Credibility: Difference between revisions
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
:''For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Tt 1:7.</ref> | :''For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Tt 1:7.</ref> | ||
:''Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, '''liars''', perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Ti 1:8–11.</ref> | :''Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, '''liars''', perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Ti 1:8–11.</ref> | ||
Also, several of his prophecies failed, therefore, we must deal with Deuteronomy 18:20-22. | |||
{{Portal Navigation}} | {{Portal Navigation}} | ||
Revision as of 05:33, 1 July 2015
- "To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.” — Edward R. Murrow
In our search to find out the truth and to separate fact from fiction as it relates to William Branham's ministry, the biggest issue that we have run across is whether William Branham was credible with respect to the various stories he relates describing his supernatural experiences.
Credibility refers to the believability, trustworthiness and reliability of a person or message.
Was William Branham credible?
As a minister of the Gospel, one starts off with the assumption that William Branham was credible. But that assumption can be eliminated or overturned if it can be demonstrated that, at times, he did not tell the truth. This might not necessarily mean that he was lying, as it is possible to believe that what you are saying is the truth but it's really not.
The following items have caused us to question William Branham's credibility (click on the links to read a detailed explanation of the issue):
- The Case of the Empty Cornerstone
- When did William Branham embrace Pentecostalism?
- The Explanation for His Poor Grammar
- The Voice on the Ohio River in 1933
- The Man from Windsor
- Changes to Congressman Upshaw's story
- The Donny Morton story
- The story of King George VI
- William Branham messes up as God speaks through him
- Plagiarism
- The Cloud
- Prophecy of the Cloud
- Rattlesnake Mesa
- God moved the rock that Moses stood on to the Arizona desert in 1964
- The Nazarite Birth of William Branham
- Hope Branham's Nurse
- The Amber Light
Asking for Hope's Hand in Marriage
Do you remember the funny story of William Branham asking Charles Brumbach if he could marry Hope? If so, then here are some things you may not know:
1) Charles and Hazel Brumbach divorced in November of 1931.
2) Charles married Grace Creigh four months later, and moved to Fort Wayne, Indiana. Fort Wayne is a 3.5 hour drive north of Jeffersonville (in a modern car on a modern highway).
3) Hope's mother continued to live in Jeffersonville.
4) Hope and William were married in 1934 in Fort Wayne.
5) When William Branham went to ask Charles for Hope's hand in marriage, it was after a sermon spoken by Roy Davis on a Wednesday night. Roy Davis' church was in Jeffersonville and they walked to her house from church.
6) William Branham said that he asked Charles if he could marry Hope, and that Hope asked her mother, on the same night, at the same house.
And what did William Branham say about his in-laws? He said that Hope's "mother was a very prissy sort of a woman. Fine woman, but she belonged up in the ranks, you know. And so Charlie was just a good old humble brother."
But didn't Abraham lie?
This should be considered as a response out of Cognitive Dissonance (if you don't know what this is, please click on the link).
Many message believers, when confronted with the clear facts that William Branham lied repeatedly state, "Abramham lied and he was the father of faith." This is effectively admitting that William Branham lied but that it is not a big deal if he lied.
The problem with this argument is that it is a red herring.
Why did Abraham lie? Because he feared that his life was in danger.
William Branham, on the other hand, lied to uphold the claim that God spoke to him and that his prophesies were authentic. William Branham lied to make himself look like a prophet so that people would follow him.
Under the new covenant that we find in the New Testament, lying is not acceptable behaviour in Christian leaders:
- Therefore an overseer must be above reproach...[1]
- For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.[2]
- Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.[3]
Also, several of his prophecies failed, therefore, we must deal with Deuteronomy 18:20-22.