In discussing the Serpent's Seed doctrine on another forum, I came to the following realization:

William Branham's interpretation and teaching are constantly being challenged and concluded as being "off the Word" or not lining up with the Word.

For example, it was challenged of me to prove the Serpents Seed doctrine using a purely exegetical analysis of the doctrine. Ultimately I had to admit that I can't point to a verse that says "And Eve knew the serpent" as I think this is the only way this individual would "accept" the doctrine. Their guidelines are that strict it seems.

This led me to issue a challenge of my own. Below is that challenge:

The Challenge:

Prove the common practice held by the "orthodox" church of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (And make this practice run in harmony with the entire scripture.)

I am being honest here. I find that WMB and "his" doctrinal stances are constantly put to the exegetical test. However, can the above pass the same test? Using purely exegetical study or analysis, can that pass the test?

Prove by the text, and the text alone the following:

1. "Father" is a name.
2. "Son" is a name.
3. "Holy Spirit" is a name.

Then prove by the text that the LORD said these were His name(s).

Then prove by the text that the three names (plural) is the proper interpretation of the command to baptize in the "name of" (singular)

You see.... this is in the same boat. It can't be done. There is no other text to go to.

In context, this was a directive by Jesus Christ. "Go into all the world and do X."

The disciples took that directive and the interpretation of that directive is made known by the fact of HOW they did it.

When I research this at sites like carm.org... what I get is "what he really meant was baptize in the authority of Jesus name.... Is this proper exegesis? Is this coming to a conclusion based on what the text says?

Does this "doctrine" not have to pass the same level of scrutiny that Serpent's Seed does?

In my opinion there is a double standard that has set in. All of what WMB said must pass this test and is viewed as off the Word. Yet certain orthodox, commonly held, doctrines may not be able to pass the same test.

So does that mean that those doctrines are "off the Word"?

At what point, no matter who says it, or how widely prevalent a teaching is accepted, does it fall into "teaching the commandments of men" and not what the Word actually says?

The doctrine of people suffering eternally in hell is another one of these doctrines that needs to be put to the test.

This is the trap the pharisees fell into. They formed opinions of the Word and what it said and began to hold onto those opinions at all costs. Jesus telling them to "search the scriptures" is the epitome of this.

Can we really say that this is only a "message" thing?

FYI the church we attend does not have a "doctrine" of baptism according to Matthew 28:19. Baptism by immersion upon confession of faith is taught but no "formula."

One evidence given that the believers in the book of Acts did speak of all three at the time of baptism is the question "to what then were ye baptized?" to believers who "knew not whether there be any holy ghost."

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity-baptism

I'm not accepting any challenge, but you may find this link interesting.

Hi Life,

The challenge wasn't really aimed here...so I don't want people to feel "challenged". I posted this in reply to a challenge of myself on the other forum.

Certainly if anyone has any input on it... I would be happy to see the outcome.

So are you saying... hypothetically that on one Sunday you may have someone baptized in the three titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and then on the next Sunday it may be done in the name of the Lord Jesus? Just trying to understand what you mean fully.

I am not a real stickler on an "exact formula" because we see variance in the book of Acts. The reason this gets "heated" when discussing with non trinitarian folks.... such as I have discussed with in the past... is that it is the meaning behind the "formula". The three titles being tied to the (3) persons on the trinity.

But not to get too far down that road on baptism.. as my whole point with this is to show that there are some doctrines that are held to be "orthodox"... or call them practices of the church.... that in my opinion don't match up with the Word just as much as people say that Serpents Seed and other doctrines don't match up.

I would appreciate you elaborating on how your church does baptism as I am curious of different perspectives.

No, I'm saying their qualifications for membership don't require Trinity baptism. Baptism by immersion upon confession at another church (regardless if it was in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ) qualifies. People baptized as infants or sprinkled/poured would have to be rebaptized.

I've only seen two baptisms at our new church, but at both they required a profession of faith by the candidate, included quoting of several baptism scriptures (probably Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) and a brief explanation of the fact it's not a requirement for salvation, but an act of obedience which reflects an inward work of grace. The Matthew 28:19 words were the ones spoken as the candidate was baptized.

Our church sees the Bible as completely authoritative, so their teaching of the trinity is not as "concrete" as some you might find by John Wesley, et al, with fanciful descriptions of three-Person conferences in heaven. The carm.org links would be a good reflection of their approach. God is not seen as three entities or beings, but the word person is used because we know each of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit love, speak, and act. It's hard to imagine how the Father loves the Son if they are inseparable.

Certainly there are "practices" in the church that aren't entirely scriptural- we meet in buildings, have musical instruments..... the list goes on. I don't think we can eliminate baptism according to Matthew 28:19 as anti-Scripture considering the source.

My "beef" with WMB is that I no longer have any confidence in his truthfulness and character. How can I follow a person and consider him to be a major Messenger to the Church when he's apparently lied repeatedly and perpetuated hoaxes? It's heartbreaking really.

Thanks for the clarification Life.

Just to clarify....My whole point with Matthew 28:19 and then the acts accounts is not to "eliminate" Matthew 28:19. I see Matthew 28:19 and what the apostles did in Acts in complete harmony with each other. Honestly... do we want to say they are NOT in harmony...??

This is actually one of the major doctrinal issues I saw that turned me "off" of the whole idea of "orothodox Christianity". This is in part what lead me to become a believer of the message.

I just can't get over the fact that on one hand, I am challenged (no here necessarily) to stay so close to the Word and hold only to what is clearly evident in the Word, but on the other hand we have churches in essence turning away from what is plainly seen in scripture.

I was told in the other forum to only read what is in the scripture and only bring to the table what we see in Genesis. Don't change it or read into it.

So I am now putting the same level of "scrutiny" on some of the orthodox teachings. The same level of scrutiny put on WMB's teachings.

Regarding "when he's apparently lied repeatedly and perpetuated hoaxes?"

I have started looking at the Word first so I haven't gotten there in great detail. I do find it interesting that Abraham lied twice and that is recorded in scripture. So when I review what is said about this subject... I am also going to look at scriptural principles and other cases to see if this happened in the past.

On the forum we have been talking about "message goggles".... I guess I am saying there are probably "orthodox goggles" too.

I guess that is where the "authority" explanation comes from. It MUST be in harmony. If you search "in the name of" on biblegateway.com you will see that Deuteronomy has several examples of things being done "in the name of the Lord" and then "in the name of other gods", and it's obvious that the meaning is not always literally standing there saying, "I do this in the name of xxxxx" (Yahweh or Baal, or whatever). Read each example and mentally say "by the authority of..." and see whether the meaning would be the same? The first "hit" says Aaron and his sons will "stand to minister in the name of the Lord." (this standing to minister was sometimes for hours, yes?) David sent his young men to speak to Nabal on his behalf, and it says "in the name of David." Obviously it means by the authority. A few might stretch to be literally uttered, such as Jonathan and David swearing in the name of the Lord, but usually these are not physical actions, such as baptism is physical, but are blessings or curses or swearing.

In the New Testament it frequently says Paul preached or spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus, which on one occasion lasted all night.

If a pastor baptizes someone according to Matthew 28:19 on the authority of the command given by the Lord Jesus Christ (which would be "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" by this understanding of the scriptures- "in the name of"="by the authority of"), is he not still obeying Acts 2:38? Making it about literal words recited really smacks of incantation.



Oh certainly! I pray the Lord keeps me in Bible goggles!

Life-

Very well thought out response. Certainly something to "put on the table" when I study this subject. Forgive me.. I haven't yet gone to the resource you suggested.

I understand the position better now.

So I wonder what the implication or importance of Jesus's command being singular... "In the Name of" and not "In the Names of..." Perhaps I have my "non-trinitarian" googles on right now... but honestly if it only says a Name...singular... yet there are (3) persons in the Godhead, it seems we have a problem. I think this is what ruffles the feathers so ultimately when this subject is brought up. It is said, there are (3) persons because they all have a distinct and seperate will and are addressed by "he", thus pointing to a "personage". So interesting thing to consider, do the (3) distrinct personalities have (3) distinct names? So...

What is the name of the Father?
What is the name of the Son?
What is the name of the Holy Spirit?

I think I need to understand this from a trinitarian perspective and so I will ask my friend to see if can help me understand the position. Or maybe Carm has something on that.

"Bible Goggles".... There you go! That is what we all need indeed!!

I would agree with you except for the requirement that the words "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit" to be said over those that are baptized.

If it doesn't really matter then why the insistence on the "trinitarian" formula?