William Branham and Arianism - Revision history

Admin: /* History in the Christian church */

2023-08-13T16:29:02Z

History in the Christian church

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 13 August 2023
Line 35:		Line 35:
	Such, then, was Arianism—a theory of the mutual relations of the Persons in the Trinity based nominally on the words of Scripture, but arrived at really by the methods of the heathen philosophers.<ref>F. J. Foakes-Jackson, “Arianism,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 777.</ref>		Such, then, was Arianism—a theory of the mutual relations of the Persons in the Trinity based nominally on the words of Scripture, but arrived at really by the methods of the heathen philosophers.<ref>F. J. Foakes-Jackson, “Arianism,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 777.</ref>

	[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.		[[The real problem with the Nicene Council\|The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.

	==Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching==		==Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching==

Admin at 17:43, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T17:43:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 29 February 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Arianism is effectively a belief in two gods, an uncreated and a created, a supreme and a secondary god, and thus is really heathen polytheism. It holds Christ to be a mere creature, and yet the creator of the world.<ref>Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 649.</ref>		Arianism is effectively a belief in two gods, an uncreated and a created, a supreme and a secondary god, and thus is really heathen polytheism. It holds Christ to be a mere creature, and yet the creator of the world.<ref>Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 649.</ref>

	Some followers of William Branham, in particular [[Vaylism\|Lee Vayle and his followers]], preach a similar view of Jesus Christ.		Some followers of William Branham, in particular [[Vaylism\|Lee Vayle and his followers]], preach a similar view of Jesus Christ. It is clear that Lee Vayle took his doctrine directly from the teachings of William Branham.

	=Did William Branham teach Arianism?=		=Did William Branham teach Arianism?=

Admin: /* Did William Branham teach Arianism? */

2020-02-29T17:41:16Z

Did William Branham teach Arianism?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 29 February 2020
Line 8:		Line 8:
	=Did William Branham teach Arianism?=		=Did William Branham teach Arianism?=

	William Branham taught that Jesus Christ was a created being:		William Branham taught in numerous places that Jesus Christ was a created being:

	:''He was God manifested in a flesh of His creative Son. See? Now, that's, '''God created the Son'''. <ref>William Branham, August 4, 1963, Calling Jesus on the Scene </ref>		:''He was God manifested in a flesh of His creative Son. See? Now, that's, '''God created the Son'''. <ref>William Branham, August 4, 1963, Calling Jesus on the Scene </ref>

Admin: /* Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching */

2020-02-29T17:40:40Z

Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 29 February 2020
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:''“Oh, I don’t think I can take that.”		:''“Oh, I don’t think I can take that.”

	:''Well, you don’t have to take it. Goodbye, it’s been nice knowing you, or not so nice knowing you. I simply don’t have pleasure in people that don’t believe Bro. Branham. I simply don’t. I’m back there in the Ephesian Church. I believe that God visited Paul. I believe He came down in a Pillar of Fire. I believe Bro. Branham said, “Just think, how wonderful. The same Pillar of Fire that brought the Word to Paul is here revealing It!” I believe that. And this is part of it. This is explaining Luke—the virgin birth. This is explaining God the Father, and not God the son, but the Son of God. This explains Emmanuel, how God became flesh and dwelt among us. And He did! And it was a duality! And the body He prepared for Himself was the same body He prepared for His Son.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #2, Son and Virgin Birth, Delineating God and Son Using Bro. Branham’s Statements, October 3, 1999, para. 31</ref>		:''Well, you don’t have to take it. Goodbye, it’s been nice knowing you, or not so nice knowing you. I simply don’t have pleasure in people that don’t believe Bro. Branham. I simply don’t. I’m back there in the Ephesian Church. I believe that God visited Paul. I believe He came down in a Pillar of Fire. I believe Bro. Branham said, “Just think, how wonderful. '''The same Pillar of Fire that brought the Word to Paul is here revealing It!”''' I believe that. And this is part of it. This is explaining Luke—the virgin birth. '''This is explaining God the Father, and not God the son, but the Son of God.''' This explains Emmanuel, how God became flesh and dwelt among us. And He did! And it was a duality! And the body He prepared for Himself was the same body He prepared for His Son.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #2, Son and Virgin Birth, Delineating God and Son Using Bro. Branham’s Statements, October 3, 1999, para. 31</ref>

	Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons:		Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons:

Admin: /* Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching */

2020-02-29T17:39:31Z

Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 29 February 2020
Line 44:		Line 44:

	:''...what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23</ref>		:''...what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23</ref>

			Lee Vayle also espoused this teaching as a means of describing William Branham as being similar to Christ:

			:''The Son was already there. The Son was there before Adam was. The Son was there before there was anything else. He was the first-born of God. And as Bro. Branham has said, “That light came forth, like a child playing around his Father’s doorstep.” He began to create. And God would say, “That’s good. That’s fine.” And Bro. Branham went through the whole process of creation, and formation, and so on. ...And God came down and dwelt in His Son, Christ Jesus, making Him God on earth.

			:''Now right in there you can see this body born, was born with a personality, the man, we call ‘Christ Jesus’, and at that time, God came in to his very being, and now, as Bro. Branham said, “You have a duality.”

			:''The Father and the Son. “He that has seen me has seen the Father. You’re looking at him now.”

			:''Remember, Bro. Branham was asked the question, “What does it mean, “I and my Father are one?” He said, “You’re looking at me, aren’t you?”

			:''“Oh, I don’t think I can take that.”

			:''Well, you don’t have to take it. Goodbye, it’s been nice knowing you, or not so nice knowing you. I simply don’t have pleasure in people that don’t believe Bro. Branham. I simply don’t. I’m back there in the Ephesian Church. I believe that God visited Paul. I believe He came down in a Pillar of Fire. I believe Bro. Branham said, “Just think, how wonderful. The same Pillar of Fire that brought the Word to Paul is here revealing It!” I believe that. And this is part of it. This is explaining Luke—the virgin birth. This is explaining God the Father, and not God the son, but the Son of God. This explains Emmanuel, how God became flesh and dwelt among us. And He did! And it was a duality! And the body He prepared for Himself was the same body He prepared for His Son.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #2, Son and Virgin Birth, Delineating God and Son Using Bro. Branham’s Statements, October 3, 1999, para. 31</ref>

	Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons:		Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons:

Admin: Admin moved page Arianism to William Branham and Arianism

2020-02-29T17:14:36Z

Admin moved page Arianism to William Branham and Arianism

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:14, 29 February 2020
(No difference)

Admin: /* Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching */

2020-02-29T17:11:29Z

Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 29 February 2020
Line 37:		Line 37:
	[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.		[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.

	=Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching=		==Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching==

	Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached a form of Arianism. It is also clear that he took this teaching directly from William Branham:		Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached a form of Arianism. It is also clear that he took this teaching directly from William Branham:

Admin: /* The teachings of Lee Vayle */

2020-02-29T17:11:15Z

The teachings of Lee Vayle

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 29 February 2020
Line 37:		Line 37:
	[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.		[[The Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325 was involved in resolving the dispute over Arianism.

	=~~The teachings of~~ Lee Vayle=		=Lee Vayle's Arianism comes from William Branham's teaching=

	Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached a form of Arianism. It is also clear that he took this teaching directly from William Branham:		Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached a form of Arianism. It is also clear that he took this teaching directly from William Branham:

Admin: /* The teachings of Lee Vayle */

2020-02-29T17:10:27Z

The teachings of Lee Vayle

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 29 February 2020
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:''There are more verses on ‘Deity’, and you can see that '''Bro. Branham is not making Jesus ‘God’, as some would have it.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #12, The Fullness of the Godhead Bodily, July 2, 2000, para. 25</ref>		:''There are more verses on ‘Deity’, and you can see that '''Bro. Branham is not making Jesus ‘God’, as some would have it.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #12, The Fullness of the Godhead Bodily, July 2, 2000, para. 25</ref>

	:''what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.		:''...what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23</ref>

	...Jesus definitely is not God. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23, 31</ref>		Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons:


	Like Arius, Vayle asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. A similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

	:''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref>		:''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref>
Line 54:		Line 51:
	:''Now with the subject of sovereignty, what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that '''Jesus is not Deity'''. When Bro. Branham said, “He’s God, but he’s not God,” in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.		:''Now with the subject of sovereignty, what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that '''Jesus is not Deity'''. When Bro. Branham said, “He’s God, but he’s not God,” in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.

	:''...		:''...We’re going to talk about, as I said, in the fact of sovereignty, Jesus cannot be Deity. '''Now Jesus can’t be Deity when we consider true Deity'''.

	~~:''~~We’re going to talk about, as I said, in the fact of sovereignty, Jesus cannot be Deity. '''Now Jesus can’t be Deity when we consider true Deity'''.

	~~:''..~~.

	:'''''Jesus definitely is not God'''. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.”		:'''''...Jesus definitely is not God'''. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.”

	:''What do you mean, “sons have beginnings?” Well, sons are procreated. The thought of having a son does not give anybody the ability to create one. The substance must be there in order to be passed on to that person, to bring that person in the likeness of the progenitor.		:''What do you mean, “sons have beginnings?” Well, sons are procreated. The thought of having a son does not give anybody the ability to create one. The substance must be there in order to be passed on to that person, to bring that person in the likeness of the progenitor.
Line 68:		Line 61:
	:'''''So, Jesus can’t be Deity, when we consider true Deity. He is the Son of Deity, Son of God''', and since elevated by God, he is worthy of worship, but not as God is worshipped. He can’t be. It is wise to regard Jesus, Son of God, in the light of Hebrews, as written by Paul, and glorifying God for His wisdom and power, for so setting us all in divine order.		:'''''So, Jesus can’t be Deity, when we consider true Deity. He is the Son of Deity, Son of God''', and since elevated by God, he is worthy of worship, but not as God is worshipped. He can’t be. It is wise to regard Jesus, Son of God, in the light of Hebrews, as written by Paul, and glorifying God for His wisdom and power, for so setting us all in divine order.

	:''...		:''...And, how was he equal with God? Because he was the First-begotten Son of God. So therefore, positively, he was equal in the inheritance, because it split the kingdom right down the middle. But God didn’t split Himself down the middle. God didn’t split His sovereignty down the middle. He had an equality, the same as Bro. Branham says, “Satan was one time equal with God and led in the worship.”

	~~:''~~And, how was he equal with God? Because he was the First-begotten Son of God. So therefore, positively, he was equal in the inheritance, because it split the kingdom right down the middle. But God didn’t split Himself down the middle. God didn’t split His sovereignty down the middle. He had an equality, the same as Bro. Branham says, “Satan was one time equal with God and led in the worship.”

	:'''''Was he equal with God as per Godhead? Oh, don’t be ridiculous'''. Was he equal, then, in the majesty and the glory and the power? Don’t be ridiculous. He had to be a controller of some description, as the great CEOs are of all the money you’ve got invested in stock, and they act as though it were their own, with their golden parachutes, and their divvying up, and their perks, and God knows what.		:'''''Was he equal with God as per Godhead? Oh, don’t be ridiculous'''. Was he equal, then, in the majesty and the glory and the power? Don’t be ridiculous. He had to be a controller of some description, as the great CEOs are of all the money you’ve got invested in stock, and they act as though it were their own, with their golden parachutes, and their divvying up, and their perks, and God knows what.

	:''...		:''...Now again, in Jn 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (So, he’s not the Father, and '''he’s not God'''. “There’s one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” [1 Tim 2:5])

	~~:''~~Now again, in Jn 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (So, he’s not the Father, and '''he’s not God'''. “There’s one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” [1 Tim 2:5])

	:''And It places it right there that '''Jesus is not God'''. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14: The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity, August 6, 2000</ref>		:''And It places it right there that '''Jesus is not God'''. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14: The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity, August 6, 2000</ref>

Admin: /* The teachings of Lee Vayle */

2020-02-29T16:11:19Z

The teachings of Lee Vayle

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 29 February 2020
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:''There are more verses on ‘Deity’, and you can see that '''Bro. Branham is not making Jesus ‘God’, as some would have it.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #12, The Fullness of the Godhead Bodily, July 2, 2000, para. 25</ref>		:''There are more verses on ‘Deity’, and you can see that '''Bro. Branham is not making Jesus ‘God’, as some would have it.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #12, The Fullness of the Godhead Bodily, July 2, 2000, para. 25</ref>

	:''what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23</ref>		:''what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, '''“He’s God, but he’s not God,”''' in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.

			...Jesus definitely is not God. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14, The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity,August 6, 2000, para. 23, 31</ref>