PASTOR KOCOUREK’S
WEBSITE RESPONSE
ERROR NO. ONE
>e.o.d.h.
answers<
heretical articles nos. 7O8 to 723
chapter FOUR
Dear Pastor Kocourek,
Greetings in Jesus name. This is to inform you that I was able to access your website response after several days.
I am alarmed that you could have jumped out of our personal discourse, while it was in progress, and take it to the public. That was certainly the act of a coward, to bring our discourse to your church before it is completed. And together with that cowardly act, inform me to find your response to my presentation on your website.
Where
is your Christian principle? If you have none of it, where is your manly
principle? You act like one with a wishbone instead of a backbone, insomuch
that you had to solicit the help and support of your congregation to defend
yourself and the errors of Dr. Vayle against my exposition of three major
heresies of the C.A.B. As if that was insufficient, you advertised it on your
website for further support. Be it known to you that I am not afraid of your publicity, but I am ashamed of your lack of
principles. You should leave that barbarous act for people who yet ride on
crocodile backs and wear loin cloths. Some have that impression of us here in
the
In your website response, I observed that you spoke and acted like a lamb full of love, tolerance, respect, temperance and a Doctor of Divinity even like the good old priest who the prophet described and contrasted with Jesus’ militant actions against unbelief. But on your personal response to me, you acted like a wolf, arrogant, full of anger, pride, presumptuous in your words and doctrine, and had me standing at the white throne Judgment. You suddenly changed the actor’s mask to sheep skin to solicit help from your ministers and 183 nations to fight a little fellow who pointed out the errors of the C.A.B.
To prove that this was a two faced response and gross act of hypocrisy, in your website response you did not mention nor publish your first and arrogant response to me, which is full of heresies. Your action is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. However I addressed them by the Word of God and message of Malachi 4: 5-6. I am also seeking out other heresies which you published, for their exposure. I do not waste paper and ink.
CARNAL WEAPONS OF
WAR
II Corinthians 10:4-5 <For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds ;)
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.>
The weapons of your warfare are carnal. In your first response your defense was based upon a hideous lie that I am opposing the teachings of Brother Branham and that I am anti-message and anti-Branham.
In your website public response, you were not only guilty of taking our discourse to your 183 countries and congregation, but have altered, changed and perverted my writings, this with the purpose of victimizing me as anti-Branham. Each place that I had written the name of the editor: “Dr. Vayle”, you replaced it with the name: “Brother Branham.” What a treacherous plot to win a debate. I am positive that your conscience knows better, since you read my declaration at the inset of our discourse.
Quote Declaration: “My position, as editor of E.O.D.H., is that certain major doctrinal issues are inconsistent with the teachings of the prophet, unscriptural and erroneous. This is the basis of our discourse.
I make myself absolutely clear that I am not challenging nor correcting any error on the original church age teachings of Brother Branham, but defending his revelation of the message. My discourse is solemnly based upon the errors injected into the grammarized version of the C.A.B. by Dr. Lee Vayle. It will be a lie for anyone to say or believe that this discourse aims at correcting the prophet’s teaching.
I firmly declare that the revelation of the seven church ages given to Malachi 4: 5-6 is “Thus saith the Lord”, but that does not include all the errors that are injected into the grammarized version of the seven church age book.”
Therefore pastor, you lied; shame on you. Repent! Your treachery against the truth to employ such a carnal weapon of war is proof that you do not have the Sword of God’s Word to fight your battles. Thus you exited out of the privacy of our discourse and fled to your congregation and the rest of the world for support by your website.
Further to this cowardly act, you have invented gross heresies to defend the heresies of Dr. Vayle injected into the C.A.B. A heresy cannot justify a heresy. Thus your defense is departed. The truth will prevail over all your heresies. You will be exposed before your 183 countries, your congregation and the message world.
HISTORY - C.A.B.
Thank you for your elaborate history of the church age book - C.A.B. You did not have to go through the trouble to prove to me that the C.A.B. was the prophet’s book and not Dr. Vayle’s. I believe he authored and edited the book for the prophet. It bears his name as the author. I see that you are desperately trying to identify me with those who have rejected the C.A.B. as Dr. Vayle’s book, and by extension prove that I am fighting the entire book and the prophet himself. That is hypocritical, dishonest and a lie invented by Satan.
Your elaborate history of the C.A.B. placing the prophet as the editor is wrong. Concluding that the prophet recognized the book as “Thus saith the Lord” is based upon what others said and not the prophet himself, evident by quotations from the message. Your quotations of witnesses to support Dr. Vayle’s reputation are not to be trusted since you lied about Sister Branham’s statement. She spoke in humble suggestive terms and you spoke in the affirmative.
Quote Pastor Kocourek: “Now, I have known Brother Vayle for 26
years and know exactly what he has taught. Further more, I know what Brother
Branham said about him, and Sister Meda
herself spoke to me a month before she died and confirmed that brother Branham said, "no man understands me or
my message like Lee Vayle." (Testimony of Brian Kocourek).
Quote Pastor Kocourek: One month before
Sister Branham died I asked her " did Brother Branham ever say, "there is no man that understand my
ministry and the Message like Lee Vayle?'" And she replied, "Brother, since the car accident I've
had a bad memory, but it sounds like
something he would have said, because he had a lot of respect for Lee
Vayle." (Taken From Pastor Kocourek’s Website).
Reverend Kocourek, does those words of the humble wife of the prophet sound like a confirmation of your exaltation of Dr. Vayle? The poor sister never committed herself, never used the words that you are using. She never quoted the prophet. This is a horrible lie for a big man that is representing Dr. Vayle. This reveals your spirit. It’s a lying spirit upon you that is bent upon only one thing as your defense and that is what the prophet said about Dr. Vayle. We love Dr. Vayle but we hate your lies!
The short space of time between the publication of the C.A.B. and the decease of the prophet did not afford him the opportunity to thoroughly examine the full contents of the C.A.B. Had he done so, being God’s prophet, he would never ever leave those three major heresies unattended. I hold to his original teachings on those subjects in which he flatly denied those heresies. Your history of the C.A.B., how it was written, and the role the prophet played cannot replace truth and the expositions of those heresies by the Word and message of the prophet. He condemned such teachings in no uncertain terms and I do likewise.
Therefore I refute your defense against the truth in the same way the prophet condemned them by total denial of such heresies and the written Word of God.
The basis of your defense is: 1. Hideous lies; 2. Invention of new heresies; 3. Gross perversion of simple scriptures; 4. Denial of Dr. Vayle’s teachings on the three major heresies injected into the C.A.B. 5. Employment of the love gospel of Satan.
MARRIAGE
On your defense you further confirmed that you believe these heresies that say:
A- That a woman is no longer married to her husband if she commits adultery.
B- Romans 7:3 do not mean what it says.
C- A divorced woman can be remarried; Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not mean what it says.
It is very obvious that on this subject, you did not replace Dr. Vayle’s name with Brother Branham’s, as I stated in my discourse. You did that for a special reason. Something is troubling your conscience. You don’t want to attach Brother Branham’s name to these heresies. You are afraid. It goes to show that you know better than what your lips are saying. You know that Dr. Vayle is wrong on his teaching on this subject, and you are hypocritically trying to defend them.
Heretical Article No. 708:
Pastor Kocourek: I must say your language is quite stinging,
and very strong and accusatorial for one who says that he wishes to communicate
with Christian love and respect. You might want to study up on what love and
respect are before you commit to doing this discourse with love and respect. (Page 4, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: It’s alarming that you don’t know that such is scriptural. Jesus’ language was stinging (Matthew 23); read it all. John the Baptist’s language was strong. How readest thou? I guess the Pharisees wanted to give him a lesson on divine love. Do you reckon that he would have accepted it and Jesus likewise? “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears; ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” Did that fit your love gospel heresy? Did it sound like the good old priest? That was the message preacher-Stephen the martyr, who died for Christ’s love gospel. Does it compare with yours?
Heretical Article No. 709:
Pastor Kocourek: You assume this says that the sin of Adam was
committing adultery with his own wife, but that is not what was said at all. (Page 5, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You have perverted the scriptures, you have told lies, and now you are changing the meaning of what Dr. Vayle indicated. That is very dishonest of you. If he did not, why did he go through all the pains to indicate the law of Deuteronomy 24? Then tell me what is the sin of Adam that Dr. Vayle indicated? God never commanded him to leave his wife. You cannot prove that in the scriptures. Dr. Vayle was unable to do so, thus he applied the Law of Moses, which was not yet written. Now you are denying it.
Heretical Article No. 710:
Pastor
Kocourek: Adam
wilfully disobeyed God. He was told not to do a certain thing and he did it
anyway, therefore his sin was not adultery, but his sin was disobedience to God. (Page 5, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You are cunningly dodging the issue. Yes, it’s disobedience but on what? He also partook of the fruit. What is the fruit? You purposely left this fact out or it will confirm this heresy. Dr. Vayle never mentioned one time in his teaching that it was disobedience. He was trying to prove, what is the fruit Adam partook off. Are you more qualified than Dr. Vayle, or are you hoping to get a God-given PhD? God has none for distribution. Then tell me, your 183 nations and your congregation, what is that fruit that Adam ate.
Heretical
Article No. 711:
Pastor Kocourek: … you are in error
with scripture when you say… “It is unscriptural and erroneous to say that a woman is no
longer married to her husband if she commits adultery. Based upon Romans 7: 2
and I Corinthians 7: 39, she is bound to her husband as long as her husband
liveth; not until she commits adultery.” (Page 6, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: I demanded a scripture from you. Where is it? You brought a quotation of Brother Branham which you are perverting. A woman is not automatically divorced. She broke her vows, which is pardonable. You behave like the Pharisees with stones in their hands, ready to kill the adulterous woman. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” You are saying, “Stone her.” If you are without sin, cast the first stone. The Pharisees consciences were condemned. What about yours? You need the lessons on love, not me. You are preaching to put away the woman because your heart is hard and unforgiving. How many homes, families and lives of children you are destroying? Only God knows. None should obey your heresy, inclusive of your 183 countries and 3000 ministers that you lead and so proudly boasted about your popularity. “I visited every continent that man inhabits.” If you preached heresies to those people like the ones I am challenging, you had better correct them.
Heretical Article No. 712:
Pastor Kocourek: Romans 7:3 KJV So then if, while her husband
liveth, she be married to (ginomai) another man, she shall be called an
adulteress…
Now, the Greek word that was translated as “married to” is
the word ginomai and does not mean married
to in the sense of an actual ceremony, but means “united to” or “to
be found with” or “be fulfilled with” in reference to another man, other than
her own husband. (Page 8, Spoken Word
no 42, Q & A 44
Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: It does mean exactly what it says. That is what Satan told Eve in the Garden, that God does not mean what He says. He added a word and produced death. Marriage is also two people united.
If your interpretation is right, then when Paul said though she is married to another man, it will mean not marriage. Now, where is your heresy standing? It’s the very same word used, both places in the same scripture and the prophet employed them in his teachings.
Ephesians
Romans 7:2-4 <For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.>
Quote W.M.B.: 12-1 Now, she, as a woman, if she is married to Christ the Word, she cannot be married to a church denomination at the same time, for she's bound by it. She cannot live with both husbands at the same time. They're contrary one to the other…
Just
as much contrary to one another as law was to grace, as Paul speaking of here.
One must be dead to have the other. And if she tries to mix them, she shall be
called an adulterous… God said if she's tried to be married to two at the same time, she shall be called an adulterous.
(Invisible
Quote: 127 And to think that someday in a physical form, with a body like His own glorious body, we will set down at the table at the wedding supper and there be united and wed in marriage to Him, to live as Bride and Bridegroom… through a ceaseless eternity. (Uniting Time And Sign 63-0818).
Quote: 235 "In that day the Son of man will be revealed." What? To join the Church to the Head, unite, the marriage of the Bride. (Proving His Word 64-0816).
Quote: E-19 But remember, the Bride…The
Word and her are the same as a man and
his wife becomes one in union. So does the real genuine
Heretical Article No. 713:
Pastor Kocourek: Foreign Pastor, your demanding does not show a spirit of love, nor respect as you have agreed to do. (Page 6, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: I demand one scripture to prove that statement. You cannot find it. I can see a drowning man trying to catch on to a straw. So you are saying when Brother Branham demanded scriptures from his opposers, that he did not show a spirit of love? He did so on multiple occasions.
Quote W.M.B.: 125 …And, oh, where'd you ever find putting a handkerchief on your head to enter church? I want you to show me the Scripture. It's false prophecy. (Why we are not a Denomination? 58-0927).
Quote: 173-147 I challenge anyone to show me one Scripture where the Devil can heal. If you'll show me where the Devil can heal, I'll prove the Devil's your father (and that's right) if you'll do that. It's not in the Words of God. It cannot be proven. (QA. Image of the beast 54-0515).
Heretical Article No. 714:
Pastor
Kocourek: Branham said… “A man that's
married to his wife, they're not no longer two; they're one. And a man that'll
run out after another woman, he automatically separates himself from his wife…
a woman that runs out with another man…she's cut away from him…”
… So if she is cut away from him, or separates herself from him then she is no longer married to him. It does not take a writ of divorcement to do this, her own actions are what caused it, and the writ of divorcement is just the piece of paper acknowledging what is already obvious. (Page 7-8, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: Brother
Branham is exactly right; the woman is cut away from him. You are perverting
his words to make it say what he is not saying. It does not mean that she was divorced. You cannot prove that in
scripture. Give me one scripture, give me one quotation. I forgot; “to ask this
is not a spirit of love.” If you twist and pervert the prophet’s words without
fear and respect, I know what you would do with mines and have already done.
Heretical Article No. 715:
Pastor
Kocourek: Foreign
Pastor states:… “Jesus told the
adulterous woman: “…Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8: 11). Not that you are no
longer married and your husband cannot take you back.
…But show me where Jesus told her to go back to her husband
which she was living with in adultery.
(Page 8, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: What foolishness! Neither did He tell her that she is divorced and she cannot go back to her husband. No where did I say or indicate that this woman was to go back to the adulterous man. So here is a drowning man again catching on to a straw. You are yet based on the law sir.
Pastor
Kocourek: Foreign
Pastor, would you allow a sex pervert who asked you for forgiveness for raping
your daughter to come stay in your home? (Page 8, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: This example is a million miles off the topic under discussion. It cannot be compared to the adulteress. Thus you don’t have the license to stone her. You are trying to get me to reason with God’s Word. You have no scripture for your heresy.
Pastor Kocourek: Now, the following quote is the one people
use to show that a man can remarry, but if you read it carefully, it doesn't
say for adultery… he says it is only for the cause
of fornication. (Page 10, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: That is not our subject under discussion. Don’t jump like a rabbit. Are you trying to dodge the issue?
Heretical Article No. 716:
Pastor Kocourek:
… Jesus told the woman go and sin no more less
a worse thing come upon her. Her adultery was caused by her unbelief. So now
that she believes is it ok for her to go back and live in sin? My goodness
Foreign Pastor, what kind of Message are you teaching?
…your erroneous and loose teaching that allows women to commit adultery if they only do it just once as you seem to say it no big deal. (Page 9, 12, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You are telling a filthy lie. Such accusation can only proceed out of a carnal mind. Shame on you! What proof do you have of me condoning immorality in the House of God? I am on the subject of forgiveness for a woman who makes a mistake and commits adultery. When Brother Branham said that he will forgive his wife if she makes a mistake and she will forgive him; or when he told the man that he can take back his wife, was he preaching a doctrine that women can commit adultery once or twice? This resembles the nasty letter you wrote to me, asking about me and my wife; and I shut you up, letting you know that I found her a virtuous woman and she was never an adulteress, and if she was ever guilty, I would not apply your and Dr. Vayle’s heresy of C.A.B. 104 which makes it impossible for a man to take back his wife.
Pastor Kocourek: …the quote from the CAB does not say what
Scripture it is referring to. (Page 12,
Spoken Word no 42, Q
& A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: Yes, he was indicating Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, and you know it, but you think you have a point because he did not specify it. To prove your hypocrisy, I demand from you to show me what scripture he could have possibly indicated. I would not await an answer because you cannot find any. I forgot; “That is not love to demand a scripture.” Excuse me sir!
Heretical Article No. 717:
Pastor Kocourek: I am shocked that you would take so lightly
the fact that this woman committed adultery against her husband. Only one act?
You say?... How many sisters who sit under your ministry have gone out and
committed adultery knowing that you make it easy for them to do so? (Page 12, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and
Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: This is foolishness. I can see a drowning man grabbing to a straw again, trying to bring up an accusation against a man who stands for righteousness. All my preaching and publications bear witness against your lies. You ran short of carnal weapons of war, thus you invented this dirty bomb; which is exploding in your face. Your mind is so set on winning a debate until it is only on carnal things, indicating that I take one act of adultery as a light thing. Shame on you! Repent Brother and Pastor Kocourek. All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire!
Pastor Kocourek: The sin that Adam fell was not taking back
his wife, it was doing what he was commanded not to do. (Page 12, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: This is proof that you have a different doctrine than Dr. Vayle. He plainly stated that was the sin of Adam, with indications that he committed adultery when he took back the adulteress. Your heresy is based upon that heresy.
Quote Dr. Lee Vayle C.A.B 104-1 ...people ask me, "If Eve fell
that way, what did Adam do, for God lays the blame on Adam?"... Now the Word teaches us that if a woman
leaves her husband and goes with another man she is an adultress and is no
longer married and the husband is not to
take her back. That Word was true in
Heretical Article No. 718:
Pastor Kocourek: Deuteronomy 24:1-4
When a man hath
taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in
his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her
… first of all we must ask ourselves what is this uncleanness, that bothers this
man enough to put his wife away… This Scripture speaks of a man who marries a
woman and then finds after they are married that she is not a virgin, he has a right to put her away, and it says then she
is free to marry another. (Page 13,
Spoken Word no 42, Q
& A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You
have no proof of your assumption. You
have perverted the scripture to justify Dr. Vayle’s heresy. You are such a
perverter that you even perverted Dr.
Vayle’s heresy.
Heretical Article No. 719:
Pastor Kocourek: … this first man found out his wife was not a virgin so that nullifies the marriage altogether as brother Branham explains… So if they were not married to begin with then she would be free to marry for the first time legitimately, but not as a virgin. (Page 14, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: By this heresy, you are propagating remarriage for a divorced woman. That’s contrary to the prophet’s teaching and the Word of God; Romans 7, which you have denied and perverted. Deuteronomy 24 has no connection with what the prophet taught on that particular subject. Give me one quotation. He indicated that scripture to show that a man cannot take back his wife if she goes out and marries another. His interpretation is right and you are wrong.
Heretical
Article No. 720:
Pastor Kocourek: Deuteronomy 24 say it is ok for the first man to put her away and a second man could marry her and that is not adultery?... this first man found out his wife was not a virgin …as brother Branham explains… So if they were not married to begin with then she would be free to marry for the first time legitimately, but not as a virgin. (Page 14, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: This is a heresy plus a heresy. You have no scripture or quotation to support it. You perverted Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 to make it say so. You perverted W.M.B.’s quotation to make him say so. Nowhere in the prophet’s message can you show where he said that the woman is not married and can be remarried under those circumstances. I challenge you to give me a single quotation.
Heretical Article No. 721:
Pastor Kocourek: Foreign Pastor Statement: “The Bible is specifically making reference to a woman that
was divorced and became the wife of another man by marriage.” End of Foreign Pastor Statement:
It doesn’t say that she became the wife a second time, as you are reading this. (Page 14, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: How readest thou, Rev. Kocourek? Are you telling me that the Bible does not mean what it says? She was put away and given a bill of divorcement. She did become the wife of another man. Should I believe you or God? I believe God and believe that you are telling a lie. Your statement expresses gross infidelity, total denial of God’s own words: God said “She may go and be another man’s wife.” He spoke about her latter husband and former husband, Deuteronomy 24: 3-4. If you have the nerve to pervert the very law of God, written in plain language, there is no wonder about you perverting the words of the prophet and even Dr. Vayle’s.
The prophet said she was married again, called her the first wife and she was the property of another man.
Quote: 678-Q-159 159. Brother Branham, I was married to a woman that had been married before.
We divorced, and she has been married twice since. The Bible states that if we desire to marry... to turn to... first wife. Now, could I turn to her who has been married before or could I be free?
Well now, my brother, here's the only way that you could do it... Jesus said in Matthew 5, “...whosoever marries her that is put away liveth in adultery." So don't do that. No, you cannot go back to your first wife if she's been married again.
...No, sir. Get
over in the Levitical laws. You go back to that woman, she's somebody else's
property. You've defiled and made yourself worse off than ever. No, you should
not take a wife back who's been married to somebody else...you don't go back
again. No, sir. She's married to somebody else; stay away from her...Don't you
go back and take that woman when she's been married two or three times since
she married you. That's wrong. (Questions And Answers
Away with your Greek and Hebrew translations to pervert the word. God’s prophet has spoken by the Word. Let your words be a lie and God’s be true.
Heretical Article No. 722:
Pastor Kocourek: …your attack was not even against brother Vayle, but you are guilty of
attacking brother Branham… My brother it is one thing to preach against sin,
but when you cross the line by trying to destroy individuals, you are going to
find yourself fighting against God. (Page
14, 15, Spoken Word no 42, Q
& A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You know better than that. I have already proved you to be a liar right in the answers to your website response.
Pastor
Kocourek: Leviticus 20: 10… So if the
adulterer and adulteress are to be stoned, then how is it possible for her to
come back to him. (Page 14, Spoken Word
no 42, Q & A 44
Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: You are living under the Old Testament law Sir. Joseph was a man of love and grace under the law and did not make his wife a public example, and others did likewise. You are saying by your heresy a man cannot take back his wife. God told Joseph to take back his wife. Was he wrong? The Grace Covenant stopped the stoning. You are saying to stone her. The Pharisees ended their debate in shame, but you rageth and are confident.
Heretical Article No. 723: E.O.D.H. book 12 is a personal attack on Dr.
Vayle.
Pastor
Kocourek: I
have enjoyed many of your writings, but the errors I saw on your website and
the personal attack on Rev. Vayle. (Page
15, Spoken Word no 42, Q
& A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: If you found errors on my website, why did you not take up my public challenge to prove them wrong? I guess “Love”; love is corrective and not deceitful. No, it was a personal attack on Dr. Vayle’s heresies in a gentle manner, suitable to your love gospel. You are doing the same by perverting his heresies on the subject of marriage and divorce. You are personally attacking the man. I have showed him all respect up to this point. By your perversion of his statements, you are showing him total disrespect. You have brought him to the public with his heresies and your unscriptural defense. You are a poor defender of Dr. Vayle.
Pastor
Kocourek: …the
errors I saw on your website and the personal attack on Rev. Vayle because your
man did not thoroughly explain himself when calling, and you forget Br. Vayle
is a man that will soon be 94 years old, and in showing no respect for this man
of God, I contacted you and this forum has begun. (Page 15, Spoken Word no 42, Q & A 44 Discourse on CAB marriage and Divorce).
E.O.D.H. Answer: Dr. Vayle being 94 years old is riding a motor cycle. He spoke to Editor Ronald Jack eight years ago. By his telephone conversation with him, Dr. Vayle admitted that Brother Branham said differently to what he documented on the C.A.B. about the new birth and the baptism of the Holy Ghost being one and the same. Your lame excuse that the editor did not explain himself cannot stand. Were you present, how do you know?
He was not senile but in his right mind. He spoke fluently, humble and honestly. He was unlike you. Not because you think that the man is 94 years, you should twist his teachings. You should respect him if you are trying to defend them.
If you consider exposition of heresies injected into the C.A.B as disrespect, you can expect more of it since your love gospel would not intimidate me from exposing all heresies: Dr. Vayle’s, Reverend Kocourek’s or any heretic internationally.