my idea. It’s only presuming. Just looking at it in the natural standpoint, which may be a million miles off,

He knew that his thoughts may not be right.

63-0324M – Questions And Answers On The Seals

Notice, but now, here’s what I think, what I, I think will take place: (Now, it may not be so.)

He knew that he was a man and as a man there was a human side and he admonished us to be careful and discern what was God and what part of what he said was a man. That means it our responsibility to rightly divide what is truly God speaking from when he as a man is speaking.

63-0721 – He Cares. Do You Care?

I’ve always asked you to be careful what you’re listening to. See? There’s so much of it that it’s just the human side. But always if there is something that goes forth, it will speak it, “It’s THUS SAITH THE LORD,” even to visions or anything.

He knew he could make assumptions based on his own feelings and declared it to be so by saying,

57-0610 – Faith Once Delivered To The Saints

this just is my feeling, not THUS SAITH THE LORD. This is William Branham.

Yet within the message community every word of William Branham has been deified as though it were Scripture. But, if every word and utterance of a man is Thus Saith The Lord, then the man would have to be God because he has no human part since his every word is deity. It has been preached that if William Branham said that the moon was made out of cheese and although I don’t understand it, I am going to say the moon was made out of cheese – these and other similar statements deified the man by making his words infallible.

Yet Bro. Branham knew he was not infallible and made no claims to be infallible.

59-1108 – Possessing The Enemy’s Gates

Men are not infallible, but God is. Man, you get your mind on a man, he’ll make a mistake. Maybe not willfully, but he’ll do it. God permits him to do it so that He can shake your faith away from man. Our faith is not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When he was asked questions, he made us to understand his answers were not infallible.

61-0112 – Questions And Answers

And these answers are not infallible (See?), because the Scriptures is infallible; and as far as I know they’re lined with the Scriptures

Yet at the same time, those within the message community have almost taken Jesus Christ and rendered Him ineffective. There have been those who baptized and even prayed in William Branham’s name. Others have said that he is THE SON OF MAN. In far too many circles, a mere profession stating that you believe in William Branham and his message, is considered the evidence that you have the Holy Ghost.

Among the “tape only” sect, William Branham is introduced as though he were the omnipresent God, saying, “We will now turn the service over to Bro. Branham”. Handkerchiefs have been placed in front of the speakers as a segment of a recording was played of Bro. Branham praying for the needs of the sick and distributed as though he had prayed over them, declaring him to the same yesterday, today and forever.

Communion has been served while a portion of a recording was played where Bro. Branham prayed over the bread and wine and while choking back tears, the worship leader declared how wonderful it was that the prophet was there to serve communion as though he were the omnipresent God. This is nothing short of spiritualism.

While William Branham is made to be God, others belittle Jesus Christ and regard Him as merely the son of God, a little lord and not the Lord, and then boldly state that Jesus Christ was not God. Others believe that Jesus no longer sits upon the mercy seat, but the bride and their ministers are now the seat of mercy and they are the ones that can regulate and administer mercy. Among some, their teachers say that the bride is God’s chosen place of worship and not Jesus Christ.

Should we be surprised when it is now being discovered that William Branham was a man and could actually be human enough to make mistakes, conjecture, predict and presume? Could it be possible that he embellish, exaggerate and have memory failures and lack perfect recall just like every other mortal? If he’s God, he cannot, but if he’s man, he’s mortal and he can.

This is why we all should proclaim the Bible as our absolute and that William Branham was not God but a prophet and as a prophet he was human as was Elijah, Moses, or any other Biblical prophet.

52-0717 – Get The People To Believe

Now, Elijah was not an Angel; he was a man. And he had his ups-and-downs, and his troubles like we do. And he had his passions. The Bible said he was a man with like passions–subject to like passions as we are. He was just as apt to make a mistake as you are or I am. He’s just as apt to do something wrong as you are or I am.

53-1201 – God’s Provided Way

Now, a righteous man is not a sinless man. For you notice he said, “Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are.” He had his ups-and-downs and his differences. And the Scripture of his life proves that he had his ups-and-downs like we do. And he had his times of wondering and his times that his temper got away from him, and he had a lot of things, that went wrong. But he was still a righteous man, because he confessed his unworthiness and believed in God. So that’s what made him righteous.

We’re not righteous within ourselves; we’re righteous through Jesus Christ. I cannot be sanctified within myself; I am sanctified through Jesus Christ Who stands in the–in the Presence of God in my place. It isn’t my holiness; it’s His holiness.

55-0607 – The True Vine And A False Vine

Said, “God’s troubled her heart and kept it from me.” They don’t know all things. They just know as God will let them know. They’re not infallible people. The Bible said, “Elijah was man subject to like such passions as we are,” his up and downs, and differences.

61-0117 – The Messiah

See? Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are. Is that right? He had his ups-and-downs. His temper got up, and his indignation. He’s just like I was or you are.

63-1201M – An Absolute

All those prophets were man just like we are. The Bible said so. Saint James 5, “Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are,” he had his up’s and down’s, his in’s and out’s, “and he prayed earnestly it might not rain.”

And Paul was the same kind of a man like we are. He had his flustrations, his doubt.

Brothers, I am offended that some are now pointing out what they perceive as William Branham’s flaws and even though we must acknowledge that he is a man, I don’t enjoy hearing what some believe to be his faults.

However, I am more offended that by deifying the words of William Branham that Jesus has been put in the background. Teachers have removed by their teaching, Jesus as High Priest and thus rendering Him ineffective and unneeded. I am offended when men think that the evidence of the Holy Spirit is by professing faith in the prophet. I am offended that Jesus Christ has been debased as simply a little lord and not God at all. I am offended in any spirit that debases Jesus Christ and exalts any other human over him. I am offended that a fallible man has been made our absolute. I am offended that he is called the voice of God. However, I am not offended to find out that William Branham is a human.

I love Bro. Branham and it pains me terribly for people to point out what they perceive as his flaws or failures. There is no virtue in that. People get distracted by the stories and yet forget the results. Regardless of whether we understand the details of the boy in Finland, he raised from the dead. No matter what the controversy of the cloud, William Branham was caught up in the midst of the 7 angels and the Seven Seals were revealed. Can you imagine discounting any man’s ministry over a story of a bridge as remembered by 5 or 6 year old? This has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible is the infallible Word of God and that’s where our faith is. This is why we believe in Elijah’s coming in this day, because the Bible said he would. Greater than any testimony that William Branham gave is the Word of God that testifies of him. The same Word testifies of us and I believe what it says irregardless of how I feel, what I see or what I hear.

Why should I be ashamed of William Branham? He’s the man that God wasn’t ashamed to have His picture taken with. So, perhaps we don’t understand perfectly about the cloud and because of that, we are unable to put all the pieces together – reasoning will say that Bro. Branham didn’t either, yet the very first time he shows the picture and tells of the event to his church, it didn’t offend God nor cause God to forsake him, God was there and raised Edmund Way from the dead in the very same service. If someone has a better explanation than the prophet did of the cloud, let them raise the dead and then maybe I will give some credence to their explanation. I don’t need to understand every detail, I already believe.

This is the hour of restoration. We saw Elijah restore our faith in Jehovah. I am convinced that Bro. Branham is the Elijah that was promised. He told us that he gathered the loose ends that were left dangling by the reformers. This is why I am not surprised when I find he “borrowed” from someone else’s inspiration. Some feel betrayed and say that he plagiarized or borrowed from someone else but the truth of it, we all borrow from someone. His message wasn’t to bring something new, William Branham restored. Yes, there were symbols that no one understood until a prophet came. These were not plagiarized. Yet when he was about to preach on the Seven Seals, he started to bring us some things, referencing other men’s thoughts, until the Angel came into the room and changed his thinking, and revealed to him each Seal. He was doing the best he knew how, as a man probing at the book, until God opened it.

So we have discovered that our prophet doesn’t know everything. We wanted him to be infinite and have complete knowledge and understanding from birth. That deity snake poisons the mind and then destroys the foundation when a person perceives something they believe as a flaw. Gulp! He doesn’t know everything, so he can’t be a prophet. This is the poison of the snake, it bites, convincing us that in some way that the man is God and then shows us that he was a flawed human being just like us all, and then the poison sets in, destroying our faith in the messenger so we will lose confidence in the message God was bringing through him.

62-0318 – The Spoken Word Is The Original Seed

And remember, Christian friends, I’m a man, I can make mistakes. But God, being God, cannot make a mistake

62-0630B – It Wasn’t So From The Beginning

Forgive our many weaknesses, Lord. We don’t intend to do anything wrong, Lord, but through flesh we do make mistakes daily. So in order to stay alive in Christ, we have to die to our own thoughts. So keep us dead to ourselves and alive in Him.

62-0718 – Jesus Christ The Same Yesterday, Today, And Forever

Now, I’m finite, and He’s infinite. So He cannot make a mistake. I can. You can. Our brethren can. We can all make mistakes. We’re finite. Today, if I don’t know more than I did last year, I’m not progressing any. But God cannot progress, because He’s perfect to begin with. And every decision is perfect.

62-1014E – A Guide

I can change; I’m a man. You can change; you’re a man or woman. But God cannot change. I’m finite; I can make mistakes and say things wrong, all of us can. But God can’t, and be God. His first decision is perfect.

63-0623M – Standing In The Gap

But, you see, even the great Saint Paul got between the straits one time. And many times that God has did things or let His servants do it, that was mistakes, in order to prove these things. Now, we know that human beings can make mistakes, but God can make no mistake.

62-0601 – Taking Sides With Jesus

Now, for instance, if–if one of you brethren would make a mistake and do something is wrong; which, you’re subject to do it; I am, too; every one of us.

63-1103 – Go, Wake Jesus

But, there’s one thing about God, He does not make no mistakes. And His first decision is His only decision, because He is infinite. And to be infinite, that’s perfect times perfect, plus perfect. And, perfect, is infinite. He knew all things from the beginning. He never has to take a word back. He never has to improve, because His first decision is the only decision can ever be made. He does not learn more, get smarter, as we claim we do. But He was perfect, to begin with.

63-1103 – Go, Wake Jesus

So, therefore, when anything we read in the Bible, which, we firmly believe to be the Word of God. And when we read That, we can rest our soul right on That. God never can change It. If He changes, then He’s–He’s just like I am, see, He’s finite, and He’s full of mistakes. But He is not finite. He is infinite, and He cannot make a mistake.

Church Age Book – The Sardisean Church Age

“He that hath the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars.” Revelation 3:1.

As this same Lord identified Himself with man in the incarnation, He is again identifying Himself with man by His Spirit within man. “These are mine,” saith the Lord. The seven Spirit-filled messengers are the Lord’s. They may be repudiated. They may be questioned. Indeed, to human minds they may not even seem to qualify–nevertheless, they are the messengers for their age. God used an Abraham (he lied), He used a Moses (he rebelled), Jonah (he disobeyed), Samson (he sinned), David (he murdered). He also used Joshua, and Joseph. And those with severe blemishes far outnumber those whose histories seem to be perfect. ALL WERE, AND ARE HIS. None dare deny that. He used them by and through the Holy Spirit that He put within them. To their own Master they stood or fell. And in them all was accomplished the sovereign will of God. Let external history attempt to refute this, it still stands. The Eternal God still walks amongst the golden lamp stands and sends His messengers by His Spirit with the Word to the people of every age

This deity spirit has anointed men to build their own kingdoms. Some of these now claim to be THE apostle, THE teacher, and even Michael the archangel, THE Holy Ghost, and Elohim. It’s the deity spirit at work which deifies men and minimizes Jesus Christ and the snake bites and poisons many and they are dead or dying. They too want to be God. William Branham feared this would happen.

64-0823M – Questions And Answers #1

I pray for mercy, Lord. Have mercy on me; help me. It makes me nervous, Father. I pray that You’ll help me. I—I don’t want to seal my life…All my work here would be out here some fanatic to lead some group or cult out into a desert somewhere. Don’t let my name have to go down like that, Lord. I fought hard for this. I’m sincere in it as I can be. God, don’t let it happen. Help me some way. I don’t know what to do; I’m just depending on You, but You help me. I’ll do anything You tell me to do. I’m Your servant; these are Your children. Lord, these…Most of these people, ninty-nine out of every hundred, Lord, is really solid. They believe; they know; they understand. And they know it’s not me; but I know these things has to follow every revival, and this is not immune from it. So I pray that You’ll help us now.

Using Bro. Branham as their authority, some preachers are claiming to be the husband of their congregation. They teach that the pastor is the husband of the individuals in the assembly, therefore it is adultery to listen to anyone but them. This is another form of deifying a man and making a man God.

63-0825M – How Can I Overcome?

She started out, as an overcomer, but she never did overcome. Oh, she left the denomination. She did. She walked out of Sodom, with Lot. But she wanted to go back and have her hair cut. You know what I mean. See? She had to go back. She just couldn’t stand the–the test. She had to look back again, to see what the rest of them was doing. “Oh, you know, I had some good friends down there, after all. And, after all, this might be just a little–a little move. I don’t know whether it could be right or not. I–I’ve only got this man’s word for it, though he’s my husband. But yet…” Your pastor is your husband, spiritually speaking, you see. “Now, whether it could be right or not, I don’t know. Maybe his revelation wasn’t right.”

By examining this quote in context, you will see that Bro. Branham is speaking about Lot and his wife. Lot’s wife did not listen to the leadership of her husband instead she says: “I don’t know whether it could be right or not. I’ve only got this man’s word for it, though he’s my husband.” Then Bro. Branham says, of a woman in reference to Lot and his wife: Your pastor is your husband, spiritual speaking. Bro. Branham is not telling us the pastor is the husband of the Bride, but that a husband is pastor (priest) of his family.

Brother Branham never started this deity spirit, he stood FIRMLY AGAINST IT and tried his best to shut it up! He proclaimed Jesus as Lord of lords! His WHOLE LIFE was dedicated to lifting Jesus AND THE BIBLE UP! It was the most important Book in his life! He preached its life, its hope, its reality, its power with every breath he had! What I am offended about is exactly what Brother Branham would be offended by, and that is many have demoted Jesus Christ! Jesus, not his stories or his successes were his heartbeat, his life and ministry!