Archive for February 2012

Was Bro Branham "Sola Scriptura" (Part 3)

(Author’s note. This is Part 3 of 3 on a thought on Sola Scriptura)
Part 1 can be found here.
Part 2 can be found here.

Are YOU Sola Scriptura?

Let’s follow all this up with a discussion of Malachi 4:5,6. We’re looking for a prophet to come, as John the Baptist only fulfilled half of Malachi 4:6. (Luke 1:17) Biblically, Sola Scriptura, we’re looking for a prophet to come.
We also see in Revelations 2 and 3 there are seven Church Ages; it’s obvious to see by the condition of the church and by belief that we’re in the last days that we are in the seventh Church Age. That seventh Church Age had an angel/messenger that was spoken to. We’re also looking to a fulfillment of Revelation 10:7. This is Sola Scriptura – just looking at prophecies in the Bible that are yet to be fulfilled.

If that Seventh Church Age messenger wasn’t Bro William Branham then tell me who was? There HAS to be a seventh church age messenger. So who is it? There has to be a fulfillment of the last half of Malachi 4:5,6. There has to be a seventh angel to come so that “the mystery of God should be finished”. If you are Sola Scriptura, you believe ALL that the scripture, ALL that the prophets have spoken. IF you are Sola Scriptura you are LOOKING for that fulfillment.
If you aren’t looking for that to be fulfilled, or know how it was fulfilled, how can you claim to be Sola Scriptura?

Those who follow Bro Branham’s teaching as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5,6 and Revelation 10:7 are waiting for the coming of Christ just like self proclaimed Sola Scriptura protestants. Unlike most Protestants we believe there is a prophet is supposed to come first, because the BIBLE declares it.

Sola Scriptura indeed.

Was Bro Branham "Sola Scriptura" (Part 2)

(Author’s note. This is Part 2 of 3 on a thought on Sola Scriptura) Part 1 can be found here.


Now, I’d like any protestant friend to understand something about Trinitarianism. Most Protestants that would claim they are “Sola Scriptura” will also claim they are Trinitarian. They’ll also note that Bro Branham was not. They then reason that if Bro Branham wasn’t Trinitarian he obviously isn’t Sola Scriptura.

I think it’s important you see the similarities first. We believe that Jesus was God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Father is God – just like you do. HOWEVER, we don’t believe that GOD is 3 different people who can have a conversation with each other. We believe that God is ONE, just like he told the Hebrew Children in Deut 6:4. He changed his mask in how he dealt with men. He created a sinless body that he could dwell in. He was not 3 distinct individuals. See Matt 1:18 and tell me who was Jesus’ Father if you disagree.

Trinitarianism also speaks of how one baptizes. Paul said,” One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. Now, if you aren’t baptizing like Paul, then how can there be one baptism? The book of Acts shows us how Peter and Paul and their converts baptized. There is only one baptism.

I would also point out that the trinity is actually a CATHOLIC doctrine and cannot be found Sola Scriptura. If there is one baptism and Paul used Lord Jesus Christ, then how do you have a different baptism, and why aren’t you baptizing like the original church did in the book of Acts? The Catholic Church is anything but Sola Scriptura, yet Trinitarians who have only reformed from the Catholic Church, still use their baptism and claim Sola Scriptura. It just doesn’t make sense.


Now many will say that Bro Branham often spoke of visions that he had. Then they tell us that isn’t Sola Scriptura because it’s “Extra Biblical” as those visions aren’t found in the Bible. Let’s just look at that for a moment though.
Paul told the sailors of the ship he was on that an angel of the Lord stood by him, and that if anyone got off the ship they would all be killed. Was that sola scriptura of the day? No, it wasn’t.

Isaiah had a vision that a virgin shall conceive. What Scripture did he base that on? Oh by the way, he died before that vision came to pass – did the people of the day disbelieve him because his vision didn’t come to pass before he died? It’s a good possibility.
You can’t expect visions of current events to be Sola Scriptura. However, those current visions and such are typically not doctrinal teaching. You can have visions of current events that are not talked about in the Bible and still be Sola Scriptura.

Biblically, you have to look at what a prophet says, and test it. If it continues to pass the test over and over again, and you find that he’s not taking you to some other god. (Deut 13:1-3) Then it would behoove you to listen, because it’s God speaking through that man.
Another point is the vindication of Moses to the Children of Israel. God gave him two signs to vindicate him to the people. If another prophet were to be vindicated on the same basis, would that then be Sola Scriptura? I believe it would.

Was Bro Branham “Sola Scriptura”? (Part 1)

A question similar to this was asked of me the other day. I felt the answer might be beneficial to others.

First off, there are many of our readers who might not know what “Sola Scriptura” means. Stated as simply as possible, the theological concept “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture Alone. A snippet from Wikipedia:

“Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today”

So, what it basically is saying is that Scripture is the foundation of faith. There are those who claim that Bro Branham was NOT Sola Scriptura. What they mean is, that they don’t believe Bro Branham relied on scripture alone, but on visions and other such things to form his doctrine.

Let’s analyze some of the things Bro Branham has said.

230 I’m going to say this. Listen to it. Say, “Brother Branham, your ministry is not compared nowhere in the world of its supernatural.” Great men (I could call their names, if it wasn’t for this tape.) called me, come, go with them. “Your ministry’s the only thing that’ll save the world.” Why is that not somewhere else? Come back to the Word. God can only build upon that foundation; then if I’m so firmly wrong in the way I baptize people, and the way I talk of the Holy Ghost, and the things that I do, then why does God honor it? Produce something like it? See? Why is it? I don’t say that for myself, that would be wrong; but I’m trying to say because I stand on the Truth, the Word and the Word alone.

So Bro Branham attributed his success to his standing upon the WORD and the WORD alone. So, I’d say that’s Sola Scriptura right there.

He often quoted

» 8 † But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

And what he meant was exactly what it said. If he preached different than Saint Paul, he felt he would be accursed according to this scripture. Men, questioning him on his doctrine, would tell him they would believe him if he told them the Angel told him his doctrine was correct. His response was this scripture. If his doctrine wasn’t correct based on the Bible, he didn’t care if the angel agreed with him or not. It had to be Biblical. It had to be Sola Scriptura

He also often quoted:

» 18 † For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He was for EVERY WORD of the Bible. No more, no less. He exhorted people to believe the entire Word of God. That’s Sola Scriptura. If Bro Branham was, those that follow him should be as well.

People might be quick to point out that some of the followers of Bro Branham’s teachings don’t seem to be Sola Scriptura. They quote from his sermons a lot. This is akin to the people of the Apostle Paul’s day reading his letters.

To be honest, most of Bro Branham’s followers have never even heard of “Sola Scriptura”, but I can tell you they believe the Word of God as it was written in the Bible, or they really don’t believe what he said.

As Bro Branham said it “I have preached the same Word he [Paul] did, just exactly stayed with the same Gospel.” and we all can truly say “We’re resting on that!”