"And His countenance was as the sun shineth in its strength." Matthew 17:1-13, "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart. And was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light…
…In Revelation 21:23, "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." This is the New Jerusalem. The Lamb will be in that city, and because of His presence, there will be no light needed. The sun won't rise and shine there, for He is the Sun and Light thereof, Himself. The nations that come into it will walk in His light. Aren't you happy that day is upon us? John saw that day coming…”
…He's the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star. He's the fairest of ten thousand to my soul. Yes, that great day is ready to break and the Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in His wings. (William M Branham).
This is just a single example; provided to you so that you may understand what Branham was doing with Larkin’s material. Begin by comparing what Larkin says under any one of the seven headings above and compare it with what Branham says under the same heading. You will end up noticing that Branham would read what Larkin had to say then would go ahead and copy it and subsequently add his thoughts in order to insert the doctrines that Larkin did not write about, such as denunciation of the trinity. This pattern of plagiarism is widespread in many parts of Branham’s book. I encourage you to objectively investigate this for yourself. This is a big injustice to Larkin and the years of effort he put into writing his book.
Factual ‘errors’
If you have carried out the exercise recommended above, then you have already established that Larkin’s work was a major basis for Branham’s work on the seven church ages. You also have noticed that Branham would add a lot of material onto Larkin’s work. That being said, it becomes interesting to ask ourselves whether what Branham added was historically correct. Therefore from this point onwards, we will be examining the parts of the book that Branham wrote himself, not the parts he plagiarized from Larkin’s work. Since Branham says that he studied works from unbiased historians when compiling his work, then what he presents should be historically accurate, even more so when he is receiving the material through direct revelation from God – as he states.
53
Since this study was to be the most serious one I had ever undertaken up to this time, I sought God for many days for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then only did I read the Scriptures on the Church Ages and delve into the many church histories written by the most unbiased historians that I could find. (William Branham, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages)
It is therefore very discouraging to find out that what Branham tells us in that book is a concoction of historically inaccurate accounts. Branham presents us with seven church ages – their names obviously taken from the book of revelation. He then assigns periods of history to each of these church ages and then goes ahead to assign a messenger to each of these periods of history:
1. EPHESIAN CHURCH AGE (A.D. 53 to A.D. 170) - Messenger: Saint Paul 2. SMYRNEAN CHURCH AGE (A.D. 170 to A.D. 312) - Messenger: Saint Irenaeus 3. PERGAMEAN CHURCH AGE (AD 312 to A.D. 606) - Messenger: Saint Martin 4. THYATERIAN CHURCH AGE (A.D 606 to A.D. 1520) - Messenger: Saint Columba 5. SARDISEAN CHURCH AGE (A.D. 1520 to A.D. 1750) - Messenger: Martin Luther 6. PHILADELPHIAN CHURCH AGE (A.D. 1750 to A.D. 1906) - Messenger: John Wesley 7. LAODICEAN CHURCH AGE (A.D. 1906 - Rapture) - Messenger: William Branham
It is my intention to show you that we were furnished with pure fiction and falsifications by Branham through the accounts he gives us about these messengers. Again, Branham did not carry out sufficient research before he decided to assign these messengers to his splendid creation - the seven church ages.
Firstly, he tells us things about these messengers that totally contradict the history he claimed to study;
and secondly, several of these messengers sharply contradict the criteria he sets out for arriving at each messenger.
I will then show you that Mr. Branham created the seven church ages, after which he looked for six messengers that he could fit into the ages so that he could set himself up as the seventh messenger.
This was quite easy for some of the ‘ages’ where we had a well known prominent Christian, such as Paul’s and Martin Luther’s age. But then it gets tough in some of the ages where a single prominent Christian is hard to identify – and this is where we catch Mr. Branham fabricating material. Walk with me now and let us briefly discuss the ‘messengers’ and in particular Irenaeus, Martin and Columba.
Irenaeus - Smyrnean Church Age (A.D. 170 to A.D. 312)
From chapter four of An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, under ‘The Messenger’, this is what Mr.
Branham had to say about Irenaeus, the messenger he assigned to the second church age:
“Using our God given rule of choosing the messenger for each age, we unhesitatingly declare that Irenaeus was exalted by the Lord to that position.”
54
“He was militant against any form of organization. Also, his life history, wherein he served the Lord, was one of much manifestation in the Holy Spirit; and the Word was taught with unusual clarity and conformity to its original precepts.”
“He saw the danger of any kind of organized brotherhood among the elders, pastors, etc. He stood solidly for a unified, Spirit-filled, gift-manifesting local church.”
“Thus with his strict adherence to the Word, his wonderful understanding of Scripture, and the attendance of the power of God upon that ministry, he is the right choice for the age.” (William Branham)
Anyone who has read about early church history will inform you that the father of organization in the church was none other than Irenaeus himself. It is therefore astounding to say the least when Branham says that he was militant against any form of organization. Since the prophet says very little about the man Irenaeus, we should visit history and establish the real story behind this great theologian who the Catholics regard as one of their most important church fathers.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the exact date of his birth is still debated, with some placing his birth between the years 115 and 125 and some between 130 and 142. Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, who is thought to have been in turn a disciple of John the Evangelist. His most famous work is Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) which is an attack on Gnosticism which was a strong threat against the Church at the time. However by reading through Against Heresies we gain a valuable understanding of his stand on many scriptural topics.
During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was based at the church of Lyons as a priest. He was sent to Pope Eleutherius by the city’s clergy with a letter concerning Montanism – at the time they were facing imprisonment for the faith (Catholic Encyclopedia). Irenaeus, on returning to Gaul, succeeded Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons, after Pothinus had been martyred. There is no agreed upon date of his death nor can we know for sure that he ended his life with martyrdom. Irenaeus was buried under the Church of St John in Lyons, and is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, among other churches.
Going through Irenaeus’ book Against Heresies, it will become clear that he was one of the founders of organization in the church. This is because he founded the doctrine known as Apostolic Succession.
Basically what Irenaeus taught is that the integrity of God’s word is maintained through a succession of Bishops in a church founded by an apostle. What Branham did not come across – and probably would have chosen not to include Irenaeus had he seen it – was the list of Bishops in the church of Rome that Irenaeus provides in his book which he says proved an unbroken succession from Peter and Paul down to his day. This was Irenaeus’ own extra-biblical invention.
Irenaeus goes further and says that church tradition has pre-eminent authority and every church should follow the traditions of the Church of Rome (Against Heresies 3.3.2) Further, Irenaeus directly advocated for organization in the church by instructing other churches to follow the traditions of ‘the Church of Rome established by Peter and Paul’ . As a result of the propagation of this doctrine by Irenaeus and others, the churches in the cities began exercising authority over smaller churches in the interiors.
55
Besides, did Branham even consider the very fact that Irenaeus served as a Priest and later as Bishop of Lyon before he declared that he was ‘militant against any form of organization’ – because it’s clear that not only did he climb up the ladder of organization up to the position of Bishop, but he also strongly advocated for organization in the church and stated that church traditions had ‘pre eminent authority’.
What follows below is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of Irenaeus’ third book in the Against Heresies series.
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
4. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.
To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and
56
may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed;
after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.
And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.(Irenaeus) (words made bold by author)
By reading Irenaeus’ words above, it’s easy to see why he is a darling of the Catholics. Branham says that Irenaeus ‘saw the danger of any kind of organized brotherhood among the elders, pastors, etc. He stood solidly for a unified, Spirit-filled, gift-manifesting local church’, but here we see he declared that they ‘do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings’ – referring to churches that were not adherent to the traditions of the church of Rome. He declares the Church of Rome ‘universally known’ and vests supreme authority upon that church. Further he provides an appointed succession of Bishops of the Church (Popes) that he says maintain the truth: Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer and finally to the man of his day, Eleutherius.
From chapter 4 of the third book:
CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SOLE DEPOSITORY OF APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE. HERESIES ARE OF RECENT FORMATION, AND CANNOT TRACE THEIR ORIGIN UP TO THE APOSTLES.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.(1) For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question(2) among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (Irenaeus)
Irenaeus laid one of the most important foundations upon which Catholicism was built; especially that one of Church hierarchy and succession. He was obsessed with Church authority and traditions. He fails
57
miserably to satisfy the criteria that Branham allegedly used to arrive at the messenger for each age – most notably that one of ‘turning the age back to the word’. The only thing we can be left wondering is how Mr. Branham was carrying out his research since if there ever was a person that was pro-Church organization and was content in declaring the Church’s authority as pre eminent in equal measure with scripture, it would be Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons. I encourage the reader to go through Irenaeus’ books to gain further understanding.
Martin - Pergamean Church Age (A.D. 312 to A.D. 606)
Before we begin our discussion of Martin, we should remind ourselves of what Mr. Branham thinks about the Catholic Church.
“Let me tell you a little personal experience. Switzerland, Germany, and the places where I've been, how does fortunetellers work, how does evil spirits travel? I want you to believe me as your pastor, 'cause you're the one I'm speaking to. Devils travel in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They cut feathers and everything else and throw spells on each other through the name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Call it the three high names. The mother of it is Catholic churches. They go to these little statues, and kneel there, and cut a feather with scissors and turn it backwards, and throw spells on their neighbors and so forth, where they were burnt to death and everything else for it.
In Switzerland I stood with my hands on the post like that where honest men and women died when they cut their tongues out, and burnt their eyes out and everything with hot rods, that prostitute Catholic church. Not only that, but the early Anglican churches too and your Protestant churches did the same thing. And they throwed those spells by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
(BAPTISM.OF.THE.HOLY.SPIRIT_ JEFF.IN V-5 N-2 SUNDAY_ 58-0928M)
William Branham regards the Catholic Church as a prostitute church. We don’t really need to delve into how serious an insult that is to a Catholic faithful – I mean – it’s as bad as it could get. That being said, it’s indeed ironical when Branham chooses a Catholic faithful for the post of messenger to the Pergamean Church Age. Martin was a lifelong Catholic faithful, unto his death.
William Branham regards the Catholic Church as a prostitute church. We don’t really need to delve into how serious an insult that is to a Catholic faithful – I mean – it’s as bad as it could get. That being said, it’s indeed ironical when Branham chooses a Catholic faithful for the post of messenger to the Pergamean Church Age. Martin was a lifelong Catholic faithful, unto his death.