I'm not used to writing and I won't do it again unless it's absolutely necessary. At a time when computer technology has developed very strongly and because of the dispersion of the Brothers throughout the world, the Internet and SMS have become a privileged means of communication, through which discussion forums are maintained.

In order to rediscover the thread of current events in our Church, I wish to enlighten all the brothers on everything that is said and repeated here and there, sometimes in a distorted or incomplete way. This is the reason for this letter, which will certainly be read by all the brothers, since it will be posted on the net.

It is addressed above all to our Brothers Nathaniel, Patient and Beneli, who wrote to me personally by email; but it can also become an opportunity by that, to give everyone, at the same time, the same information.


To our Brothers Nathaniel, Patient and Beneli.


I have just received your update email in which several thoughts are expressed. I am answering you, since you are addressing me. You certainly expect me to be loyal to God, to answer you to the best of my knowledge of the Scriptures and the Message brought by the Prophet of God to our generation, William Branham. I am therefore well in my role, having no other intention in my heart than to reinstate the truth or restore it, as the case may be.

For a better understanding of what will be dealt with, mention is made of some rather serious and sensitive details, but which I am obliged to mention; it is painful to do, and I do not like to do it at all. But what makes the Bible credible is that the faults of the great men of God like Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon or Peter and Paul in the New Testament have not been hidden from us. Far be it from me to encourage evil, but where some saw only their faults, God saw the serpent of brass and the smitten Rock present among them.

Nor do I take this opportunity to revile in turn when I was reviled, since that is not one of my usual practices. I will stick to the facts, otherwise one would not understand the great biblical subjects that will be developed, nor the sequence of events, if they were not related in this way. If some parts are incomplete, we will come back to them later.

For the love of truth, I will speak about it simply, in a manner consistent with the plan below. You may find it lengthy, but Stephen, too, felt that he should begin his defense against those who accused him with a precise background when he was asked, "Are these things so? "(Acts 7:1)


  1. Brief Outline of the Facts
  2. The Birth of the Early Church in Congo
  3. The Operation of the True Church - The Concept of Church Headquarters
  4. Brother Dianda's Position - The Concept of the Cursing Principle
  5. Forgivable and Unforgivable sins
  6. Mixed Marriage - Balaam's Doctrine
  7. The Money in Question
  8. God's Ministers and their Marriage
  9. Conclusion


    1. Brief Outline of the Facts

It is my duty to provide this background - which may be useful - to recall the content of the conversation I had with Brother Beneli in Kinshasa last December, shortly before his departure for Montreal. Our conversation could not be continued, perhaps for lack of opportunity, time or will.

Since the clarification I received raises the same facts, I take this opportunity to report the following in a narrative style that I hope will allow any reader to judge for himself. Things happened more or less in the terms mentioned. Since memory is fallible, it may happen that this or that statement or event has not been faithfully reproduced - which would not be at all intentional - in which case I will correct it without any hesitation.

I was approached first by Brother Beneli some time at the end of last December. I listened to him very carefully, because I had not seen him for a long time, and it was the first time since then that we were going to talk about ongoing matters. I think our very last meeting took place at the Center when we had our last meeting on the blotting-out of names.

During this interview - which had taken place at the end of a working meeting - we both leaned on the balcony of the building and the Brother told me of his desire to restore the truth about what was being said about him and the brothers who were with him. He considered these words to be lies.

He further claimed that Matthew 18 procedure had not been respected by the Church and that he had never refused to come to the Missionary Center to explain himself, as people think. He justified his failure to appear when invited to do so by his absence outside the country. He also stated that I was aware of his two trips to South Africa and that his intention was not to refuse to come because, he said, "if we came to talk about the blotting-out of names, why wouldn't we have come to talk about the topic of mixed marriage? In fact, we even agreed that this issue regarding the tribes of Dan and Ephraim was settled. "

He added that the above-mentioned meeting ended with the promise that Brother Kas would make an in-depth investigation of the unresolved issue of the presence of the individuals Dan and Ephraim (and not of the tribes they begat) in the heavenly Jerusalem during the Millennium.

For this reason, he says, he expected another meeting would be called to that end. Instead, to his great surprise, he finally heard that the Assembly had closed the case, because the individuals summoned declined to appear within the deadline.

Personally, I acknowledged being informed of his departure, but not of his return, since he did not inform me of it. Then he told me that the reason the Church had made such a decision was because Brother Kas rushed things because he lacked Scriptures to give. (However, after checking with the brothers, I learned that Brothers Bongo and Jean Tshimbalanga called Brother Beneli to invite him, but their call was not returned).

However, I confirmed to him that the second part of the meeting at the Missionary Center was indeed to take place, until we learned that he was teaching mixed marriage. When I asked him if this was what he had come to preach to the brothers under the tree when we still had offices at ex-Transzam, he acknowledged this, saying, " Yes, that was then. But I don't teach those things anymore!” (It seems that in the meantime, Brother Nathaniel Kabeya appeared on Antenna A preaching on the same subject).

The Brother stated that these were the very old and outdated things that he no longer preaches today. He simply told me that the idea is that marriage cannot be limited to the assembly alone, but that we can bring back war captives (outside the assembly, therefore - during a crusade, for example) and marry them, after their conversion, as it is said in Deuteronomy 21:10. These women would qualify as "spoils of war", as did the Moabite females whom the sons of Israel had brought back into the camp. If they didn't know a man's bed, they could be married according to Numbers 31.

We also talked about his second marriage. On this subject, I reminded him of the testimony that I knew from Brother Kas, concerning his desire to unite with the daughter of a certain personality from the RVA whom he knew well. I pointed out that at the time he spoke of his project, Brother Kas advised him not to do so, otherwise he would be in danger of facing the Lord fighting him very hard. "That's not true," he told me. "She is a sister who listened to the preaching and who accepted the Word. She was even baptized by Brother Bongo the same day Sister Naomi was baptized. In fact, we only had our first child after that. "

I said, "But if that was the case, then why were you thinking of putting her away and sending her to Europe so you could forget her? You said that as a compensation, you would help her pursue her studies abroad, so that she could support herself after graduation. "Brother Beneli told me, 'No, but I changed my mind. How can the pastor himself keep his wife after he acknowledges her misconduct? First, he must put her away, to set an example, starting with himself!  And then he "makes" money, is that how a Pastor should be! He's not a role model!"

Despite all these complaints, I told him I was open to dialogue. I observed that they all tended to point out only the alleged misconducts that Brother Kas may have committed on the flesh and personal level and not on the level of the Word. So I pointed out that error as I perceived it and said, "Why didn't you go to your brother (although he is the pastor) according to Matthew 18, to talk to him face to face? ». He replied, "But you know yourself how difficult it is to talk to Brother Kas! When you have a chance to speak, he cuts you off".

In order to remove this barrier, I answered him: "In that case, I am ready to go with you and even to attend the interview you will have, to help you do what you have always failed to do, namely, to talk to your brother, without camera or recorder, and get rid of all your bitterness. "I also reminded him how I had given the same advice when they came to me earlier for a problem raised by Brother Patient Bahindwa. I saw that the brother had simply filled his heart with a lot of things and I was under the impression that the only purpose for contacting me was to set up a conciliation meeting with Brother Kas, and to talk to one another as brothers, really getting to the bottom of the problem.

The next day after the church service, I reported this conversation to Brother Kas, who agreed to resume talks with Brother Beneli. I then contacted the Brother to inform him of the progress made. Maybe it was on the eve of his departure for Canada. I told him on the phone: "Brother, I had a conversation with you. For the rest of this discussion, we would have to meet with Brother Kas." He said, "I am in the process of finalizing my trip. I will probably leave from Ndolo in the afternoon. After that, I may call you in the evening so that we can meet again." He never called me back and to this day he has traveled like this without seeing me again.

Having said that, I would like to move on to the second point of my presentation, concerning the birth of the Early Church in the Congo, in order to provide clarity for all those who read these pages to understand our roots and common origin. For several years now, we have shared a common doctrinal and spiritual heritage with the brethren, to some extent. A glance back in time is necessary to identify the breaking points in the relationships that connected some brothers to the Early Church. After all, isn't it said that history is our collective memory?


    1. The Birth of the Early Church in Congo

In the same way that the Lord brought together some brothers one by one and made them his Church, five of us were excommunicated from the Righini 1 Assembly in December 1983, and so began what is known as the Early Church today. The reasons for this ban were related to untrue accusations made against us by the elders of that church.  They accused us of making Brother Frank the 8th messenger, the Christ, Elisha, Joshua, etc., in short, the new successor and replacement of Brother Branham as a prophet. Later, Brother Baruti admitted (when we had been already kicked out) that he was the author of the famous "Fourteen Points", the list of the false grievances filed against us.

We only wondered why the elders refused to refer to Brother Frank's ministry, which seemed to shed some light on the Message that could have been beneficial to the Church. We also noticed the exaggerated emphasis they placed on Brother Branham's preaching, saying, for example, that "everything Brother Branham said is our absolute.” Just because we exposed such an anti-biblical tendency to put all the words of the man Branham ABOVE the Bible, they accused us of being against the prophet. The leaders' ignorance of the true biblical meaning of the former rain and the latter rain underlined the great peril threatening the assembly, namely that the message God sent us wasn't even taught to us!

It was Brother Kas who first believed and understood it, and who faithfully passed it on to me, as I was absent during some of the preaching. We had no idea at that time that we were the only ones in a large part of the world to have this glorious revelation! From the beginning, Brother Kas was the elder in the faith within the new emerging Early Church. It was God's only choice. In that capacity he is the pastor and we renew our trust in him even today, after 25 years of ministry together.

This experience allows me today to avoid acting like the leaders of that time, towards the brothers who no longer want to walk with us. I am not going to invent any facts and I will try to speak about what I know, or what I am absolutely sure of. I have taken all my time to read and deeply analyze Brother Dianda's letter of stand, and I have devoted the same seriousness to examining that of our Brothers Nathaniel, Beneli and Patient Bahindwa.

Now you might object that leaving a church or being excommunicated from an assembly does not automatically make you a Bible church. This is absolutely true! The important point here is that the elders of Righini did not even have the Word of the hour. And to tell the truth, they didn't know it at all! By excluding us from their synagogue, they were kicking out the Word, like the shuck excommunicates the seed!

As we left, we went out from them with the Word of the hour, the Message of the Restoration, being the carriers of the Word of the Promise for our time! The Early Church was born exclusively from the preaching of the Word, of the Gospel. There has never been any other motivation. In the face of the darkness that wrapped Righini through religious politics, the Gospel of God was assigned to us.

Two years later, in November/December 1985, when Brother Karl Henrik WAHLSTRÖM from Denmark arrived in Kinshasa, together with Brother Markku VUORI from Finland, we were divinely led to meet him at the home of the late Brother Ndunguna. They were in constant argument since they landed on African land, because Brother Vuori considered that Brother Henrik was putting too much emphasis on the man Frank. But for the first time since the beginning of their journey, they were about to hear some brothers addressing these accusations with the Word.

We responded to Brother Vuori: "Matthew 24:45 speaks of a servant whom his Lord when He comes shall find giving out the food. If it was Brother Branham, he would not have been called back to the Lord, but he would have been kept fulfilling this prophecy. It is therefore vital to bring God's people's awareness of this ministry closely related to the Lord's Return and the giving out of the food." It was this Light that made Brother Henrik decide that night to stay with us.

He testified that he had never seen a light anywhere in the world which could match the one found here in Kinshasa. He added: "Even in Krefeld they do not have the light you have. So here we are in Jerusalem, while Krefeld is Antioch!" Then he took off his shoes, because he considered that he was in the Presence of God, on a holy land, in Jerusalem. We were baffled to hear such a testimony from a person who had been all over the world to preach the Word!

Brother Henrik gave all his heart to convey the depth of the Message and God’s promises. Through his ministry we have entered into the holiest through the veil to look at the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. We were born through his ministry and we can never deny that fatherhood. He himself had seen in a dream that God gave him eleven babies. Two of them were able to change their own diapers. It was in Kinshasa, he said, that this inspired dream took place. He successfully identified these two babies in the most unusual way.

Brother Henrik put his love for the work of God and the chosen ones to the fullest, by ordaining Brother Pierre Kas, as Pastor and elder, Brother Firmin Badibanga, as Deacon, Brother Nathaniel Kabeya, as elder and Brother Thomas Kalonji, as Pastor. He wanted them to be officially approved by the congregation so that they could walk in order and move forward.

At that time, neither Brother Beneli, nor Brother Patient, nor Brother Dituku had yet arrived in the congregation. Before praying and laying hands on us, Brother Henrik asked whether the assembly recognized the ministries and the office of each one. All unanimously expressed their agreement by raising their hands, including Brother Dianda who was present at this memorable service, which deserves to be published in an anthology. There were two entrances to our venue at that time. Brother Henrik directed those who agreed to leave through the one near the pulpit. Those who did not agree with what had just been done had to leave through the other door. Only Brother Kalonji Kalonda from Lingwala Assembly walked out the back door. He is since deceased.

Shortly after Brother Henrik established the young assembly, for the approval of ministries, by the laying of hands from an ordained minister of God, and in accordance with the book of Acts, the first division of that assembly took place, when brother Firmin BADIBANGA contested this factual situation and appointed himself as pastor, together with brother Emmanuel-Nathaniel KABEYA. By this, the two brothers now had just fulfilled Brother Henrik's dream.

In order to discredit and denigrate Brother Henrik's ministry, to refute the teaching he had just brought, and to make the brethren lose the trust they had in him, on the one hand, and to question the laying on of hands he had just done in the name of the Lord, on the other hand, the brethren forced him with drugs. In saying this, I seek only to bear witness; I am not insulting or slandering anyone. It is simply my duty to enlighten the Brothers who will read this letter. That’s history! It remains as an irremovable stain and mark engraved with red hot iron.

Since then the assembly has evolved well in terms of teaching. Brother Beneli and Brother Patient came later in 1986-87, if I am not mistaken. They found a church in order, contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints, and rooted in God’s promises. They made theirs the doctrine of restoration, which they confess to believe until today, and which has always been the hallmark of the Early Church. Even Brother Dianda, when asked whether he had left the Early Church or not, answered: "No, because I believe in the Restoration. "This doctrine, and many others, have made our Church unique. The brethren walked with us, and they adopted first the doctrine of biblical baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and then in the original name of Yeshua.

The doctrines of the Early Church, preached from the beginning, are specific and well known to the public. We have a long history of preaching about marriage and divorce. As a consequence of this biblical teaching, which had already been given in 1984, Brother Firmin became a rebel against the divine order, after having been married in the world to a woman who was herself previously married, and with whom he had had a child.

Instead of simply living in the freedom he was given by the Lord to build a new life and espouse as many virgins as he wanted, he chose to remain stuck to the one who ended up separating him from God and the congregation. Perhaps this event was a preview of the main stumbling block that many brethren would stumble upon. No one knows. I mention it just to confirm the fact that we have been teaching these things for a long time.

The Early Church believes, among other things, in the Godhead of Jesus Christ as God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all at one and the same time; she believes that the Pillar of Cloud and Fire is Jesus Christ in Spirit form; she believes in His physical and bodily return for His Second Coming;  She believes that the Church is not yet restored in power as it was in the time of the apostles; she teaches that only the Word has been restored (the teaching of the apostles and prophets) as a foundation, through the prophetic ministry of Brother Branham, according to Malachi 4 :5-6 and other passages; she believes in the promise to go back to the beginnings of the Biblical Church, and the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as it took place on the Day of Pentecost and thereafter; she is waiting for this experience to happen, and is asking everyone to do the same; she does not believe that anyone can boast of making this experience so far.

She teaches that the new birth is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit; she believes in the water baptism in the Name of the Lord Yeshua; she believes in praying for the sick; she believes in the breaking of bread for the Lord's Supper and in the washing of feet; she does not believe that the seven thunders of Revelation 10:4 are revealed; she does not believe that the 7th seal is revealed, although it has been opened; she believes that the Bible does not prohibit polygamy (simultaneous - occurring at the same time - or successive - following each other) and therefore approves of polygamous marriage; she is waiting for the physical rapture of the Bride of Christ; she believes and waits for the resurrection of the dead and the change of our mortal bodies; etc.  In short, she believes and contends for all that the Apostles believed and taught and that the Prophet Branham called the secret of the Message: "the Father’s business" (see "The Seed Will Not Be Heir with The Shuck", etc.).

My dear Brothers, by joining the Early Church, you accept the entire doctrine - that Brother Kas and Brother Thomas, mainly, have been preaching for all these years - for which we will be accountable before God. Our teaching has not really changed since then.

Except for Brother Nathaniel, who resisted the teaching on the latter rain very early on, and who did not believe in waiting for it to come (as did Brother Firmin), we have never received a complaint from Brother Beneli or Brother Patient about any doctrine. It was therefore relevant to describe the origin of the Early Church as a reminder, for the purpose of better understanding their concern, which certainly has nothing to do with the latter rain.

As in all churches or groups of men, there have been divisions. The following is a list of the various dissents recorded since the beginning of the congregation, which is provided for information purposes.


  • 1st wave:           Brothers Kabasubabo and Muyamba (1984)
  • 2nd wave:        Brothers Firmin Badibanga and Emmanuel-Nathaniel Kabeya (1985)
  • 3rd wave:         Brothers Musasa Lazare, Marc Tshimanga, Paul Ilunga, Nicolas Kazadi and Tshintu Télesphore (1995)
  • 4th wave:         Brother Dituku Jean de Dieu (2000)
  • 5th wave:         Brother Ekenge (2001)
  • 6th wave:         The late Brother Mbuyi and Eliyahu Mbenza (2002)
  • 7th wave:         Brother Israel Kabasubabo (for the 2nd time) and Brother Clement Lobela (2004)
  • 8th wave:         Brother Mulumba Zechariah (2005)
  • 9th wave:      Brothers Beneli Malumba, Patient Bahindwa, Nathaniel Kabeya (for the 2nd time), Jean Dianda, Yeshayah Matondo, Thaddée Mulumba, etc. (2006)


  1. The Operation of the True Church - The Concept of Church Headquarters

Of all the quotations you will be able to draw from Brother Branham's sermons, NONE, I say NONE, will contradict the thought expressed about the headquarters, as found in Taking Sides with Jesus. According to the prophet, you must not only talk about it, but “You've got to get it a system, God's system”. We’ve got it in the Early Church of the Congo, after the scriptural pattern, as you will see below.

You also think I am in confusion about the local church and the universal church as the Body of Christ since you write, "We had the impression that you were in confusion about the local church and the Church of the Lord as the Mystical Body that is in the whole world. »

To support your thesis, you also quote Brother Branham further on: "...It is terrible because God has never put His Church into the hands of chosen leaders who act with political ulterior motives. He entrusted His Church to men established by God, filled with the Spirit, living the Word, who lead people by feeding them with the Word. He did not separate people into classes so that the masses would be led by a holy priesthood... God wants all to love and serve Him together. Nicolaism destroys these precepts by separating the ministers of worship from the people, and by giving the leaders a place as rulers, instead of a place as servants. ... For them, a bishop was now someone whose authority extended to several local spiritual leaders. This concept was not in accordance with Scripture or history.... »

The answer lies in this last passage. By believing in the doctrine of restoration as taught by God's prophet, the Early Church of the Congo awaits the restoration of the ministries, gifts and fruits of the Spirit (Joel 2:28). With this in mind, I will detail the operation of the church on a biblical basis.

Jesus Christ is the Commander-in-Chief of the Church which He Himself founded and established on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. After His resurrection, He entrusted the care of His flock to Peter and the apostles: this is the worldwide Church (Matthew 28:19-20). This principle is detailed in the book of Acts of the Apostles, where it is clear that it is, they who lead the Church through the assistance of the Holy Spirit (who is Jesus Christ in another form, during the dispensation of the Gentiles). They said: " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us" (Ac.15:28).

The apostles and other ministers of Ephesians 4:11 are therefore in charge of the edifying of the body of Christ. For the edifying and perfecting of the saints, they ordain or dismiss elders throughout the worldwide Church in their office of bishops. Elders are responsible for the church by assignment from the apostles, whose ministries are not limited to the local church alone. Peter visited all the saints in Lydda, in the Saron and up to Joppa (Acts 9:32). Together with John they went through all Judea, Galilee and Samaria; they went from Jerusalem to Samaria and the surrounding villages (Acts 8:14,25); then they returned to Jerusalem, their headquarters. Philip went to preach in Jerusalem, Gaza, Azotus and even to Caesarea. Paul went from Jerusalem and the neighboring countries to Illyria and even where Christ had never been appointed (Rom. 15:19).

A minister like Joseph, nicknamed "Barnabas" by the apostles, went as far as Antioch and Phoenicia. Together with Paul, they ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). In my Scofield Bible, it is said that literally, "they chose by lifting up their hands. »

Although their authority was clearly beyond the scope of the local church in Jerusalem, where they came from, this did not make them archbishops. What is said in An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages is true: the concept of a bishop whose authority extends to several local spiritual leaders is neither in accordance with Scripture nor with history. Indeed, the local bishop does not have a right of oversight in another assembly. What is false for the bishop is, however, true for the minister. This authority actually is reserved to the ministers given to the Church according to Ephesians 4:11, and who work in agreement with the sole headquarters provided.

Peter, the apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1), served in Jerusalem as both an apostle and an elder. He said this to the brothers of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (...) Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof". (1 Peter 5:1-2). Many brethren misinterpret things because the Roman Catholic Church invented the concept of an archbishop - that is, a greater and more powerful bishop.

Under that church, the fact that Peter was a bishop while residing in Jerusalem, where the headquarters of the original Church was located, meant that he had a prominent position among all of their clergy. We, in the Early Church of the Congo, do accept Jerusalem as the headquarters, especially since the eldest apostles in the faith were based there. The same status applies to Kinshasa, in Lingwala. As a matter of principle, God has but one place of worship provided to place His Name in. In fact, it could have been established in any other place in the city or country where Brother Kas, me and all the brothers of the same faith could be found. Without us, there would be no headquarters of the Early Church.

When you support Brother Dianda because he refuses the authority of a so-called "archbishop" who would grow within the Early Church, you are in fact completely wasting your time. Actually, we do work according to the very same method of operation that our Apostolic Fathers had set up following the mandate of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

We take God as our witness that we didn't bring up the subject of the headquarters because of money, tithes or other financial matters. Regardless of the fact that we are waiting for the restoration of ministries and gifts, I intend to prove to you in the next few lines that prior to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the age in faith is crucial for the ordination of church leaders, whether they are ministers or elders. Age in the faith, not natural age, is the criterion of selection. After all, you cannot deny Brother Kas and me first-birth rights! The same thing that happened to Peter and the brothers is still happening today. Challenging this is to challenge God. Whoever doesn't oppose the historical development of the Early Church's birth in the Congo, as described above, must abide by this biblical order.

You say: "In short, Brother Jean Dianda is right when he speaks of the Archbishop as if we were in a denomination. That is why we must avoid talking a lot about men, elevating them to the point of giving them the place of the Holy Spirit, because there is nothing good in man (Job 14)" Brother Dianda is not right when he says this. We are not elevating anyone; it is God who has elevated us to these offices!

It was on that basis that Brother Dianda was sent to Matadi. Why hadn't he refused to go, if it was an archbishop who wanted to dominate the Church who sent him there? He knew very well that a minister of God ordained him. This mandate was perfectly biblical. Brother Dianda was the one who, by using his dominion as bishop of Matadi, extended his authority over the other bishops of Kimpese, Boma, Moanda, Lukala, Mbanza Ngungu, Inga, Nsanda, Kinzao Vuete, etc.

Contrary to the Scriptures and God's Message, Brother Dianda sought to destabilize the headquarters in Kinshasa with a view to establishing another one in Matadi. No headquarters can come out of another, since it's a one-headquarters system. However, one assembly can come out of another. Brother Michée Mavungu, responsible for the local assembly of Mbanza-Ngungu, testified in the assembly on this subject. It is filmed for the archives. Brother Dianda wanted to be recognized as the senior elder, instead of waiting upon the Lord. He demanded for it also in Congo-Brazzaville where he was resisted.

The Bible is clear about the status of the bishop, but we see by this incredible example that it is not only the Catholic Church that has abused it. The brethren are afraid to refer to this appellation which is nevertheless 100% biblical. Archbishop, cardinal, pope, etc.". Archbishop, cardinal, pope, etc." are not biblical terms. The word bishop is. In An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, quoted here after, one even gives the name of one of those who first had this kind of thought.

It is said: "It appears that the problem lay in two words: “elders” (presbyters) and “overseers” (bishops). Though Scripture shows that there are several elders in each church, some began (Ignatius among them) to teach that the idea of a bishop was one of preeminence or authority and control over the elders.

Now the truth of the matter is the word “elder” signifies who the person is, while the word “bishop” signifies the office of the same man. The elder is the man. Bishop is the office of the man. “Elder” always has and always will refer simply to a man’s chronological age in the Lord. He is an elder, not because he is elected or ordained, etcetera, but because he IS OLDER. He is more seasoned, trained, not a novice, reliable because of experience and long standing proof of his Christian experience.” (p.189). Can you say "Amen" to this, brothers?


The age in faith as a criterion for selection

Brother Beneli accuses me of trying to elevate Brother Kas into a pope. Absolutely not! The Scripture simply shows us that the age in the faith is used as a criterion for selection, both for the apostle and the other ministers and for the elder. This is what makes a minister reliable. It is not the faults he may commit, but his experience, proven over time, that justifies him. That is why they are often attacked, because the enemy tries to destroy this trust in the hearts of the brethren.

Brother Branham is led in the same way when he talks about Brother Neville. He says, " Now, I think this church... If you men would, when you build this church, make this like your headquarters and like Brother Neville here being like the senior elder among you. See? And sometimes you get a question that you can't discuss out with your church out there, then bring it in here to Brother Neville and you all discuss it together. If there--you can't come to any decision, I'll be coming by pretty soon, then we'll all come together with it." Taking Sides with Jesus, §82. He is certainly not referring to his natural age, but to his age in the faith.

Such a pastor does not exercise a minor ministry in order to let himself be stepped on by the brothers all the time, as Brother Branham says in The Order of the Church: "Just like the pastor, if somebody challenges him on the Word, he don’t have to back up about it, he knows just exactly what he’s talking to, “Come on up here.” See? And same as these other ministries, got to be the same way." Page 10, paragraph 41. I believe that this is the attitude we had when we discussed with you the fall of Brother Frank, the cursing according to Galatians 1, the erasure of names after blasphemy, etc. I think that this is the attitude we had when we were discussing with you the fall of Brother Frank. It's also our attitude toward the doctrine of mixed marriage.

In the local assembly of the Early Church in Kinshasa/Lingwala, Brother Kas is the pastor, in his capacity as senior elder in the faith. Brother Jacques Bongo is an elder, with the office of bishop. As we said about Peter, the ministry of Brother Kas, as well as mine, in fact, is not limited to this one assembly, but to all the assemblies of the Church that came out either directly of our ministry, or indirectly, through ministers of the same faith.

We have the dual status of elders and ministers. We consider that this is God's choice. Other brothers also minister in a remarkable way: I am thinking here of our Brother Ken Mukendi, the bishop in charge of the assembly of Mbuji Mayi in Eastern Kasai. You can disagree with that, perhaps thinking that we are not worthy of it, and that we are inflated with pride by saying that. I'll leave it to your own judgment, but that's not my position. I will demonstrate it to you in the Scriptures right now.

The fact that Peter was particularly called by the Lord to feed His sheep is explained to us by the interested party himself in Acts 15: "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (v. 7)

This did not mean that he was the only one to preach the Gospel, but it showed that he would have the responsibility as the spokesman of the Church, and that he would be the first to inaugurate the introduction of the Gospel. It is this pre-eminence that is misperceived and misunderstood by the Catholic Church and most of the brethren.

It is always under the impulse of Peter, before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that we see how a brother could be established as an apostle in replacement of another, through the designation of other apostles and ministers. This is the case of Matthias, for whom Peter says: "It is necessary, therefore, that among those who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus has lived with us, from the time when John was baptizing until the day when he was taken from among us, there must be one who is associated with us as a witness of the resurrection. "(Acts 1:21-26).

This is the proof that there was no clergy on the one hand, and the laity on the other. An apostle could be chosen from anyone among the people of believers. It was enough that he had believed at least since the ministry of John the Baptist and had persevered until the departure of Jesus Christ. Amen!

Paul, on the other hand, was called to be an apostle directly, without human intervention, as he says: "Paul, an apostle, not by human authority, nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. "(Galatians 1:1).

There is no clergy separated from the laity in the Early Church of the Congo. We do not profess the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, as you maintain. We are all a royal sacrifice for our Lord and any brother who is called by God can serve as a minister, provided he is mature in the faith. If there are other ministers who are to be associated with us, the same selection criteria will be applied to them. They will not be chosen from among the new converts or among those who are rebellious to the order of the church.

In the same sense, Paul also says in Galatians 1:17: "I did not even go to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before me, but I went to Arabia. "In his epistle to the Romans, he says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen: they were my fellow captives; they are remarkable apostles, who even converted to Christ before me. "» (16 :7). For the bishop, Paul says: "He must not be a new convert, lest he be swollen with pride and fall under the judgment of the devil. "(1 Timothy 3:6).


  1. Brother Dianda's Position - The Biblical notion of cursing

I believe that anyone has the right to disagree with our view of the Early Church. Indeed, it is not easy to agree with the pace we have, and we do not claim to be able to convince everyone of the truth of our teaching. Already at the very beginning, our Lord Yeshua knew very well that the words he spoke raised murmurs of all kinds.

It is said of Him that He knew in advance which were those who did not believe, and who was the one who was going to betray Him. I do not claim to have this knowledge, but I can only make a wise observation. When He said that no one could come to Him unless it was granted by the Father, it is said that "From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." All those who love the great number would have wept over this mass departure. But very peacefully and very surprisingly, the Lord, He still does today, asked, "Will ye also go away?" (John 6:64-67).

I exhort and encourage all those who do not share the stand of the Early Church in the Congo not to torment themselves unnecessarily, but to leave it and make up their own. May they also go evangelize, bring souls for Christ, baptize them and recruit their proselytes. When we left Righini, we had not recruited anyone. Our ministry has been fruitful to this day.

However, there must be divisions, according to the apostle Paul, for those who are approved to be manifested. The Scripture warns us, however, against those who cause divisions in order to destroy the teaching of the Church: " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17-18). We will come back to this in our conclusion. It is certainly not a cause for joy for me to see the fall of Brother Dianda. But no one has any influence on God's plans.

To justify your support for Brother Dianda, you quote Brother Branham when he says in The Divinity Explained: "I would rather have bad doctrine and a good heart than good doctrine and a bad heart. For God looks into the heart and it is the heart that will enter."

As for me, without meaning to argue with you, I would rather have both: a sound doctrine and a good heart. If indeed I had a bad doctrine and a good heart, I would do everything I can to change and get the sound doctrine. If, on the other hand, I had a bad heart and a sound doctrine, I would worry and pray the Lord to give me a good heart that could accept His Word. However it would be absolutely beyond any understanding to have a bad doctrine in a good heart! Brother Branham just wants to tell us that Divine Love and not knowledge of doctrine will enter.

It shows that the good state of the heart and the Divine Love that will be housed in it, will be enough to bring the chosen one into the Kingdom of Heaven. Without the Love that is poured into our hearts through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12 and 13), no one will enter. It is perfectly biblical! Knowledge, prophecy and gifts will cease when perfection appears, while Love will remain eternally.

We are not meant to keep bad things in us, such as hatred, resentment, resentment, discord, slander, or false doctrines, but we are to be filled with the Word with all divine sentiments and receive the true baptism of the Spirit through the experience of Pentecost.

A good heart is one that is humble to submit to what God has revealed and can receive the correction of the Word, when it is presented: in whatever way and by whomever gives it. A good heart is also one that hides faults, as it is written: "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."(Proverbs 10:12).

In James it is also said: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20). Peter finally said, "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).

Perhaps you have other ideas when you refer to a good heart, but the Bible teaches us that he who has a good heart is capable of cursing his own brother and then killing him by God's command (not literally today, of course), and because he loves God's commandments. Phineas did it against Zimri and Cozbi, Jesus did it - whose zeal for his Father's house had eaten Him up, as well as so many other warriors of Yahweh Tsevaot. Let us now study this famous concept of cursing, to see what it is really about from the reading of the Word.


The concept of cursing according to the Word of God

In the fairly recent past, you have been in opposition with the Church regarding the practical implementation of the commandment we received in Galatians 1. I am not criticizing your stand, which is quite right. I can see once again that the same grievances are being raised, which shows that this problem is something that is important to you. Let me illustrate what I mean by an example I' m going to deal with here.

You support Brother Dianda's viewpoint, saying, "We are backing Brother Jean Dianda when he says that you would have cursed the Prophet Branham for making non-scriptural statements, since at that time no one knew what the seals would reveal in 1963 and that many things would be later corrected.  This should serve as a lesson, for we are still living in the time of grace. A preacher can preach something today and correct it tomorrow after it has been revealed". Your statement is partially false, but I don't want to make a claim which is not substantiated by evidence. I am going to demonstrate this to you by the Word and in the Name of the Lord Yeshua.

First of all, the concept of cursing, which had put you at odds with us, stems from a principle that Paul brings to light in Galatians 1:6-10. That' s where each one of us is supposed to abide - Brother Branham and Brother Frank included - for the purpose of obeying God's commandment.

The apostle Paul teaches us: " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Amen.

God's message is an inspired message that we do not receive from a man, but from Jesus Christ Himself. (Galatians 1:11-12). This message cannot suffer any change, once it has been delivered to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As for our Brother Branham, you certainly think: "Brother Thomas would never dare to say that he could curse a prophet of God from the spiritual stature of William Branham! ». And why not! I could indeed have cursed him, but within the strict limits of the Word of God and his call.

Let's not fear words! I see that your statement discloses a false concept - because it is inaccurate and anti-scriptural - of constantly putting important men of God above the Word and excluding them from being cursed. Brother Branham, like Paul or Brother Frank, you, us or anyone else, none of you is above the Word and can be put under a curse at any time when you do depart from what has been revealed, as we will demonstrate below.

Remember, when we came out in 1983, we even pointed out to the elders of Righini that it was wrong to put all the words of William Branham above the Holy Scriptures. Do not repeat the same mistake with all his words spoken without the revelation. On June 11, 1933, he was told: "Just as John the Baptist was sent with a message which prepared the first coming of Christ, so you will be sent with a message which will be the forerunner of the second coming of Christ. »

The spiritual context within which we must confine ourselves for possibly cursing Brother Branham is outlined for us here, by the angel of God. The same Spirit of God spoke both through Paul in Galatians and through this angel at the Ohio River.

Previously, long before he had received God's revelation, Brother Branham sometimes went beyond the framework of the Holy Scriptures to the extent of condemning polygamy and polygamists, for example; to the extent of being mistaken about the meaning of the parable of the ten virgins, about the mysterious horseman who rides the white horse of the first seal, etc. This is because he was not yet preaching the message inspired by the Holy Spirit as promised and announced by the angel at the Ohio River. Therefore, he was not cursed in any way.

What then is the practical requirement for cursing someone who teaches differently from what has been announced?

Biblical Principle: Scripture solemnly declares that the curse is to be pronounced when the preacher (apostle, angel or whatever) preaches differently from what has been previously announced, by means of the message, which was originally received.

Therefore, the concerned preacher must have prior knowledge of what God has revealed. If he had preached in ignorance, the Lord WOULD give him grace by leading him to His Word. He will then correct himself.

Question:   When could Brother Branham possibly incur a curse with respect to some of the remarks he made about polygamy in Marriage and Divorce?

Answer:    That would only be after February 21, 1965, AFTER he had received God's message regarding Marriage and Divorce.

Once God had revealed the message to him, Brother Branham could never come back later to contradict the same revelation he had received previously. I challenge anyone to bring me a sermon after February 1965, where the Brother contradicts or rectifies what God revealed to him on the Mountain.

Instead, his children, Billy Paul and Joseph, tampered with the closing of the sermon by deleting an extremely important key sentence after the fact.

Brother Branham says in the original, as the Lausanne translation in French shows:

"Now we are found in this mess because of misinterpreted theology. Is that right? That’s why you women married the second time, and you men have married divorced women, because misinterpreted theology. » (§ 206)

In the translation of Canada or VGR, of the children of Brother Branham, it says instead: " Now we are found in this mess because of misinterpreted theology. Is that right? That’s why you women married the second time, and you men, because misinterpreted theology. » (§ 309)

Pursuant to the biblical principle we have just outlined above, they are cursed, and we utter the biblical curse on them! May they be cursed for taking away the revelation which was previously brought by God. They are called children of the curse.

Certainly we would have cursed the prophet if he had recanted after the preaching and said things like: "Polygamy is of the devil, it is a life of pigs and debauchery, one must drive out and not ordain the deacon or the preachers who are married 3 or 4 times; one must make them sit down, etc.". "Certainly it would have consisted in adding to or subtracting from the Word of God. But God be praised for keeping His prophet from such unforgivable sin and betrayal!

This provision is also valid for any other doctrine that the prophet could teach, as I said earlier. In the Feast of Trumpets, in 1964, for example, the Holy Spirit revealed to him that all the trumpets sounded under the 6th seal. If in 1965, shortly before his death, he announced the opposite of what God had just previously revealed, he became cursed.

However, this is not the case with Brother Frank, whom you support with Brother Dianda. From the beginning, we see that Brother Frank, in great detail, supported the teaching brought by the Prophet Branham in Marriage and Divorce. At the 1980 convention at Brother Mukuna's home, he openly and unreservedly condemned those who refused water baptism to polygamists.

To point out the continuity in the Old and New Testaments, he preaches that one cannot condemn a polygamist in the New Testament, otherwise one would have to condemn all polygamists in the Old Testament, like Abraham, David, Solomon and so many others.

The biblical reason why we cursed Brother Frank, is because he went back on what he himself had previously announced, but which was nevertheless in perfect agreement with the Scriptures and the Message that God revealed! That Brother Branham did not do it, and that is why also we cannot curse him!

Today, the same Brother Frank preaches that David did not commit adultery only once! He teaches that polygamy is not the life of civilized people. He says it is an absurd doctrine, etc. Obviously, something untoward has happened to him. If he had begun by condemning polygamy, at the beginning, like Brother Branham, and then evolved towards revelation, we would not have cursed him.

To add another example: when he knew nothing about the Serpent’s Seed, in 1958, Brother Frank first said: "Man of God; this time you’ve gone too far! "» . But when he understood the subject, he never again condemned the prophet. In this case you are partly right, when you say that a preacher can preach something today, and rectify it tomorrow, after having received the revelation.

But the opposite is not true, as we have just demonstrated: a preacher cannot preach with the revelation today and rectify it tomorrow. It is no longer revelation that he preaches in this case, but he is under the influence of an evil spirit. No one can do anything more for him in this case: he is fallen from grace. He must be cursed and abandoned, because God has already abandoned him.

Paul says in the Hebrews: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a terrible expectation of judgment and a fiery fire that will devour the rebels. "Hebrews 10:26-27). It does say AFTER and not BEFORE. Whoever commits such a sin, will die without mercy, that is to say, he is cursed. Now, you seem to persist in the claim that after you have preached polygamy in the first place, and then condemned it, Brother Frank can come back to preach the same polygamy he preached before!

If you wish to support him and you even think that he will come back from his bewilderment; it is up to you to do so. But if you understand that he is already cursed - that is, that he has fallen under judgment and is persevering without repentance - then, like the true Jews, you will obey the divine command given by Paul, who said to curse such rebellious and backward preachers, who have been shipwrecked with regard to faith. Otherwise you will testify against yourselves that you seek to please men and not God. Paul and we in the Early Church know that one never returns from such willful sin. It is an unforgivable sin and the devil is behind it.

In Israel, if they even sought to stone Jesus, it was in strict application of the Law (Lev. 24:14). The blasphemer had to be brought out of the camp and stoned to death by all who heard him blaspheme. The hand of the one who heard him blaspheme should not hesitate. The Jews did not exaggerate, except that they wanted to stone an innocent man because of their misinterpretation of the Scriptures. In the case of Brother Frank and all those whom we have cursed, the blasphemy is proven; we are sure of what we are doing.


  1. Forgivable and unforgivable sins

This is a very topical issue. In relation to what has just been said about cursing, a simple definition would be to say that unforgivable sins - because I believe there are more than one - are sins that lead to death, because God simply does not want to forgive them.

It is the sin against the Word, committed by the one who has received one or more warnings from God, but who does not want to return from his evil way by repenting. Our Lord is like that! There are things that seem serious in our eyes, that He forgives, and others that seem innocent, that He categorically refuses to forgive, because there has been no repentance in time.

It is clear that this happens to those who have been predestined for perdition. No chosen one has been guilty of committing an unforgivable sin: neither Abraham, who lied to Abimelech to save his life, nor Moses, who killed the Egyptian and struck the rock instead of speaking to him, nor Simeon and Levi, whose sister had prostituted herself in the world and because of whom they killed the whole family of the worldly man; nor David, who killed a man for committing adultery with his wife; nor Peter, who drove the Gentiles to Judaize; nor Paul, who persecuted the Church of Yeshua.

The question is, when do we commit this type of sin, for which God doesn't want to hear any more about it? Even Scofield says that a sin is considered unforgivable when the person refuses to repent. He says, "The Pharisees deliberately apostatized, blaming the devil and not the Holy Spirit for the mighty works of Christ; their folly is stigmatized by the Lord in Mt. 23:13-36; Luke 11:52.

Whoever is troubled and fearful that he has rejected Christ has obviously not committed this irremissible sin, and therefore can still come to Christ." (Footnote on page 1073). Repentance is therefore essential: without it one can have neither forgiveness nor life: "...God has therefore granted repentance also to the Gentiles, that they may have life. "(Acts 11:18).

It is clear that if a person repents, he cannot have committed this sin, since it is repentance that stops the wrath of God. Brother Branham teaches that it is the seed of the serpent that never comes to repentance.

The Jews at Cornelius' house had understood that God grants repentance so that we may have eternal life. We too understood that it is the same principle of refusal to repent that makes a sin become or be unforgivable.

In fact, for some sins that we will list below, God simply refuses to let the person regret having committed them. He hardens the heart, as He did for Pharaoh, so that the person will not be forgiven and healed. In Matthew 13:15, we see that the Lord speaks in parables to prevent those who do not understand from understanding. It is based on the same principle based on election and predestination, so as to avoid having to heal them.

The following table illustrates this.







(1 John 5:16),


(Mark 3:28)

Cursing God or blaspheming against God (Lev. 24:10-11,15,16)

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29)


Bowing down to Aaron's golden calf...

(Ex. 32:33-35)

Bowing down to the calves at Dan & Bethel

(1 Kings 13:34; Hosea 8:4 ;

Deut 29:16-20)

To cling to the idol of Baal of Peor and similar idols.

(Num 25:3; Hos. 9:10)

Idolatry as a work of the flesh

(Gal. 5:20-21; Col. 3:6; Rev. 21 :8)

Mixed marriage to unbelieving women (Ex. 34:15; Num. 25:1; 7:3; Ezra 9:10-12; Neh. 13:1-3; 23-28)

Unbelief in Jesus Christ, who is the Word (John 8:24)

Forsaking one’s assembly

(Heb. 10:25)

Willful sin (Heb. 10:26)

Not loving the Lord and betraying him as Judas did.

(1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:19)


To sum up this chapter, I will simply say - again, not to promote sin of any kind, but on the basis of the Blood of the Lamb shed for the believer - that all the sins of which Brother Kas, myself, or the other leaders and members of the assembly are accused, are classified as forgivable sins. However, all those who have sinned against God by taking unbelievers (Moabites or Midianites) as their wives in the world have committed an unforgivable sin. This will be evidence charged against them on the Judgment Day.


  1. Mixed Marriage - Balaam's Doctrine

Our duty is to preach the Bible in the light of the End time Message as revealed in the ministry of William Branham. You say in your letter: "We also followed your broadcast on the TV channel (Antenna A) on January 7, 2007 about mixed marriage. It was said that "Anyone who gets married outside of the Early Church, got married in the world and commits an unforgivable sin." Isn't that a serious accusation? For we know that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the Lord Himself taught: "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks against the Son of Man, he shall be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, he shall not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.” Matthew 12:31-33.

The Scripture states: "On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever; Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."(Nehemiah 13:1-3).

Without going beyond what is written, we understand that the assembly we are talking about here is simply like the Assemblies of the Early Church. When you advocate marriages to the Moabites, even virgins, and especially that there are children of God in all churches, you are promoting the same kind of preaching as Balaam, the false prophet, in urging the brethren to join together in marriage, outside the assembly..

Ruth, who was a Moabitess, however, had to comply with the requirements for spiritual admission into the assembly of Israel, as we see in An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages: "The first and very important thing that we learn about Jezebel is that she is NOT a daughter of Abraham, nor is her induction into the tribes of Israel one of spiritual admission as was that of Ruth, the Moabitess. No sir (...) And the way she became a part of Israel was not through the spiritual channels that God had ordained for Gentile admission; but she came in by MARRIAGE to Ahab, the king of the ten tribes of Israel. Now this union as we have seen was not Spiritual; it was political. And so this woman who was steeped in idolatry did not have the least desire to become a worshipper of the One True God, but rather she came with the avowed intentions of turning Israel away from the Lord." (page 227).

How could Israel marry peoples they had killed and enslaved and driven out to take all their possessions? Could these peoples really look upon them with benevolence and love their God? How could Israel bring back Moabite women as spoils of war, when at the word of Balaam they had made the people sin against Yahweh? (Numbers 31:15-16).

I will show you that it is the prophet himself and not us who declare mixed marriage to be an unforgivable sin. The moment you marry an unbeliever outside the assembly, you are guilty of that sin.

Brother Branham said, "Now we found out it was them. And look, let's take Balaam for example. Balaam came to teach his doctrine to the people, and they said: "Now look, we are all believers, we are - we are the children of Lot's daughter, of Moab, there. "They said, "We're just all the same. »

And he got them to mix, he got them to intermarry. He made these beautiful Moabite women, all pampered, come here, telling the sons of God that they were--they were all the same after all; God is a God of all races, and everything is in order. And he married them. And God drew the dividing line and made them leave their homes and everything.

What was that? Do you see that thing? This is exactly what happened once before the flood, "when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, they were beautiful to look at, and they coveted them and took them for wives. "Do you see? The same thing happened there. And it's the same thing now. Again, it's the same thing, you should see it.

Each generation announces what will happen in the next. Here we are. We see it. We know it's the same, because the Bible here says it's just the same today as it was then. All right. Okay, good. And now this is valid, of course, for the - the day we live in." As Brother Branham, we should see that Balaam's doctrine of mixed marriages was a sin. What a curse if we don't see it! So it is not a serious accusation to demand total separation from unbelief: it is a commandment!

As a believer of the Word, I know that whoever does this, separates from God automatically. This is also why we do not really excommunicate to the Early Church. We give over to God, and we submit to His decisions.

It was not Samuel who rejected Saul, for God said to him, "How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?"(1 Samuel 16:1). We carefully watch and see God's judgment, which has already fallen on the rebels to His Word. Saul's repentance came too late. He had already transgressed several times and obeyed according to his will and interpretation.

For mixed marriage, someone can do it - knowing that God condemns it - and even approve of it, teach it: but if GOD draws a LINE OF SEPARATION, we can do nothing more for those people, who exclude themselves, and who will end up leaving the assembly. Brother Branham says that the dividing line is drawn, when we know what good is to be done, but we do not do it willfully like Cain.

It is in God's Power to Transform that Brother Branham speaks bluntly, hammering the fact that mixed marriage is an unforgivable sin. He says, “Don’t cross that separating line, see. “When you know to do good, and doeth it not, to you it’s sin ". Israel did the same. After they seen Moses vindicated, and then let Balaam spray them, that precious vindicated Seed.

Pastors, don’t you (never) say nothing against this Word. Look at Balaam, he was a prophet, and he seen the Seed of God vindicated. But under his own great denomination that he lived in, Moab seen that bunch of wanderers coming through the land, he sprayed it, and said, "Well, wait a minute. We’re all Christians. We're all believers.

Why, our fathers and your fathers are the same. Aren’t we Lot’s children? Wasn’t Lot Abraham’s nephew? Aren’t we all the same? Let's marry one another." And Israel, as Eve in the garden of Eden, let satan spray her, he also sprayed Israel through a false prophet. When, the real prophet was with them, with vindicated Word. But by an intellectual knowledge conception, he sprayed them. Think of it. now, it was never forgiven, the sin was never forgiven. "» p. 32, § 195-196.

Since we have such a clear prophetic message, which has been confirmed by God, why should we abandon it, to follow the false prophet Balaam? The Lord cannot agree with us, He who said: "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."(Rev. 2:14-16).

In His Assembly, the Lord personally fights all those who practice fornication. Fornication is nothing but mixed marriage, as the sons of God practiced it before the flood, as Esau did with the Canaanite women, and as Balaam taught Israel.


  1. The money in question

It is necessary to enlighten the brothers on the issue of so-called manufactured money. On this subject also and in spite of the fact that these are facts that I consider irresponsible to have propagated on the net, the truth does not frighten us; however, it is on purpose that no figures will be mentioned here.

When we were still in Bandal, on Kisangani avenue, everyone knows that this assembly was not in good standing. Everyone also knows how tenants are having a hard time in Kinshasa. How every end of the month, finding the money to pay the rent is a real ordeal.

We have lived under the constant threat of a rent increase or an upcoming sale of the leased premises. So we wanted to provide the church with the framework that would keep it permanently free of such hassles.

I think a lot of brothers also know these kinds of people who go around in churches claiming to be orphans of a former foreign bank manager or things like that. These people, who are from Liberia or Sierra Leone and most of whom are living in refugee camps, are acting in complicity with Congolese people.

They claim that their deceased relative managed to hide boxes of money they inherited. They ask for the necessary means to make their money available, etc. Similar messages fill up e-mail boxes on the Internet.

At the time, without being aware of God's way of acting concerning the building of the church, we naively accepted these enchanting speeches and adhered to their risky adventure. So many problems every day! It was because we were running out of money that we called Brothers Beneli and Anaclet to our rescue.

It's out of love for them, because we thought we'd benefit them a lot if they were successful. But the project did not succeed and there were too many disappointments. I hereby certify that all the money involved in this adventure was never used for personal purposes. In conclusion, we preferred poverty with God, rather than sordid gain. In the end, it was not our role as men of God to persevere in this way.

Later, thanks to God's action through the voluntary offerings of the believers, the congregation was able to leave Bandal and acquire the land of Lingwala where a temple is now built to the glory of God and with no other means than His own. The origin of the funds came 100% from the Brethren. All links with the past have been cut in a definitive and irrevocable way.

As responsible adults, we have made it our duty to make reparation for the harm and damage suffered by others and by the brethren. According to the Scriptures, this was a case similar to the one in Exodus 22:7: " If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. »

The funds that Brother Beneli had borrowed came from Brother Jean Tshibangu. We are not thieves, forgers or swindlers, as the brothers would have us believe, but because the money was lost in our hands, we wanted to make up for the damage they had suffered. In order to do so, we had to sell a vehicle and a plot of land. As soon as the sale was closed, the two brothers cashed in the money, with the awareness that they were receiving the full settlement as well as the payoff of the principal.

Had it not been for Brother Tshibangu's haste to transfer this money to Brother Beneli's account in Canada, where he wanted to live, Brother Anaclet and other possible creditors could have been largely reimbursed from these same funds. I declare before God and men that I was completely unaware that Brother Tshibangu still considers himself a victim to this day; for how could I have let my brother continue to murmur in his heart because of us, if the remedy for this problem was deemed unsatisfactory.?

If he really was a real victim, why didn't he mention it before he traveled? Why the long silence of over 5 years? Why didn't Brother Tshibangu claim his alleged money from us while he was still on Congolese land?

Why remind us of this now, in a letter to an innocent third party in support of Brother Dianda's request for forgiveness from Brother Frank? This action is suspicious, because anyone is free to support Brother Dianda, but why do it by publishing a letter on the net to smear me with Brother Kas instead of applying Matthew 18 and meeting us alone? Can my dear Brother Jean Tshibangu confirm before God and all the brothers that Brother Thomas and Brother Kas have refused to repair the harm done in this case?

I for one think Brother Kas and I have forgotten all these people and this case is largely fixed. The Bible imposes the obligation of restitution as a prerequisite for divine forgiveness.

In Leviticus 5:2-7 it says: " If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein

Zacchaeus, a son of Abraham like us, who was saved by grace and grounded on the same law, said: "... and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I return [him] fourfold.” I therefore notify our brothers all over the world that Brother Jean Tshibangu - of which I have just received the letter of complaint addressed to Brother Daoud Bosongo - has been reimbursed. He received ten times more than what he had loaned (in any case, more than what the Bible requires and more than what Zacchaeus had given back).

Brother Jean Tshibangu is lying when he is pretending to being a victim. He is trying to blacken us and mislead the brothers. We are even with him and any other brother and we believe that Jesus Christ, our High Priest who received our trespass offering, has forgiven us. After all the repentance and restitution required by the Bible, what more can we expect from a believer?

When a victim receives the payment of damages, he or she automatically forfeits his or her status of victim and therefore the case is closed. If the settlement package that was proposed is refused, the victim has an opportunity to express his or her views on the case within a reasonable period of time. However, after the final acceptance of the offer presented and the payment of the damages has been completed, an approving silence of more than 5 years equates to an agreement. If a victim still presses charges after accepting a settlement and receiving full monetary compensation, his claim is irrelevant and becomes moot because it has no scriptural grounds. In addition, such a claimant also loses all credibility, esteem and reputation within the Church of Yeshua.

Are brothers John Tshibangu and Beneli capable of testifying before God and the people that what I am saying here is false? As these things are true - and all of you know that they are - only God knows what goal will be served when you accuse us of having made you bankrupt. But as the Scripture says, I rejoice to be falsely accused and I pray to God to prevent me from being in the camp of those who accuse the brethren day and night.


  1. God's ministers and their marriage

In your letter you say: "Neither is it said that a priest should keep in his house a woman who has committed adultery and continue to manipulate the Fire of God. (Jeremiah 3:1-3) It is the whole assembly that is defiled. "(Jeremiah 3:1-3) The Scripture you are referring to speaks rather of a man who repudiates his wife, leaves him to belong to another, and then returns to her.

So what you're saying is that a minister must stop preaching if his wife has committed adultery. That statement is false and anti-biblical. You are very much mistaken, because Scripture says: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance "(Romans 11:29)

Furthermore, the Bible teaches that homes of men of God have always been the most under attack. It starts with the house of Adam, whose wife was beguiled by the ancient serpent. After this trial, he was still a son of God and a prophet. What about Jacob, whose wife was taken by his son Reuben? Was he forced to quit preaching because of this? What about David, who committed adultery and whose son Absalom took all ten wives?

The example of the prophet Hosea who receives the order from God Himself, to marry a prostitute and an adulterous woman, shows very well that marriage has nothing to do with God's call. All those who marry virgins or who are married to blameless women, are not necessarily ministers of God, who manipulate the Fire of God! It's more about marrying an unbeliever of the world which is bad. Even Brother Frank says that the Scripture cannot be broken because a servant of God falls.

You're referring to Brother Branham again, who says " There is no minister that can marry a widow", to support the fact that he must stop preaching because he is married to a woman touched by a man.

However, the Scripture says, "And they shall not take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.” Through this the Lord tells us that a priest who was strictly under the obligation to take virgins remains a priest even if he married a widow who was previously the wife of another priest who had died. Therefore he has the right to marry a widow, unlike what you claim.

Finally, I understand from your philippic and your conflict with the senior leader of the Early Church and with us, that the preaching of mistakes is your top priority. I strongly disapprove of this method. Rather, I believe in Galatians 6 and in applying the true Christian method when someone is caught at fault.

After being approached by Brother Beneli in Kinshasa, I was willing to put him in front of Brother Kas, thinking that he was also ready to negotiate to settle things in the Christian way. Since he had told me that it is difficult to talk with Brother Kas, I went so far as to offer my modest mediation.

However, as I see today that the same allegations are being published recklessly on the Internet, I must tell you that I totally disagree. I don't believe that true children of God act that way. Brother Branham said that you don't even have to stab your pastor in the back to kill him; if you speak badly of him, you have already done so. The only thing you are trying to do by speaking against him and other preachers of the Early Church is to destroy the influence they have on the believers who trust them.

Given that I have discovered this from your writings, and after listening to you, I can fairly say that you no longer view Brother Kas as your pastor, otherwise you would have spoken of him more respectfully and with greater circumspection. The growing number of fiery letters about the so-called immorality the preachers, the making of money, etc., resembles more a smear campaign against the Church and the brethren, than a vague and unclear concern for "reconciliation".

I assume, in this case, that you are sinless and lead a blameless life. Certainly not! “For all have sinned," says the Bible! It also said, “let God be true, but every man a liar”. I am therefore compelled, in the Name of the Lord Yeshua, to quote the Prophet Branham to explain what is the true Christian attitude that you frankly seem to be missing. It is found in Taking sides with Jesus, pp 33-36. It is very long, but reading those pages is quite easy and there are practically no comments to add. The chosen ones not beheld iniquity in God's people, as the Lord said through Balaam, by the way.

In this marvelous sermon, Brother Branham shows how fiercely the Pharisees try to convince the healed blind man that this famous Jesus in whom He believes is really only a sinner and a demon. In spite of all these attempts, the blind man stood up for Jesus Christ and sided with him who was denigrated and despised. God alone knows the number of those whose eyes were opened through the ministry of Brother Kas and Brother Thomas. They will keep the Word and take side with the despised of the Lord Yeshua.

In any case, all those who long for the fulfillment of the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Joel 2:28 and Acts 3:19 and ff., and who pretend they adhere to the doctrine of restoration - to name but one - know that it was the two of us who first preached it, and who are still doing so, ever since, with all the faithful preachers. Including you, my dear brothers Beneli, Patient and Nathaniel, Dianda, Yeshayah, Dituku, Kabasubabo, Ekenge, etc., if only you can give God glory, you would admit that you all had your eyes opened by our ministry.

“Now, I want to take a subject here of "Taking Sides with Jesus." The Pharisees and leaders of His day always tried to belittle Him before the people. That was just a way that the devil had of working. All the Pharisees and the teachers of His day constantly tried to belittle Jesus. They... All the throw-off that they could give to Him, they done it.

They watched Him constantly to find where they could find a fault, and they never spoke of His good things; they were always finding something that they could belittle Him about and say, "You see, looky here. If he was a man of God, he wouldn't do it this away," or, "If he was a man of God, he wouldn't do it that way." They were trying to cast a shadow upon Him to get the people to disbelieve Him. That's the work of the devil, and that old scheme has never ceased.

There's many times that a minister will make a mistake. And if he comes into a neighborhood, a precious brother who's trying to do what's right and to lead the people right, everything that the devil can point to the unbeliever or the so-called Christian in that neighborhood to throw off on that man, he'll do it. You know, the real Christian way is to hide everything you can from a brother.

Don't tell his bad things; just tell his good things. Just tell what you know about him that's good. If anything's bad, let it alone. The poor fellow's got enough against him anyhow. Don't try to take a pole and shove a man further into the ditch.

The Christian attitude is to pick him up and take him out of the ditch. See? Don't never try to shove him down; he's down already. Try to help him up. And... But too many of us today, too many people today, I might say, try to do that. If they could just get something another that they could say that was real bad.

Now, for instance, if--if one of you brethren would make a mistake and do something's wrong, which you're subject to do it; I am too, every one of us. But as we go along, let's remember we're brothers; we are brothers. And if we've got any fighting, let's fight with one another. Bring it together. Bring it before our brethren and settle it. (...) Well, that--that's the way we--we got to do this. See? And if you got something against somebody, your brother, don't tell somebody else about it if it's wrong, go to him and tell him. And then if he's going to argue with you, then take somebody else with you. Then bring it up the way the Bible said.

But Jesus, they--they just tried to find every little shadow that they could find to try to belittle Him in the sight of the people. And that's what the devil wants. They want to--they want to hurt your influence before the people. That's the way you want to watch careful what you do. Walk like real men of God; talk like men of God. See? Act like men of God; live like men of God; because the devil, your adversary, is going about like a roaring lion trying to devour what he can.

Why did they do this? They were jealous of Him. That was what's the reason they tried to belittle Him. They were jealous of His ministry. And that's the reason they were trying to belittle. But He had the ministry of God and they knew that, but it was contrary to their creeds, so they were trying to belittle Him. Make everything He, every little flaw that they could find, get Him out of the way.

They wanted Him to quit; they wanted the people to denounce Him. They wanted to say, "Now, this guy's nothing. Looky here. Now, there he is, he--he--he did this. And you know that's not right. We've been taught all of our life that we should believe the elders. And here he is, stood right there and bawled that elder out. He disagreed with the tradition of the fathers, and we been, and we ought to believe the tradition of our fathers. We been taught that by each rabbi all the years through. And here this man comes around and disagrees with them." See, "Why, the man like that ain't fit to be a preacher."

See, they were trying to belittle Him. But in all of that, the ones that believed Him, and loved Him, and had seen His Scriptural miracle signs would not be hindered by them. No, sir. Them who believed Him believed Him. Those who loved Him stood by Him. They would not see what others pointed out to them.

Oh, if we could be that. If we could just not see (…) But looky, that has nothing to do with it. It's a devil trying to throw a shadow on you (...) So, the people tried, them Pharisees, and Sadducees, and hypocrites, and Herodians, and all tried to cast a shadow on Jesus; but them true believers, that was predestinated to hear that Message, heard It and seen no fault in It at all.

Same now, those who believe Him love Him, those who believe Him see no fault in Him. They don't see any heresy; they don't see anything wrong; they don't see anything wrong with His Word; they don't see anything wrong with His people; they just see Jesus and that's all. They're--they're--they're predestinated to Eternal Life, so they just take sides with Jesus and stay there.

And you must teach your people, you pastors, to do the same. If somebody comes along and says, "Ah, you know, your church, they was so and-so. They ain't..." (...) And so, they tried. They was not willing to admit that He was doing the work of God, so they were trying to sow discord and get the people not to believe, but them people who believed Him stayed right with Him; they took sides. »

Any preaching based solely on the mistakes and matters of life is simply from the devil. I want nothing to do with it. I have always kept away from it and will always do so as a child of God..

You say that "insults and name-calling have become a password in the Early Church (...) and that the pulpit of the Early Church in Kinshasa is a seat of slanders and verbal abuse, especially when a brother or sister decides to go out. Whoever wants to leave the Early Church is free to do so," I said earlier. I will repeat the same point in my conclusion. Our Church, in fact, is not a Freemason lodge where the "password" of the day is whispered in the ears of the insiders by the Grand Master.

Do you belong to it, then, to have such a language? If so, you have to get out, if you ever intend to see the Kingdom one day. Anyway, the Early Church has never been and will never be a Freemasons' lodge. God condemned lodges through the prophet saying that they are of the devil. He demonstrated that denominations are actually lodges; but we are an assembly, in which Christians worship Jesus Christ and follow his message and teaching according to the Bible.


  1. Conclusion - the trial by fire

I am now coming to the end of my speech. What is my conclusion at the end of all of this? What do I say about your position, my dearest brothers Beneli, Patient, Nathaniel, Tshibangu and others? Do I condemn you for taking it? No, not at all.

On the contrary, even at the risk of surprising you, I also respect that of Brother John Dianda or Brother Yeshaya or others. I can even say: " Finally, Brother Jean Dianda has revealed himself! ». I have just received his letter entitled "Brother Jean Dianda demonized for a request for forgiveness! Ah yes!" For my part, I urged him to stand up for his beliefs, because we shouldn't support hypocrisy!

In Mark 9:49-51, it is written: "For every man shall be salted with fire. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves and have peace one with another. "My dear brethren, please consider this letter of clarification as my thesis-sacrifice before God. I'm sure it comes from God. However, it is up to God alone to confirm His Word or to overrule the contents of this letter. We must all bear the responsibility of our own beliefs and stands. Let us not look for excuses or sham.

In the Spoken Word is The Original Seed, Brother Branham speaks of the spectacular showdown that is to take place at Mount Carmel. He says on page 98: "Then in the latter rain there will come forth a Mount Carmel, a showdown. Bible fulfilled, to the letter! John the Baptist, “His messenger before His face,” in Malachi 3. Planted a former rain and was rejected by the churches, the denominations, the Pharisees and Sadducees in his day. Jesus came and had the Mount Transfiguration showdown. This forerunner, of the last days, will sow for the former rain. Jesus will be the showdown between denominations and creeds, which is His Word, when He comes, a showdown, the Rapture of His Bride. The first was Mount Carmel, the second was Mount Transfiguration, the third will be Mount Zion. (Glory!)" § 432.

Further on he adds: "The true prophet of God will proclaim the Word in the last days. Denominations will hate him. He will not pull any punches on them. He will be like he was when he come at the first Coming of Christ, “You generation of vipers.” But the predestinated will hear and will make ready for the countdown. The royal Seed of Abraham’s faith, like him, holding to the Word of God, Regardless, for he was predestinated. The messenger of Malachi 4 will appear at God’s appointed time. We are all looking for him. We believe he will come. That is according to His Word. It will be at the end time. Which, it is time now for to see it. He will be—he will be correctly dedicated to the Word, as they have always been indicated by God’s Word and a vindicated. God will vindicate what he preaches to be the Truth, as He did Elijah, for it is Elijah coming, making ready for the Mount Zion Rapture. Jesus said, “In the last days it would be like Lot’s time.” His preaching will be with the Spirit and strength line of God’s Word. Because so much has been called God’s Truth, many will misunderstand this true messenger. (I’ve got wrote here, p-r-o-p-h-e-cy, “Prophecy.”) Because, because so much has been called God’s Truth by fakers, many true ministers will misunderstand that messenger"» §§ 438-440.

In conclusion, and despite the presence of many other preachers, Brother Branham confirms the outpouring of the Spirit upon the true Church: "Billy Graham may preach everywhere. Oral Roberts, them godly men, may preach everywhere. The Lord may send me to sow seed somewhere else, some field. But I believe our nation is sowed down. I believe she’s ready for the harvest now. When the Spirit falls, and there becomes a move amongst the people, them denominationals will swing together just as certain as I’m standing in the pulpit, and the Church of God will be ousted. And they’ll make it such a racket, until they’ll confederate it, and put a boycott on anybody that don’t belong to them (...) As far as I know, this is the Word of God. » §§ 453-454.

The challenge is here! Let everyone place their sacrifice on their altar WITHOUT LIGHTING THE FIRE. I believe I have placed mine on the true restored foundation, and I have sprinkled it with enough water. You also, my brethren, put also on your altars the doctrines which you believe to be of God. If the one you worship is Yahweh, He will come and set fire to it. If on the other hand He is the One who is the object of my present thesis-sacrifice, He will come to consume my burnt offering and He will salt us with His Holy Fire, I and all those who have the same faith, as the Scripture says.

Brother Branham was asked about those who leave the church. He said, "If they leave, there is only one thing to do: let them GO and pray for them. Do you see? Then, perhaps some of the deacons could go to their church...or rather go to their homes, someday, to find out why they left (but for you, dear Brothers Nathaniel, Patient and Beneli, we already know why), and ask them what was wrong. Then, and if they…See if he can reconcile them. If they can’t, then take two or three witnesses with him, that they might be understood. Then if they can’t be understood, then it’s told before the church if they are a member here of the church. Then they are…

And then if they’re not members of the church, course they’re not members of this congregation, they should be made to be ruled. See, they—they’ve got to listen to our orders here, because this is the orders of the church. This is things we don’t want to do, things that I don’t like to do, but it’s things that must be done.

And I’m exposing myself: and tell them here by this tape, it’s me, they can hear me talking and know that it’s me, not you men. You’ve asked me these questions, and I’m giving it to you the best that I know how from the Word of God. Now, if those people get angry and go out from you, what does the Scripture say about it, Brother Branham?" "They went out from us because they wasn’t of us.” And that settles it. “Left the church,” that’s what they did. All right." Church Order, page 19, §§ 80-83.

As far as I am concerned, and in view of the haste of things and the correspondence that continues to rain on the Internet, I feel that I have failed in my ultimate attempt to reconcile the brothers with the assembly, on the basis of the Word, in general, and with Brother Kas, in particular.

Therefore, in the name of the Early Church of the Congo, I can only take note of your formal separation from our congregation, in order to go and form another one. I specify here that the name "Early Church" cannot be used by any brother or group, which does not adhere to our doctrine, because it is protected by legal personality, which was granted to us by the Department of Justice. Quite apart from this official name - with which you no longer identify, and which you have explicitly rejected, distancing yourself from it - you are free to call yourself as you wish.

In your letter, you tell me in substance: "You agree with us that the Chair is not a place for settling scores. But unfortunately, we note that the pulpit of the Early Church in Kinshasa has become a place of slander and insults, especially when a brother or sister makes the decision to leave you (Matthew 5:21-22). (Matthew 5:21-22) This is not right.  (Matthew 5:21-22) Yet this is what is happening in your assembly at the moment. (Matthew 7:12) Brother John Dianda and Yeshayah Matondo are slandered and insulted in Kinshasa and Mbuji Mayi. As for us, it has been propagated that we had left the Early Church in Kinshasa because of mixed marriage and that we were preaching the people to go and get married in the "world". And yet, before we went out from you, we had had several meetings with you on the doctrine of blotting out names and not on marriage. »

If these words turn out to be true, then I urge all the brethren who read me to stop using name-calling on those who are going out, or who have gone out, because name-calling is not part of biblical preaching. Let each one do no more than point out what is false in the teaching given by so and so, without insulting him personally. If someone teaches false doctrines, then simply apply the Word, and curse them! But please don't you insult anyone. Let everyone stay in peace and wait upon God to vindicate His Word. Shalom to you all!