America and the Endtime

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Kenod I certainly don't mean to impugh your honesty if it sounded that way I apologize I just don't have alot of tolerance for this teaching or teachers. I wasted nearly 10 years of my life in this mess. So I will try to adjust my tone.
I knew all those quotes yes it seems he teaches that here BUT in Marriage & Divorce he teaches polygamy in his doctrine of 'one and many'. Of course you know that. I don't blame you for trying to find excuses for his off-the-wall teaching but the message itself is clear.

Sure, he spoke about polygamy in the M&D sermon - and he applied it in the context of Mat 5:32 only, to explain why the man is given permission to remarry but the woman is not. People take it out of context. If I said Jesus told us we must hate our mothers and fathers to be one of his followers (Luke 14:26), then I would be guilty of the same thing.


Brother, I am sure you teach that we must not look at what others do, but at what the Scriptures teach us to do. I can only judge the Message of William Branham on what he said, not on what others did, or on what others say he did, or on what others say he said. I would judge your teachings in exactly the same way.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by kenod

Sure, he spoke about polygamy in the M&D sermon - and he applied it in the context of Mat 5:32 only, to explain why the man is given permission to remarry but the woman is not. People take it out of context. If I said Jesus told us we must hate our mothers and fathers to be one of his followers (Luke 14:26), then I would be guilty of the same thing.


Brother, I am sure you teach that we must not look at what others do, but at what the Scriptures teach us to do. I can only judge the Message of William Branham on what he said, not on what others did, or on what others say he did, or on what others say he said. I would judge your teachings in exactly the same way.

kenod I did the same as you so I understand however a tree is known by the fruit it bears NOT just a few cases but a pattern. The Branham teaching did not generate a greater love for the Word of God but the Word of Branham.
Sermons are built on and around words of Branham, very few even attempt to be Bible preachers but rather quote their prophet much like the Mormons.
I saw PG from Tucson at a large meeting hold a Bible in one hand anf a Bible in another hand and say I would rather believe a revelation over a translation anyday and the congregation roared Amen. In their meetings it is always what the prophet said that is their absolute. His message instead of being clear was a bunch of mumbo jumbo. For example tell us what the new birth is and when it occurs? Can a non-elect be born again?

[Ferd]

I am still waiting on a Branumite to explain how Adam was supposed to speak his children into existance.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

kenod I did the same as you so I understand however a tree is known by the fruit it bears NOT just a few cases but a pattern. The Branham teaching did not generate a greater love for the Word of God but the Word of Branham. Sermons are built on and around words of Branham, very few even attempt to be Bible preachers but rather quote their prophet much like the Mormons.

Then those people are wrong. I do not see that happening in my part of the world, and it is certainly not true in my own life ... just the opposite in fact!

I saw PG from Tucson at a large meeting hold a Bible in one hand anf a Bible in another hand and say I would rather believe a revelation over a translation anyday and the congregation roared Amen.

I would say "amen" too ... when modern translations deny the blood of Christ.

KJV: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

NIV & NASB: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

His message instead of being clear was a bunch of mumbo jumbo. For example tell us what the new birth is and when it occurs? Can a non-elect be born again?

I think quantum physics is mumbo jumbo because I can't understand it.

You must have heard William Branham speak about the three stages of natural birth: water, blood, spirit. He said it is the same with the new birth.

His understanding of the ten virgins in Mat 25 was that those with oil in their lamps had received the Holy Spirit; those without oil were Christians who had not received the Holy Spirit. The "foolish virgins" represent those who had only come as far as the water and the blood (justification and sanctification).

William Branham believed that God's election rests on foreknowledge - not you can and you can't - but rather, God knew who would and who would not. "Non-elect" means God knew before the foundation of the world that a person would not believe. ("Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated").

So my answer to your question "Can a non-elect be born again?" would be "No, they will not be born of the Spirit".

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I am still waiting on a Branumite to explain how Adam was supposed to speak his children into existance.

One word ... FAITH

Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.