William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine

The Godhead Sandbox The Trinity Oneness/Modalism Questions and Answers William Branham's doctrine is a bridge between the Oneness and Trinitarian doctrines, sometimes agreeing with and sometimes challenging the conclusions of these established doctrines. In the sermon The Godhead Explained William Branham tells when he was confronted by the Assemblies of God (Trinitarian) and the United Pentecostal Church (Oneness) and forced to clearly define his doctrine. At the end of their discussion, William Branham had both representatives acknowledge that the other had the Holy Spirit. He then explained his method of baptism, which both representatives accepted. In this same sermon, William Branham tells of another confrontation with a UPC minister. This minister said "You know what we are going to do? We are drawing a little ring and drawing you right out of our circle." William Branham responded, "If you draw me out, I will draw you back in." The Godhead and Respect In the past, some Christians in positions of power have persecuted heretics (or anyone who disagrees with their own favourite doctrine). But persecuting heretics is as spiritual as stoning the good Samaritan. The treatment of the Cathars at the hands of the Catholics, most notably in the massacre in Beziers in 1209 A.D., is a historic example of this persecution. The Apostle Paul wrote about people who "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1). He describes people who understand the Godhead correctly, but still choose to live a life of corruption. Paul’s final description of these individuals is ‘unmerciful’, which is an apt description of Arnaud-Amaury, the Catholic ambassador to the Cathars of Bezier, who declared “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.” Jesus taught that only those who had a pure heart would see God (Matthew 5:8). Jesus’ zeal for the condition of the heart was matched only by his zeal for the Temple of God, driving out the moneychangers and saying, “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13) The temple was a place designed by God for worship, and is a symbol of Jesus Christ – through whom we have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Problems with the doctrine of the Trinity A misleading impression of the Trinity (by Fridolin Leiber) as "person" does not mean "individual". As evidence that the Catholic Church has not always believed the Trinity, the doctrine of Callixtus I, the Bishop of Rome (i.e., Pope) between 217 – 222 A.D. and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, is recorded as follows: “For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two.” ~ Hippolytus, the Refutation of all Heresies: Chapter XXIII While a familiar phrase to describe the Trinity is “God in Three Persons”, Callixtus I declared that God is one Person, not more. The origins of the notion “God in three persons” traces back to a man named Valentinus, who was recognized as a heretic by the early church fathers. “Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise…the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons – father, son, and holy spirit.” ~ Marcellus of Ancyra, On the Holy Church, 9 Early Christians who did not follow the doctrine of the Trinity are often referred to as ‘Modalists’ by Trinitarians. NewAdvent.org (a Catholic encyclopedia) describes ‘Modalists’ as those who “exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person.” NewAdvent.org discloses that the Latin word for person (“persona”) was originally used to denote a mask worn by an actor, but then uses commentary from Boethius (480 – 524 A.D.) and St. Tomas of Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D) to explain how the Latin language evolved so that the word ‘persona’ meant 'individual' at the time of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The reason for this change in definition is critical, because if ‘persona’ had meant a role of an actor in 381 A.D., the members of this council would have been Modalist rather than Trinitarian. Callixtus I doctrine was further recorded as follows: “there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son, yet that in substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so.” ~ Hippolytus, the Refutation of all Heresies: Chapter XXIII Logos is Greek for “Word” (see John 1). When Callixtus I describes the Spirit as “not any being different from the Logos” he is saying that the Spirit and the Logos are the same being. By this definition Callixtus I was an unorthodox Modalist, saying “this Person” in reference to the Father and Son, while a man recognized by the early church fathers as a heretic (Valentinus) might now be considered orthodox in his understanding of the Godhead. Based on Colossians 2:9, “God in one person” is a more fitting description of Jesus Christ, the temple of God. In practice, a church member may describe the Trinity as being like “three grapes in a bunch” or like “ice, water and steam” – because these are the kind of explanations taught by Sunday Schools. What is interesting is that the first analogy is Trinitarian, while the second definition is Oneness. God didn't have three people up there, and He sent one of them, His Son. It was God, Himself, come in the form of a Son. A son has a beginning, and the Son had a beginning. That, some of you dear Catholic people, I got your book, Facts Of Our Faith, said, "The Eternal sonship of God." How you going to express that word? How you going to make it have sense? How can it be Eternal? That's not the Bible. That's your book, "Eternal sonship." They don't... That word is not right. For, anything that's a son had a beginning, and Eternal has no beginning, so it isn't Eternal sonship. Christ become flesh and dwelt among us. He had a beginning. Wasn't no Eternal sonship. It's the Eternal Godhead, not sonship. Now, He come to redeem us, and He did redeem us. (William Braham, Sermon: Hebrews Ch. 5 & 6, September 8, 1957) Navigation Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us