DKB's Impassioned Plea For Iranian Branhamite?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

Message followers by virtue were influenced greatly and primarily by his theology or "greater truths" ... and as proven indisputably ... their influential leader did not perceive or define himself as trinitarian or oneness .... his mode of baptism placating both sides ... and rejecting the classic Pentecostal Parhamite doctrine of evidentiary tongues ....


then there's the fruity stuff.

Sans, this pastor's theology ... which admittedly we know little .... only that a Branham ministry claims he accepts Branham as a prophet and his teachings ..... and does not hold UPCI doctrine ....

the topic of conversation still revolves on whether mode of baptism makes you part of Apostolic revival ... or yes, even a "brother" ... especially to a man like DKB and those he leads in his fellowship.

Hypothetical: If TD Jakes was, God forbid, in a dire situation ... would the comunique read the same? Would there be a comunique? He baptizes in Jesus name, right?

This fellowship has ostacized Acts 2:38 believers for much less and erased their memory from their publishing house ....

Yet to the non-informed laity ... see FACEBOOK .... we have a Jesus name preacher .... which they equate to Apostolic .... on the verge on an execution .... posting and praying for the Apostolic preacher ... we know little about ...

not because they shouldn't pray, we should for all persecuted brethren , but also emotionally charged because what they perceive him to be ....

The vetting process has changed since I left a couple a years ago *shrug*

As far as T.D. Jakes, I don't know but I accept him. If the UPC did not it would be more for his "compromising" with Trinitarians than actual doctrine...that or lack of standards

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As far as T.D. Jakes, I don't know but I accept him. If the UPC did not it would be more for his "compromising" with Trinitarians than actual doctrine...that or lack of standards

That's the same reason they excommunicated Branham, Praxeas ... fraternizing with the enemy ... with a disclaimer published in the Herald ....

The AOG did so, as well

If it were simply because of "actual doctrine" he seems to say enough to placate both sides ... or at least he (Branham) tried.

Point still being, this "intelligence" report DKB is working on is simply the words of Iranian emigrant pastor in Canada who told him that folks are being baptized in Jesus name by Pastor Youcef and his group ....

this was enough to sympathize with his plight and make a public appeal ... and announcing "great revival in this country".

Enough to have hundreds of sycophants post pictures of the "Apostolic" preacher that will be executed on Dec. 3rd ... which was inaccurate as well

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

That's the same reason they excommunicated Branham, Praxeas ... fraternizing with the enemy ... with a disclaimer published in the Herald ....

The AOG as well

If it were simply because of "actual doctrine" he seems to say enough to placate both sides ... or at least he (Branham) tried.

Point still being this "intelligence" DKB is working on is simply the words of Iranian emigrant who told him that folks are being baptized in Jesus name by Pastor Youcef and his group ....

this was enough to sympathize with his plight and make a public appeal.

How can he be excommunicated from groups he was not a part of?

In anycase, this is still being about Branham and not this pastor. So what? Pray for him anyways. If he is a follower of Branham he probably baptizes in Jesus name

[Praxeas]

BAPTISM: Branham claimed that proper baptism was needed to avoid the "Mark of the Beast" of denominational churches and escape the danger of missing the rapture and entering the Tribulation. Proper baptism must be in the name of Jesus only. Baptism with the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:18 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") is unacceptable to God.
Branham explained, "There never was a person baptized in the name of `Father, Son, Holy Ghost' until early Catholic church" (Ibid., p. 178). "Look down on your Bible and see if that says `in the names of...' Does it? No, sir... It said, `in the NAME...'" Branham attempted to explain the distinction, "You see, you misunderstand it then. It's one God in three dispensations.... And when He said, `Go baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit,' it was Jesus Christ. And that's why we baptize in Jesus' Name" (Ibid., pp. 181, 184).
If an incorrect formula was spoken during baptism, Branham felt the convert would go into darkness. "But a tritheist, triune baptism was never recognized in the Church, the New Testament... Now you know what to do, that's right; and if you refuse to walk in Light when Light's brought forth, you turn to darkness. Right! Amen!" (Ibid., p. 190).
http://www.watchman.org/profile/branpro.htm

[Praxeas]

TRINITY: Like the "Jesus-Only" Pentecostals Branham denied the Trinity doctrine teaching a form of Modalism. Instead of three Persons in the Godhead, Branham taught that there was only one Person (Jesus) going under different titles or modes at various times in history. Branham's teaching is a variation of a second century heresy taught by Sabellius know as Modalistic Monarchianism or Patripassianism (see Monarchianism, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 727-28). Branham explained, "...not one place in the Bible is trinity ever mentioned...It's Catholic error and you Protestants bow to it" (Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 182). "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It's three offices or three dispensations,..." (Ibid., p. 392). This view of the Godhead is called Modalism and has been held to be heretical by both Catholic and Protestant churches.
http://www.watchman.org/profile/branpro.htm

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BAPTISM: Branham claimed that proper baptism was needed to avoid the "Mark of the Beast" of denominational churches and escape the danger of missing the rapture and entering the Tribulation. Proper baptism must be in the name of Jesus only. Baptism with the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:18 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") is unacceptable to God.
Branham explained, "There never was a person baptized in the name of `Father, Son, Holy Ghost' until early Catholic church" (Ibid., p. 178). "Look down on your Bible and see if that says `in the names of...' Does it? No, sir... It said, `in the NAME...'" Branham attempted to explain the distinction, "You see, you misunderstand it then. It's one God in three dispensations.... And when He said, `Go baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit,' it was Jesus Christ. And that's why we baptize in Jesus' Name" (Ibid., pp. 181, 184).
If an incorrect formula was spoken during baptism, Branham felt the convert would go into darkness. "But a tritheist, triune baptism was never recognized in the Church, the New Testament... Now you know what to do, that's right; and if you refuse to walk in Light when Light's brought forth, you turn to darkness. Right! Amen!" (Ibid., p. 190).
http://www.watchman.org/profile/branpro.htm

You're quoting from a secondary source ... with chopped quotes, a la Boora, lol.

While I posted a primary transcript with audio from Branham himself, Praxeas, as to how he baptized ... with commentary from "message believers" (believethesign.com) who say his theology was a hybrid bridge of both theologies.

To a Trinnie he's Oneness ...
To Oneness ... he sounds a little too Trinnie ... or hangs out with them.

Whether some of his adherents have gone to one side or another .... is this in keeping to what he taught?

[Praxeas]

Follow the link. It sounds like a Oneness message

http://www.williambranham.com/featur...water-baptism/

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It’s three offices or three dispensations, the Fatherhood, the Sonship, and the Holy Ghost dispensation. But Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has one Name, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Every person from that day on was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and they found some that was baptized in no Name at all, and the original Greek said right here and both the Hebrew, that the baptism in the Name of Jesus is for the forgiveness of sins, both Greek and Hebrew. “Remit” means, “to forgive,” of course. If I remit anything, is to take it away, to remit it–”take it away.”....


There is no such a thing as name of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Father is not a name, Son is not a name, Holy Ghost is not a name. It’s three titles, therefore there is no such a thing as the name of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” That’s no name, So I baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ which is the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Clear?

[Bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by DAII

That's the same reason they excommunicated Branham, Praxeas ... fraternizing with the enemy ... with a disclaimer published in the Herald ....

The AOG did so, as well

If it were simply because of "actual doctrine" he seems to say enough to placate both sides ... or at least he (Branham) tried.

Point still being, this "intelligence" report DKB is working on is simply the words of Iranian emigrant pastor in Canada who told him that folks are being baptized in Jesus name by Pastor Youcef and his group ....

this was enough to sympathize with his plight and make a public appeal ... and announcing "great revival in this country".

Enough to have hundreds of sycophants post pictures of the "Apostolic" preacher that will be executed on Dec. 3rd ... which was inaccurate as well

DA
It has been specifically reported that they are not Branhamites. The report is that the Iranian pastor in Montreal had been communicating with them directly via webcam.

Apparently one of them had posted some of Branhams baptism stuff on a website, however when informed of who Branham was immediately removed it.

Could they be Branhamites - it's possible - prior to this thread had the question been raised? I think not.

Whatever he may be he needs prayer for his situation.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Bullwinkle

DA
It has been specifically reported that they are not Branhamites. The report is that the Iranian pastor in Montreal had been communicating with them directly via webcam.

Apparently one of them had posted some of Branhams baptism stuff on a website, however when informed of who Branham was immediately removed it.

Could they be Branhamites - it's possible - prior to this thread had the question been raised? I think not.

Whatever he may be he needs prayer for his situation.

Very interesting, Bullwinkle. Thanks for the update. I wonder if Branham's charismatic doctrine on tongues has also possibly influenced or infiltrated this Iranian church.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by DAII

Very interesting, Bullwinkle. Thanks for the update. I wonder if Branham's charismatic doctrine on tongues has also possibly influenced or infiltrated this Iranian church.

DA, why try to show discrepancies on issues you yourself don't believe?

I totally understand the question raised about how some veiw TDJ while at the same time embracing others they know little about...

But it seems you are bent at nailing DKB to the wall for an caring and innocent request for prayer and support for a Pastor with a death sentence for preaching Jesus.

Why is that? Have you and DKB had words recently?