Archaeology and the Bible

Cosmology and Fine-Tuning: Three Approaches (Robin Collins)

Dr. Michael Brown on Mideast Conflict and Myths about "The Palestinian People"

Article from Townhall.com : Five Simple Truths About the Mideast Conflict

Excerpt:

1. There is no such thing as a historic “Palestinian people” living in the Middle East. To be sure, there have been Arabs living in the land of Palestine for centuries. (The land of Israel was derisively renamed “Palestine” by the Romans in the second century A.D.). And it is true that some of these families have lived in Palestine without interruption for many generations. But at no time before 1967 did these Arabs identify themselves as “Palestinians,” nor did they seek to achieve any kind of statehood there. As expressed by former terrorist Walid Shoebat, “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”

Article from Townhall.com : More Facts on the Myth of "The Palestinian People"

Excerpt:

Myth #1. The modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the ancient Philistines, who were living in the land of Canaan (= Palestine) long before the Israelites had arrived on the scene.

Click here to visit Ask Dr. Brown.org

Isaiah 55:6 : Seek the Lord

Isaiah 55:1-3, Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. 3 Incline your ear, and come to me; listen, so that you may live. I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. NRSV

Isaiah 55:6, Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; NRSV

Amos 5:4, For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: Seek me and live; NRSV

Isaiah asks why "spend your money for that...which does not satisfy?" This is an important question and the solution Yahweh gives is equally important. Similarly Jesus told the woman at the well that if anyone was to drink of the water He will give they shall never thirst. Isaiah records that both Jew and Gentile must "Seek the LORD..." This is God's answer for how to find that which truly satisfies. It is the condition of obtaining any spiritual benefit.(1) Ezekiel informs us that even Israel was allowed to enquire or "ask" of the LORD (Ezekiel 36:37). Indeed, we must "Ask...it will be given...search...you will find; knock...the door will be opened...everyone who searches finds..." Luke 11:9, 10 NRSV

The searching and seeking however must be done as Luke later described. He records "Strive to enter through the narrow door..." Luke 13:24 NRSV Our seeking and searching must be sincere and honest. This searching is more than mere intellectual inquiry but cannot be done without our use of the thinking equipment the LORD has provided us. Mere intellectual inquiry in such a search will probably produce no saving relationship between God and man. Honest and sincere seekers however will go where the evidence leads.

Isaiah doesn't leave us without reason. In fact, he gives us good reasons for seeking the LORD. 1) our thoughts and ways are not those of God and we are therefore unable to dictate the terms (55:8). 2) With implied reference to the Hydrology Cycle of the created world Isaiah compares rain and snow (moisture) with that of the Word of God. As the rain and snow come down from heaven they do not return until they have watered the earth and generated life. The word of God does not return empty or without effect but accomplishes that which the LORD has purposed. 3)Those who seek will "go out with joy" and be "led forth with peace." Seeking and searching brings joy and peace. Instead of a "thorn" bush a "cypress" and instead of "brier" up shall come the "mytrle". J.E. Smith notes that this means:

Happiness and contentment (“cypress” and “myrtle”) replace bitterness and sorrow (“thorn bush” and “nettle”) in the lives of obedient believers. (3)

The NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and the NET begin Isaiah 55:6 with "Seek the LORD..." Brenton's rendering of the LXX starts like this, "Seek ye the Lord..." The LXX is also different from the other translations when it continues with, "and when ye find him" instead of ""while he may be found" (NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV). The NET renders it "while he makes himself available..."

In 55:6 the word for "seek" is a Hebrew verb (דָּרַשׁ) which is derived from the word 'record"/midras (מִדְרָשׁ). It means to seek with care. Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon suggests its meaning is a command to "seek deity in prayer and worship...the true God".(4)

In the book, A Rabbi's Search for the Messiah, Rabbi Isidor Zwirn outlines his search to find the messiah. Rabbi Zwirn, who never found the trinity dogma in his search, did "through personal investigation of the Scriptures alone, came to recognize Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah." Zwirn notes that he "followed the Prophet isiah's admonition..." He then goes on to provide his rendering of 55:6 as "Research (doresh) the LORD, for he can be found, research him, for he is near."(5) Note the words of Charles Simeon on this subject:

Nor is it in a cold indifferent manner that we must seek; we must strive as persons in earnesti, and if once we get access to God, we must detain him, as it were, by force, and take his kingdom, as it were, by violence. And it is for want of this holy zeal in our endeavours, that so many of us seek him throughout our lives, and never obtain a saving “acquaintance with him.” We must also seek him in and through Christ: for it is by Christ only that we can ever come unto the Father. (2)

Seek the LORD while He may be found.



JNA


Notes:

1. "The condition and limit in the obtaining of the spiritual benefits (Is 55:1–3): (1) Seek the Lord. (2) Seek Him while He is to be found (Is 65:1; Ps 32:6; Mt 25:1–13; Jn 7:34; 8–21; 2Co 6:2; Heb 2:3)." Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Is 55:6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

2. Simeon, C. (1832-63). Horae Homileticae Vol. 8: Isaiah, XXVII-LXVI (464–465). London.

3. Smith, J. E. (1992). The Major Prophets (Is 55:6–13). Joplin, Mo.: College Press.

4. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.) (205). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

5. Zwirn, Rabbi Isidor and Owen, Bob. A Rabbi's Search for Messiah. (c) 2003 Published by Good News for Israel. pg. 75

Islamic Radicals Debate: Debate Results (15 of 15)

Great debate on Islam. The debate is provided in a 15 part video series by Intelligence Squared. Two panels debate the proposition: "Islam is dominated by radicals." After hearing the debate 73% of the audience voted in favor of the proposition: "Islam is dominated by radicals." Only 23% voted against the proposition. 4% were undecided.

Quotes from The Higher Criticism by Morgan P. Hayden D.D.

Morgan P. Hayden was born in 1845 and died in 1928. Graduated from Hiram College in 1872 and studied Hebrew from 1882-1886. He was also dean of the International Christian Bible College. His book The Higher Criticism was published in the 1920's. Click here for a sermon from Hayden on the deity of Christ and the object of our worship. This work, says Hayden, is a "concise treatise on an important subject, for the busy masses who want the facts in condensed form." He has some important and relevant advice for Bible students today.




"Every era has its own problems which must be faced and solved." pg. 3

"It is thus evident that Biblical criticism is an entirely legitimate realm of investigation, provided only that principles and proper methods be employed in the inquiry." pg. 6

"With the multiplication of editions, the attention of scholars was drawn to a comparison of editions, then of manuscripts,and out of this study of editions and manuscripts, Biblical criticism was born." pg. 8

"For three centuries...the work of Biblical criticism was almost wholly restricted to a correction of the text." pg. 8

"The modern rationalists are the scholastic descendants of the philosophers of Paul's day." pg. 11

"Having decided in their "inner consciousness" that the laws of nature could not be violated, that miracles are impossible, they laid down the rule that all supernatural or miraculous elements be rejected from the Bible and explained away as mythical or legendary." pg. 20

"The testimony which proves the miracles of the Bible can not be set aside without invalidating all evidence; and a rule which overthrows all evidence can not be accepted. If accepted, it would destroy the credibility of all history, and render impossible any reliable information concerning past events." pg. 21

"The rationalist...having accepted the theory of evolution as a sufficient explanation of all phenomena...rejecting a supernatural origin for the religion of the Old and the New Testaments..." pg. 21

"These rationalistic critics, not by the established laws of evidence, but by their own preconceived opinions...determine what must be fact, and what must be fiction in the record...They reject the supernatural elements in the books of the Bible because their theory requires it..." pg. 22, 23

Hayden quotes from Max Muller, "Without a constant return to its fountain head, every religions suffers from its contact with the world, as the purest air suffers from the mere fact of its being breathed." pg. 25

"'the faith' signifies the system of doctrines and precepts which constitutes the gospel of Christ...Now 'the faith' or the gospel, is the system of teaching concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Savior of men." pg. 27

Among others Hayden lists 7 "facts concerning Christ":

"His birth of a virgin; his baptism by John; His public ministry, teaching and miracles; his betrayal, condemnation, crucifixion and burial; His resurrection, appearances to His disciples and ascension; His exaltation, coronation, and right at the right hand of God; His work through His inspired apostles, as His ambassadors, in establishing His kingdom upon earth." pg. 28

He also lists "the commands of Christ":

"The commandment to the church to preach the gospel to the whole world, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing these disciples and teaching them to observe all the commands of Christ; and The requirements to the world to hear the gospel, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, confess Christ, be baptized in the name of Christ, live a faithful Christian life in obedience to the teaching of Christ's apostles." pg. 28, 29

"The inspiration which directed and controlled the prophets, apostles, and all the writers of the books of the Bible is not merely the exalted and lofty conception which springs from human genius and insight, but it is something that comes upon men from without, and from God, a special divine illumination and superintendence. It is not the offspring of human wisdom, but of divine wisdom, and reveals to men that which never could have originated in the mind of man." pg. 32, 33

"To all believers in the living and true God it is evident that a revelation from God to man is possible." pg. 33

"The Bible purports to be a revelation from God our Creator, to be given by men who were inspired by the Spirit of God, to contain a message revealing a divine plan of redemption..." pg. 41

"Between rationalism and "the faith" or pure Bible Christianity there can be no peace." pg. 42

A Scientific Case for God (Rabbi Moshe Averick)

<$BlogItemFeedLinks$>

Futurism and Preterism Debate : David Norris and Larry Smith

Jerusalem, A.D. 70

Defenders of the Faith and Jorge Medina has made the "Futurism vs. Preterism Debate" (DVD) available. This debate involved Larry Smith (Partial Preterist) and David Norris (Futurist). Click here to purchase DVD from Defenders of the Faith!

Larry Smith

Around 2002 Larry Smith sent an unsolicited book to many ministers in the UPCI and ALJC. In the book Smith sought to challenge normative views of eschatology held by Oneness Apostolics. Norris notes that Smith saw Revelations 6-19 as referring to past events “leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” He also suggests this view sees Revelations 20, where John speaks of the binding of Satan, as referring to the present church age. Matthew 24 is also about the destruction of Jerusalem and “nothing more.” The “coming of the Lord” is not about the Lord’s return for believers but for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

David Norris

Some of the topics explored in the debate are What the early church believed?; The “Premillennial Return of Jesus Christ” in Church History; The Olivet Discourse; The Dating of the Book of Revelation and The Church in Prophecy Today.

Click here to purchase DVD from Defenders of the Faith!

Encountering Jesus, Encountering Judaism : Karl Rahner and Pinchas Lapide on the Trinity

While reading the book Encountering Jesus--Encountering Judaism I came across a dialog between Lapide (Jewish) and Rahner (Catholic) on the doctrine of the Trinity. Two very respected scholars and theologians. The following are quotes from the chapter "Three Gods or a Triune God?"

Pinchas Lapide

Lapide, "it rightly says in the Bible, "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," for it concerns three various experiences of God..." pg. 31

Rahner, "as if we could know and explain anything about the inner life of God. God does not communicate his inner life to us through mere speech in sentences, but rather through his authentic turning to us in grace and incarnation." pg. 32

Lapide, "What must confuse many Jews is the abandoning of the letter "u" by the dogmaticians. In the early church fathers it was still called triunitas, whereby the unity is placed in the foreground. Trinity, on the other hand, purely speaking, sounds like tri-theism or even like a heavenly triumvirate." pg. 32, 33

Rahner, "the word person, when applied to the Trinity, gives rise today to almost insurmountable misunderstandings that are not at all contained in the actual dogmatic formulation...one cannot speak dogmatically of three various persons in the Trinity in the modern sense of "person," that is, of a single, unique center of free action...unfortunately very many people today understand the doctrine of the three divine persons in the sense of a modern concept of person and then they are tri-theists, even if they don't want to be." pg. 34

Karl Rahner

Rahner, "I have proposed to speak of three modes of subsistence in the doctrine of the Trinity..." pg. 35

Lapide, "would it not be simpler to remain for the present with the three various dimensions of the experience of God that characterize the faith of our patriarchs?" pg. 35

Rahner, "there are three most fundamental experiences of the one God: Father, Son (Word), Holy Spirit...this one and the same God is in himself threefold...therefore the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity are the same for me." pg. 35

Lapide, "The prophets warn us repeatedly about the manufacturing of images of God: "To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?" (Is. 40:18) It often appears almost as if Wittgenstein was right when he said, that about which we do not know, we should keep silent." pg. 36

Rahner, "No, I am not in agreement with Wittgenstein. Christian theology is simply speech about the incomprehensible God, about which one must speak..." pg. 36

Apostolic Hermeneutics : Things Hard to Be Understood

Daniel L. Segraves, Ph.D

Click here to read from Dr. Segraves blog Center for Oneness Research and Education.

_______

The title of this paper is not intended to suggest that Scripture cannot be understood. It does acknowledge, however, that Peter was right when he said that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand and that there are “untaught and unstable people [who] twist [these things] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Several ideas arise from this verse: (1) Paul’s letters are Scripture; (2) it is spiritually dangerous to be “untaught” and “unstable”; (3) some things Paul wrote are hard to understand, apparently even for those who are taught and stable. This does not mean they cannot be understood. Peter’s following words suggest that with spiritual alertness understanding is possible, and this understanding will result in growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (See 2 Peter 3:17-18.)

Peter’s reference to growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ connects with important statements on biblical interpretation made by Jesus Himself. To the disciples on the Emmaus road, Jesus said, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). Jesus began “at Moses and all the Prophets” and expounded “to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). Later, when Jesus vanished from the sight of the disciples as they were sharing a meal, they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). These disciples understood the Hebrew Scriptures only when Jesus explained the Scriptures in terms of what they said about Him.[1]

Similarly, Jesus opened the understanding of the larger group of gathered disciples. He enabled them to comprehend the Scriptures, saying, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:44, 46-47).

These words, which Jesus spoke just before His ascension, tell us that the essential story of redemption is found in the Old Testament before it is ever found in the New Testament. Indeed, there are details about Christ’s life and work recorded in the Old Testament that never found their way into the New Testament.

The release of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 had a profound influence on the hermeneutics adopted by many early twentieth century Pentecostals. Although Scofield had no empathy for the Pentecostal movement, his “dispensationalism with its intense emphasis on futuristic eschatology had a strong appeal to them.”[2] It was typical for Pentecostals to believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a sign that the Second Coming was just around the corner. They embraced an eschatological focus, and Scofield’s neatly mapped out eschatology provided them a ready template.

It was immediately necessary, however, for Pentecostals to modify Scofieldian dispensationalism, because although the “system . . . provides a convenient method of organizing biblical history and teaches that it is possible to fit the full range of prophetic Scripture into something like a complicated puzzle,”[3] it also asserted “that the gifts of the Spirit, especially what has been called ‘the sensational gifts’ or ‘sign gifts’ (healing, faith, working of miracles, and tongues), were confined to the apostolic age.”[4] Although cessationism was rejected by Pentecostals, “the dispensational understanding of the church, as well as its eschatology, has influenced pentecostal theology.”[5]

Not only did Scofield confine the supernatural dimension of Pentecost to the first century. He also saw the church as a mystery not anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures.[6] But if there is a disconnect between the church and the Old Testament, the value of the Old Testament for the church is minimized. How are we to view the fact that the New Testament quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to the Old Testament nearly 800 times, especially when these references to the Old Testament are often in the category of fulfillment motifs? In a textbook used in many Pentecostal Bible schools during the mid-20th century, the author claimed, “Except that blessing was promised to the Gentiles . . . the church was unknown to the prophets.”[7] In view of Peter’s declaration that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was “what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16, NKJV), it is doubtful that the denial of any meaningful connection between Joel and Pentecost will be satisfying to Pentecostals.[8]

Implicit in Jesus’ explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures is that they are rich in Christology, soteriology (doctrine of salvation), pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), and ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). A reading of the New Testament indicates that the apostles and others involved in writing Scripture understood and fleshed out these themes. An examination of Paul’s use of Scripture demonstrates this point.

Paul and the Mystery of Christ

For Scofieldian dispensationalism, these words of Paul mean that there is no anticipation of the church in the Old Testament:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power (Ephesians 3:1-7).

The phrase “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed” is taken to mean that there was no revelation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures.[9] Ultradispensationalism goes so far as to say that there was no revelation of the church before Paul.[10]

A thorough reading of Paul indicates, however, that these views are incorrect. Rather than disavowing any revelation of the church prior to his, Paul’s point is that he enjoyed a fuller understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than that of the original writers of those Scriptures. For the consideration of hermeneutics, this validates the idea that the part must be interpreted in view of the whole. Paul could understand only from his situation, or from his hermeneutical horizon, but his horizon was wider than that of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, not only because he possessed something never possessed by any but the final writers of the Hebrew Scriptures – the entire Hebrew canon – but also because his horizon included the knowledge that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and a fullness of the Holy Spirit never enjoyed by those who lived before the era of the New Covenant (Acts 9:17). But his horizon extended even beyond this to include the portion of the New Testament that was written during his lifetime.

The revelation to which Paul referred in Ephesians 3 was not something given by God to Paul apart from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, this revelation was not something diverse from and superior to Scripture. It was not something that was unanticipated in Scripture. We know this because Paul’s ministry, from the very beginning, is rich in the use of the Hebrew Scriptures to proclaim Christ as the promised Messiah and the work being done by Christ in the church as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. The revelation was not, therefore, something radically new; it was a perspective on the Hebrew Scriptures not fully enjoyed by those who wrote them or by those who interpreted them prior to the era of the New Covenant.

It is perhaps no surprise that dispensationalism denies any anticipation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures; that is the nature of the system. But even F. F. Bruce, in his comments on Eph 3:5, asserts that although the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated blessing of God upon the Gentiles, the fact that this “blessing of the Gentiles would involve the obliteration of the old line of demarcation which separated them from Jews and the incorporation of Gentile believers together with Jewish believers” was something that “had not been foreseen.”[11] A. Skevington Wood, however, sees the revelation as a matter of degree: “Although the blessing of the Gentiles through the people of God was revealed in the OT from Genesis 12:3 onward, it was not proclaimed so fully or so extensively as under the new dispensation.”[12]

These views do not, however, address the possibility that the mystery described by Paul was indeed found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that the reason it was “not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5) was that the limited horizon available prior to the era of the New Testament prohibited the fuller understanding now available to Paul as well as to all of the holy apostles and prophets. That this is at least a possibility is evident not only from Paul’s Christological use of the Hebrew Scriptures but also from his ecclesiological use of the Old Testament. Again, the point may be that his revelation was not something new but that it was a wider and deeper grasp of what had already been revealed in Scripture. Otherwise, we would expect Paul to make no appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures in his declaration of the gospel, including the union of Gentiles and Jews into one body. But this is not the case. Paul roots his teaching exclusively in the Scriptures.

Paul declared that what he believed was that which was written in the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14). He had done nothing offensive against the law of the Jews or the temple (Acts 25:8). He was called before Agrippa “for the hope of the promise made by God to [the] fathers” (Acts 26:6). In a very clear appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures for his message, including the inclusion of Gentiles equally with the Jews, Paul told Agrippa that he said nothing other than those things “which the prophets and Moses said would come—that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). Rather than claiming innovation for his message, Paul insisted that he said nothing new.[13] After arriving in Rome, Paul told the Jewish community there that he had done nothing against the Jewish people or the fathers (Acts 28:17). Instead, he was bound “for the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). He “explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23).

When he wrote to the believers at Rome, a church that included Jews and Gentiles, Paul declared that the gospel of God was that “which he promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). The Law and the Prophets witness to the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ “to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference” (Rom 3:21-22). The letter to the Romans is a church letter; Paul establishes the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church from the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that Abraham was justified before circumcision was for the purpose of demonstrating that Gentiles, not only Jews, are the recipients of imputed righteousness (Rom 4:11). Abraham is equally the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (Rom 4:16-18). Hosea and Isaiah both anticipated the inclusion of believing Gentiles (Rom 9:24-29). Even Moses wrote about the righteousness of faith wherein there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:5-12), as did Joel (Rom 10:13).[14] In an extended appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate the inclusion of Gentiles, Paul indicates that this inclusion “confirm[s] the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8-12, 21). As he concludes the letter, Paul writes that the gospel he preaches—which is identical with “the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began”—is made known to all nations “by the prophetic Scriptures” (Rom 16:25-26). This can only mean that the message he preached in the churches was firmly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained that he spoke “the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” (1 Cor 2:7). But this mystery was anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures (1 Cor 2:9). It had now been revealed to Paul “through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10). The story of Israel’s journey through the wilderness was written for the benefit of the church (1 Cor 10:6, 11). The essential gospel message is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4).

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that those who read the Hebrew Scriptures while rejecting Christ are hindered by a veil; their minds are blinded (2 Cor 3:14). Isaiah prophesied of the church age, the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). Ezekiel anticipated the way God would dwell in the church (2 Cor 6:16). Even the Pentateuch called for the church to be holy (2 Cor 6:17-18). That these Hebrew Scriptures belong to the church is quite clear when Paul immediately follows these references with these words: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1).

In his letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul declared that the Hebrew Scriptures foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8a). By doing so, the Scripture “preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand” (Gal 3:8b). In receiving “the blessing of Abraham,” Gentiles are also receiving “the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14). When “the Scripture . . . confine[s] all under sin,” Gentiles are included along with Jews, so “that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22). Thus, “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To be Christ’s is to be Abraham’s seed “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). If Gentiles in the church are heirs of a biblical promise, it is difficult to say that the Old Testament in no way anticipated the church.

To the Ephesians, Paul wrote that God had made known to him “the mystery of His will” which involved the “gather[ing] together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in him” (Eph 1:9-10). We come now to Paul’s discussion of the revelation of “the mystery . . . which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph 3:3-6). In view of all that precedes this canonically, it is difficult to read this to mean that the Hebrew Scriptures include nothing about the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs.[15] Indeed, Paul in the very next chapter quotes Ps 68:18 to explain the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to the church (Eph 4:7-14). We can certainly question whether the author of Ps 16 or even the final composer of the Psalter understood Ps 68:18 as a reference to the ascension gift ministries, but Paul’s horizon was broader than theirs. He lived in the era of fulfillment and of the Spirit, an era that released the text of the Hebrew Scriptures to a dimension of fullness unavailable to those with a limited horizon. This does not mean that the author of Ps 68 or the composer of the Psalter were wrong; it means that there was a depth of meaning in the text that awaited fulfillment to be fully released. Since Paul uses the psalm this way in the same letter where he discusses the revelation of mystery, it is apparent that he does not mean that the mystery is not based on Scripture. He even sees Gen 2:24, a statement that in isolation seems to refer only to the marriage relationship, as “a great mystery” that “concern[s] Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

Again in his letter to the Colossians, Paul discusses “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” (Col 1:26). This is the same mystery Paul has in view in his letter to the Ephesians; it concerns “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). But again Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the source of this mystery. Specifically, he sees the regulations concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths—all integral to the Law of Moses—as being “shadow[s] of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17).

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes the church as “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It would seem strange to think that such a high evaluation would be made of an institution that has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul declares that the Holy Scriptures—the Hebrew Scriptures that Timothy has known from childhood—“are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). It is precisely these Scriptures which are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). If the Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for church doctrine, for the reproof, correction, and instruction of church members, and if they are capable of bringing a man of God who is in the church to completion, they surely are not bereft of any reference to the church. Before closing his letter, Paul appeals to Timothy for “the books, especially the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). No doubt these parchments were Old Testament Scriptures written on leather scrolls.16 If the Hebrew Scriptures contained nothing specific to the church, one wonders why Paul wished to have them as desperately as he wished to have his cloak.

Interpretations of Ephesians 3:5 that focus only on exegesis of the immediate context miss the influence on understanding available from the broader horizon of the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament and specifically from Paul’s consistent Christological and ecclesiological use of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Paul’s use of the Old Testament demonstrates the validity of the approach to understanding characterized by the hermeneutical circle. Because his horizon has been widened by his personal encounter with Jesus Christ, because he enjoys the fullness of the Spirit, and because he has access to the entire Hebrew canon, he reads the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they could not be read by those who rejected Christ or by those to whom only portions of the text were available. This was not unique to Paul. As he affirmed, the revelation of the mystery of Christ “has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:5). His approach to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is mirrored by all of the New Testament writers.[17]

Theoretically, it may be possible to say that we are in a better position to understand both the Old and New Testaments than were the writers of either testament, because our horizon includes the perspective of the New Testament writers on the Old Testament, a horizon unavailable to the writers of the Old Testament, and because we have access to a wholeness or fullness of written revelation, including the New Testament, that the writers of the New Testament never enjoyed. Our horizon is widened not only by the complete canon, but also by the fullness of the Spirit and by the effect of the history of Christian interpretation and the impact of Scripture on the church.

Our apostolic heritage includes an approach to the interpretation of Scripture that is quite different from the hermeneutics adopted by those who limit the supernatural dimension of the Christian life to the first century and who separate the two testaments so radically that there is no ecclesiology – with its attendant pneumatology – in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is agreed by many, including non-Pentecostals, that the Old Testament is rich in Christology. It should be recognized, however, that where Christ is found, so is the Holy Spirit, and so is the anticipation of the church, which comes into being when Christ pours out the Holy Spirit upon waiting believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

Discussion of exegesis, authorial intent, context, reader response, genre, and the entire range of hermeneutical concern has its place, but will fall short if Scripture is not approached as it was by the first century apostles and others who wrote Scripture. This includes their belief that all Scripture, including the Hebrew Scriptures, belonged to the church. Until the end of the first century, no Christian in the apostolic era had access to the entire New Testament. For about fifteen years after the Day of Pentecost, New Testament Scripture did not exist. When it did begin to develop, it was in bits and pieces and scattered widely over the geographical expanse of spreading Christianity. There were no printing presses constantly collating freshly written Scripture to assure that all New Testament believers were kept up to date on the latest revelations.

How, then, did first century Christians believe and understand the gospel, and what was their authoritative source for its declaration? As Paul pointed out to Timothy, this was the function of the Hebrew Scriptures Timothy had known from his childhood:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17, NKJV).

Since the writers of the New Testament so fully embraced the Hebrew Scriptures as their source for the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and since they believed it was profitable for a full range of teaching, including the reproof, correction, and instruction of New Testament Christians, bringing the people of God to completion and thoroughly equipping them for all they needed to do, it should be no surprise to find the New Testament standing in complete solidarity with the Old Testament. The way this works out may sometimes be hard to understand, as Peter indicated, but the reward is worth the effort. Oneness Pentecostals, of all people, should rejoice in the opportunity to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This growth will not come from minimizing the value of the Old Testament. It will result from reading the Hebrew Scriptures as the Scriptures of the church, feasting on the richness of their testimony to Christ, partaking of the fullness of the Holy Spirit promised therein, and celebrating the fulfilled fellowship of the gathered believers (i.e., the ekklēsia, the church) thus anticipated.

Endnotes

1 Luke 24:33-35.
2 F. L. Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” in The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas; rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Zondervan, 2002), 585.
3 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
4 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
5 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585. Ryrie acknowledges that “ecclesiology . . . is the touchstone of dispensationalism” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1965], 132).
6 It has long been noted that dispensationalism sees the church as a parenthesis, bearing no relationship to what preceded it or to what will follow it in God’s plan. (See Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1960], 26, 28, 43, 129.) For normative dispensationalism, the church and Israel are “completely distinct.” The church “was not revealed in the Old Testament,” and God has two purposes, “one for the church and one for Israel” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 174).
7 Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1955), 53-54. See also Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 134, n. 4, where Ryrie quotes James M. Stifler’s interpretation of Ephesians 3:5 as denying “that there was any revelation at all of the mystery in that former time . . . .”
8 In its comments on Joel 2:28, the New Scofield Reference Bibledisassociates Joel’s prophecy from any fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost: “Peter did not state that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The details of Joel 2:30-32 (cp. Acts 2:19-20) were not realized at that time. Peter quoted Joel’s prediction as an illustration of what was taking place in his day, and as a guarantee that God would yet completely fulfill all that Joel had prophesied. The time of that fulfillment is stated here (“afterward,” cp. Hos. 3:5), i.e. in the latter days when Israel turns to the Lord” (E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 1045).
9 Scofield’s comment on Ephesians 3:5-10 includes the claim that “the church is not once mentioned in Old Testament prophecy” (C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth . Cited 2 December 2004). Online: http://www.raptureme.com/resource/scofield/s1.htm. Although this view has been softened by adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism (See, e.g., Robert L. Saucy, “The Church as the Mystery of God,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 127-155), those who embrace Scofieldian dispensationalism continue to insist that “no revelation of this mystery was given in the Old Testament but that this mystery was revealed for the first time in the New Testament” (Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; New Testament edition; Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Book, 1983), 629.
10 See G. R. Lewis, “Ultradispensationalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter A. Elwell, ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1120-21.
11 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (ed. Gordon D. Fee; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 314.
12 A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 45.
13 See also Acts 26:27.
14 See also Rom 10:19-21.
15 The New Scofield Study Bible comments on Eph 3:6: “That Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery . . . . The mystery ‘hidden in God’ was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing—‘the church, which is His [Christ’s] body,’ . . . and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears . . . .” (C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible: New King James Version[Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989], 1437, n. 2). But we have seen several places where Paul appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to establish this very point.
16 Ralph Earle, “2 Timothy,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1(ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 415.
17 For example, Peter sees the establishment of the church on Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). James sees the inclusion of Gentiles in the church as having been anticipated by Amos (Acts 15:13-18). The author of Hebrews weaves texts from the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the letter to indicate that Christology and ecclesiology are rooted in the Old Testament.

Interview with Daniel L. Segraves and Carlton Coon

Daniel L. Segraves, Ph.D

Here's what Dr. Segraves reports:

I was recently interviewed for two episodes of Home Missions Live, a video interview sponsored by the Home Missions Division of the United Pentecostal Church...they can be viewed at http://www.homemissionsdivision.com/hmlive/

Click here to go Dr. Segraves blog. Or click here to watch video.

The Willfulness of Men Not to Believe

13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ Matthew 13:13 NRSV

In Matthew 13:9-17 Jesus taught that it was because of men's willfulness not to believe that it was hard for them to understand His parables. Some people do not want to understand. In our religious and secular culture there is confusion and misunderstanding about the Bible. To be the man or woman of 2 Timothy 2:15 we must be a worker, needing not to be ashamed,"rightly" explaining the word of Truth.

In Matthew 22:29 Jesus clearly replies to the Sadducee with this answer: "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." NRSV Not only does Jesus invite us to study the Scriptures but He even rebuked men for their lack of knowledge. After more than three years of Christ's teaching the disciples, themselves, were rebuked for their unbelief and hardness of heart. This was not done because they could not understand but because they did not believe what Christ said. Notice the words of Jesus here:

25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiahj should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures. Luke 24:25-27 NRSV

Even in the times of Peter "unlearned and unstable" were twisting and wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction (See 2 peter 3:16-18). Often times it is our pride, willfulness, or rebellion against what has been "written" that cause the Bible to be hard to understand.  Trinitarians suggest that the Trinity was revealed over time. They try to rationalize this with progressive revelation. However, I fear that sort of God would not be Biblical. Rather, dishonest or perhaps deceptive. God will not hide from man the very things that He will judge him by in the end.

The words of Christ were not hard, nor complex. They were always simple enough to understand but believing them was another thing. Believing Christ was the problem, as it is today. Jesus was clear ""...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV) We must not try to make the Bible conform to our ideas but reconcile our ideas to the Bible. Even the Apostle Paul taught that the hearing of God's Word is sufficient to cause one to believe.

16 But not all have obeyed the good news;c for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. Romans 10:16-17 NRSV

The Gnostic Gospel (Peter Jones)

An Examination of the Doctrine of Branhamism by Elder Steve Epley

Elder Steve Epley

This is a work prepared by Elder Steve Epley for a missions works in Brazil and India that were being assaulted by this false teaching several years ago. Anyone wanting to know more about the false teachings of William Branham will enjoy Elder Epley's inimitable sayings and writing style. 
____


The reason I have chosen this title even though I realize it will be offensive to the exponents of this heresy is that you cannot separate this man from his teaching since much of the teaching surrounds who and what role he purported himself to be. I will not even attempt to castigate nor defend his humble beginnings. Whether he was a sincere and devout man who went astray or whether he was a charlatan influenced by a evil spirit. I will allow others I know which are in both camps to fight that out. But I do know particularly from the late 1950's until his untimely death on  December 24,1965, he preached doctrines that are not only false but demonic inspired.

I will try to attempt to accurately state then deny by the Bible these false teachings. Lest anyone would not feel that I am qualified to my utter shame I reluctantly acknowledge I believed in this man and his message for over a decade of my life. While I cannot ever recall those wasted years I can try to help some unlearned person to not fall into the same trap that captured me as a young simple honest but deceived man. So with that out of the way, lets begin.

William M. Branham

WILLIAM MARRION BRANHAM 1906-1965

As one the forerunners of the modern day charismatic movement and one of the leaders in what is now known as "LATTER RAIN MOVEMENT' his place in Pentecostal history in this century cannot be overlooked. There is not one history study in modern Pentecostalism that his name does not occur. While there are brief mentioning of him by other Oneness historians that do speak somewhat of his teachings not many of them accurately tell what he taught and then refute his teaching accurately. Branham taught by inference that he was the long awaited Prophet Elijah that was to come to restore the elect to the original faith of the Apostles. Also that the seven churches spoken of in Revelation 2 & 3 are actually seven church ages and the angels are messengers sent to each age in which only they alone had the revealed truth for their day. Since the seventh age is the last church age the seventh messenger is also the Seventh Angel of Rev. 10:7. While I will refute each of these erroneous positions I ask one question? If Branham was this overly humble lowly servant of God, then please explain to me how you can be humble then claim you are the only human of this century who has the complete revelation of God not only for this day, but even knows what is on the backside of the book that is not even written in scripture. I dare them to say he didn't teach that. At least Bishop Johnson was ignorant enough to say if you hadn't heard it from my mouth you haven't heard it. But this false humility is part of the lure to ensnare the simple.

POINT ONE: WHO WAS WAITING FOR ELIJAH TO RESTORE THE CHURCH BACK TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES? NOT THE TRUE JESUS NAME CHURCH.

Regardless what false teacher teaches the church somehow fell into total apostasy then was somehow restored by the reformation that concept only exist in the minds of folks that have a problem really believing the necessity of the new birth message and are ignorant of true church history and evidently have a problem believing what Jesus himself said about the duration of the church. Jesus said without reservation"UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." Mt.16:18 This mighty flame of truth may have been reduced to a flicker at times in history but you can rest assure it has always existed pure in doctrine and life until this very day. If not, you make Jesus a Liar and one who can produce a church but did not have the power or will to preserve it. So in short there is no restoration of the Apostolic Church. Much less Elijah coming to restore it. The passage misused teach this is found in Malachi 4:5-6. Branham borrowed this concept from Alexander Dowie who founded a cult in Zion, Il. in the latter part of the 1900's. Does this passage in Malachi promised that at the end of the Gentile age Elijah is going to come? Well you can believe Branham or Jesus. Jesus very clearly states in Mt.17;10-13 that John the Baptist was Elijah or the fulfillment of this promise note the wording "THAT ELIAS IS COME ALREADY AND THEY KNEW HIM NOT," not so bad that those people in the first century could not recognize who John really was but it is twice as bad when we have the written record WRITTEN IN RED if you please that Elijah isn't coming he has come nearly 2000 yrs. ago and Mr. Branham and his followers still don't know it. Branham said there are 5 comings of Elijah promised in the Bible. We only ask this one simple question WHERE? They may say well in Malachi it says dreadful day of the Lord. Anyone that has a casual knowledge of history must confess since Israel's rejection of John, Jesus, and the Apostles from 70 AD up to the present the dreadful judgement of God has been on that land and people of that land even the Holocaust of this century will testify to that fact. So the first false premise of a latter day prophet evaporates into oblivion when tested by the Bible.

Let us examine the second "proof text"

The Messenger of the Seventh Church Age is the Seventh Angel of Rev. 10:7. Point one these letters were addressed to the seven churches that ARE IN ASIA. Now whether they may type the history of the church up to the present may very well be but do not overlook the obvious these are seven local congregations in Asia Minor. And these letters were sent to the angels or pastors of those seven local churches. It is very interesting that as Branham attempts to name these seven men in church history who are to fulfill these roles some of which were not even members of the Lord's church if the Bible can be believed. I will only name two while there are others also who are questionable. 

Martin Luther he declares is the Angel to the Sardis Church Age. 

John Wesley is the Angel to the Philadelphian Age. 

Now even Prophet Branham sees his problem in getting folks to be baptized in Jesus Name preaching this so he is clear to let you know that they are only reformers but the seventh messenger will be a prophet. Well you can't have both if Baptism in Jesus Name is only baptism recognized by God in scripture then that leaves Martin and John out. Not only are they not the Angels of the Church they are not even in the Church. What a joke! Except a man be born of water he cannot see or understand the kingdom of God. Now here are two men by their own writings have not experience the new birth how could they possibly restore any truth to the Church. Luther believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, Infant baptism, a Calvinistic style of personal predestination, thought the Jews should be killed for crucifixion of Christ, and even had a Oneness man burned to the stake for his denial of the Trinity. So if Branham's theory is correct then maybe we should be Lutherans. 

John Wesley did not preach truth if what even Branham preached was true. So two of these so-called Messengers are down and we have one to go. Please notice the linking of the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans with the Seventh Angel of Rev. 10:7. Just a note Branham borrowed his interpretation of Rev. 10:7 from another late false prophet Joseph Smith who founded the Mormon Cult.

As already stated the seven angels of chapters 2&3 were the pastors of seven local assemblies in Asia but the Seventh Angel in 10:7 must be a celestial Angel if context means anything at all. Note 8;1 mentions these angels through the next 2 chapters they are given their commissions if keeping biblical context means anything then if the Angel of 10:7 is Branham then the other six were these other men he proclaims to be the messengers of the ages. Of course anyone causally reading these verses would see the absurdity of this position.You can't have it both, if 10;7 is the Laodicean Messenger then Luther was the angel with the key to the bottomless pit read 9:1. This hog-pog piece work of interpretation would be hilarious if men were not tying their eternal destination to it. 

Also a last thought on "WHO'S ON FIRST" interpretation Branham taught the Church would go out in chapter 4 ( at least we have one bit of prophecy he's right on) How can the Church go out in chapter 4 and the Messenger still be here in chapter 10? Maybe he didn't make it. Deut.13 clearly warns us that if a prophet or seer of visions or dreamer of dreams give you a sign or wonder and they come to pass, and he bids you to go after other gods do not follow them. So all the halo pictures, cloud pictures, and other so-called proofs don't mean a blessed thing if they are not preaching the Apostle's doctrine. It doesn't matter how many Angels appeared to Branham, Joseph Smith, or any other so-called prophet Paul declared for us to let them be accursed:8 

POINT TWO; Now to this restored doctrine we have been breathlessly waiting for since the time of Paul.

THE NEW BIRTH AS TAUGHT BY BILL BRANHAM.

Branham never could make up his mind whether Baptism remits sin or not. His followers may try to deny this but anyone familiar with his tapes or books know that he made conflicting statements. On some occasions he held the Baptist view that baptism is for sins that are already remitted.

Then on other occasions he emphatically stated that baptism remits sin. I am not going to try to second guess him, but honestly by my acquaintance with the movement the majority would believe the first position. The scriptures clearly teach "ONLY THROUGH BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST CAN REMISSION OF SIN BE OBTAINED." So on this part of the new birth he is so muddy there is no clear sound. If he would have been sent to restore the Apostolic Message wouldn't he a least been positive about the first Message preached on Pentecost in Acts 2;38.

Here is a side note Branham preached in Jeffersonville, In. a message entitled"It Wasn't So From the Beginning" in that message he stated anyone who baptized in the trinity was false prophet then the next week preached a Trinity camp in Ohio and at the altar call he told converts at the altar he was not there to baptize them but the good men of the camp could baptize them. 

How can they be false prophets on Sunday and good men to baptize them into a false baptism later in the week. He constantly was preaching for and fellow shipping with Trinitarians proclaiming them to be men of God. Spent several year promoting the FULL GOSPEL MENS ASSOCIATION, which for those who don't know was the springboard of this modern Charismatic movement. So Elijah sure was different here than on Mt. Carmel. 

Now to the second part of the new birth. Branham clearly taught one did not have to speak in tongues to receive the Holy Ghost. This he borrowed from F.F. Bosworth who was asked to leave the Assembly of God for this position. Again we find him again at odds with the early church and his so-called restored church. Restored simply means to be put back to the original state or condition. Acts 2:4 clearly declares THEY ALL SPOKE WITH TONGUES. Everyone in that upper room spoke in tongues. 

When Peter and the brethren from Joppa went to the Gentiles in Acts 10 and the were filled with the Holy Ghost they knew they had received the same experience FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES. Acts 10:46 Well I'd rather believe the written record than any modern revelation. 

Here is any interesting side note: Branham taught the evidence of the Holy Ghost was receiving the word of God. Acts 8 makes that concept very interesting Phillip goes and preaches Christ to the Samarians he baptizes them in Jesus Name, here is the kicker in verses 14-15 the Apostles at Jerusalem hear that the people at Samaria RECEIVED THE WORD, they sent Peter & John to lay hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. So here they got the evidence before they got the Baptism. 

That record really messes up Branham evidence theory. The purpose for Branham teaching his is that the proof you have the Holy Ghost Baptism is that you are able to receive the message of your day with in effect is if you do not accept William Branham to be the Seventh Church Age Messenger you do not have the Holy Ghost. The majority of his disciples cannot tell you when they received the Holy Ghost. So this False Message prevents honest people from receiving the New Birth Experience. Not only does Branham's message not only not restore but actually perverts the Message and Experience of the Church of the New Testament. 

POINT THREE: THE MYSTERY OF THE SERPENT SEED DOCTRINE.

Branham said this was one of the great mysteries that was to be revealed by the Seventh Angel. This doctrine also he borrowed from the School of Prophets a Two-God Pentecostal group began by William Sowders in the early 1900's . Although he revised it with his own touch it certainly did not begin with him nor did it end with him. Sun Ya Moon the founder of the Unification Church(the Moonies) and Witness Lee of the Local Church Movement also believe some version of this doctrine. 

Here goes and I'm not making it up; the serpent in Genesis 3 was the missing link of Darwin in that he was an upright beast like man to the point he would be able to have sexual relations with humans. The Devil got in the serpent and he seduced Eve into committing adultery with him from which she became expecting with Cain her firstborn son which was Able's twin. From this a wicked linage was produced that actually are regarded as beasts and are predestined to Hell. Adam's sin was that he still lived with Eve even though she was defiled. All sin is the fault of the woman not the man that is why the virgin birth came through the woman. This also resulted in man being able to have more than one wife but the woman only being able to have one husband. No this is not a joke or even an exaggeration it is in a nutshell the Serpent Seed Doctrine. Now let's examine the "proof texts" of this revealed mystery. Did you know the word beguile means to morally seduce so when Eve said the serpent beguiled me she was really saying the serpent committed adultery with me. According to that understanding then in Gen. 29:25 Laban seduced Jacob and had evidently homosexual sex with him, if you keep true to the definition they apply to beguile. Also the Gibeonites sexually seduced Joshua and the Isrealites in Josh.9:22. Then Paul was afraid of the Devil who is a spirit that does not even have sexual organs of sexually seducing the Corinthian Church. 2Cor.11:2

So the first point is proven mute by their own definition of their word beguile. I will tell you how the Devil beguiled Eve the same way he has beguiled the people who believe such a fanciful tale as this. By telling them a lie. He told a lie and she believed a lie that is how she was beguiled not by some sordid sexual affair. "Proof text number 2" Did you know that eat doesn't mean to consume with the mouth but also means partake look at Pro. 30:20 "Such is the way of an adulterous woman;she eateth and wipeth her mouth and saith I have done no wickedness".

See how crafty these folks are these two passages absolutely have no relationship to each other. If you want to see what eat means in Genesis 2 &3 read the context. Look 2:9 every tree was good for FOOD ALSO THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Nothing could be any plainer that. In 3;6 we see the actual transgression....she took the fruit thereof,and did eat and gave also to her husband WITH her;and he did eat. Reading this verse through their glasses would have to read like this"Eve committed adultery with the Serpent while Adam was WITH her evidently he was a pervert to watch her and this missing link committing adultery then he had relations with a defiled woman. What an imagination to get a convoluted warped lurid story out of that verse. No one can read the Bible particularly the law without realizing God gets very plain in his descriptions of sinful activities regarding sex, so why would God shroud this original sin in such simple clean cut language that you have to intentionally misread it to misunderstand it.

Nothing in this or any other passage in the entire Bible even remotely gives a hint that adultery was the sin Eve committed. Other problems in this tale the record clearly states Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bare Cain. Every other place in the Bible where a man knows his wife and she conceives there is no doubt to the parentage of the child. But didn't you know Cain was of that Wicked one 1Jn.3;12 yes verse 8 of the same chapter tells you how "he that committed sin is of the devil, ...in this the children of God and the children of the devil are made manifest" and he uses Cain as an example if the passage means that Cain was physically birthed by a union between Eve and the Devil possessed serpent then all that are sinners should recheck their birth certificates. Paul rebuked Elymas in Acts 13:10 " O thy child of the devil" was Elymas' mother impregnated by the missing link. How about Mat. 13:38 "the tares are the children of the wicked one" and I could go on but time and space forbids. All who sin are of the devil not because we were born of an adulterous union but rather because we sin. Then because of this sin there are two distinct bloodlines on the earth the righteous bloodline of Seth and the wicked bloodline of the serpent.(on a side note some racists use this theory to demean the blacks to say they do not have a soul) Does the bible teach two blood lines well listen to Paul the one Branham came to restore us to his understanding Acts 17:26 GOD HATH MADE OF ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS OF MEN...Sorry Bill but Paul hadn't heard you two blood theory. Here is the great fact that completely destroys this false doctrine note; EIGHT GOT ON THE ARK AND EIGHT GOT OFF, so even if this had been so about the seed of the serpent they all got drowned not a one of the wicked linage of Cain survived. Can't say it was one of Noah's daughter-in-laws they cannot produce without a man and only Noah's sons were present.

This is a perplexing thought if one who is a natural descendant of the serpent cannot be saved and it is passed through natural linage then how can one person in a family believe the Branham message and be of the righteous line then all his family be serpent seed. Or how can a believer of the Branham message be a seed of God and his offspring never become believers. If this doctrine is so then if you have one only one of family that is lost then all of your family is lost including you. How do you like that for endtime revelation then. That would make Branham lost because his father was an alcoholic and never claimed to be saved, much less a believer in the so-called Endtime Message.