Talk:Branhamism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Someone who believes the doctrines of William Branham will be 'religously opposed' to merging 'message of the hour' into Branhamism as they would be 'religously opposed' to anything representing denominationalism. To keep these ideas separate, it is suggested that this article be recreated under 'Message of the Hour' rather than the controversial 'Branhamism'.
[edit] Is the term 'Branhamism' Derogatory?
The term Branhamism signifies the doctrine and practices of William Branham and his followers. The term is not intrinsically derogatory anymore than comparable terms such as Calvinism or Lutheranism. The term is particularly apt as typically followers of Branham not only adopt his theological views but also his dress code and other preferences. Why many followers of Branham find the term derogatory is partly because they sometimes use it themselves in a derogatory sense to describe other factions of Branham's followers, particularly those with views more extreme than themselves. More importantly since followers of Branham typically regard themselves having the true Christian doctrine they dislike terms that remind them of the human origin of their destinctive beliefs and that these beliefs are not normative of Christianity.
[edit] So what is the end result of what you are saying?
Use the term or not? Can't tell from the above messages. NLOleson 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The following quote from above is made in ignorance. "More importantly since followers of Branham typically regard themselves having the true Christian doctrine they dislike terms that remind them of the human origin of their destinctive beliefs and that these beliefs are not normative of Christianity." For one it is important to study a subject before claiming knowledge. There are people still alive today that have been healed in the "branham meetings" If "branham doctrine" was of human origin, how is it that these people were healed? William Branham claimed that he had no ability to heal. If he had no ability to heal, I ask the question? Who is it that healed those people. Also why is it that the people who are critical are not healing likewise? There is an ante to put down first. I would put this out that the person who wrote the above statement is trying to make "branhamism" a human origin. My advice to the brother would be to do a simple word search on the internet. Use the words: ism and branham. It is easy to see why it is wrong to use the term branhamism. Branham wanted to be a skunk skinner. A hunter, a trapper. The term branhamism if it could be used would be to discribe someones humanity. What happened with this man was extra-ordinary. It is very important to quote facts. If one is to be a critic, one should examine the subject without bias. I would ask if it is humanly possible to have a man walk into a stadium and have truck loads of wheelchairs and crutches hauled out. (these crutches being from sick people healed.) To be in a different perspective, would you go for healing? "Branham" claims that the One who healed those people is the "Same Yesterday, today and forever." Meaning that the healing is still available all the way to the consumation. This is not Branhamism. Branham claimed his "message" was to declare Him that is here. He claimed that Christ is here. The term you are looking to use is Christianity. However it has been stated that these claims Branham was making are not normative of Christianity. I was of the understanding that Branham claimed that Christ is alive. He claims it is not a question of wheither he (Christ) would heal you, It is wheither He (Christ) is alive. He claimed that after 2000 years Christ keeps his promise. I challenge those who critic or call the teachings of branham "Branhamism"; to search the scriptures with the actual teachings and see if what he said to be a of human origin.
