WMB starts by ordaining ministers to his cause. Notice that he is not ordaining ministers to the Message that Paul said we should go forward with, he was ordaining them to his 'message' (lowercase) that is now called 'the message of the hour.' (lowercase).
These men, do you believe this Message to be the Truth from God's Word? [The brethren say, "Amen."--Ed.] Do you believe that with all your heart? ["Amen."] All right. And you are desirous, and think if we lay hands upon you... We want you to know that we are with you, and we'll do anything that we can do to help you.
And now I want you brethren, so that I can lay hands on them too, to step right up here now. And let's all bow our heads, as we lay hands on them.
Scripturally, we should go forward with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the message of a man:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
This takes up a third of the recorded tape. When he finally gets into the message, we find that the entire premise of the sermon is unscriptural.
To make matters worse, he calls this particular sermon a 'message', and the editors at the organization have capitalized it as though it were something straight out of the Bible:
Now we'll read the Word and pray, and get straight into this Message that I feel that the Holy Spirit would have me to bring to you tonight.
When he gets to the heart of the sermon, we notice the problem that WMB had all throughout his ministry. He could not discern between gifts that came from God and the false gifts that come from Satan:
Now, in this statement here, the reason I chose this statement, was because it's one of the statements of the Bible that a reader, trying to see, or try to say that God does change His mind; this would be more like that He changed His mind than any place in the Bible, I know of, because He told Balaam one thing and then told him another. And now, many people has tried to make Balaam just a, oh, a soothsayer or something. But Balaam was not a soothsayer. He was a prophet of the Lord.
Now, we notice that both of these were spiritual men, both were prophets, both were called. And Moses, right in the line of duty, with a fresh Pillar of Fire before him every day, the Spirit of God upon him, in the line of duty. Here comes another servant of God, called of God, ordained of God, a prophet to whom the Word of God comes to. Here is the danger line. There is nobody could dispute that man being of God--of God, because the Bible said the Spirit of God spoke to him, and he was a prophet. But, you see, when he got the real answer from God, he wouldn't keep It. He didn't notice It, then he went to challenge Moses.
Balaam was not a prophet of God.
A prophet is a person who receives a prophecy, message from God. They put themselves out of the way, letting God speak THROUGH them. It has nothing to do with the prophet, nothing that makes a prophet better than any other person, it is simply a gift from God. They do not exalt themselves for having this gift, and that gift does not speak error. WMB's prophecies have errors in them, placing him more in the category of Balaam -- which is the reason he tried to exalt Balaam in this sermon!
Balaam, if you remember, could not speak his false prophecy against the children of Israel. God knew his divine plan for the children of Israel, and had Balaam spoke anything against them, it would have been false prophecy. Since he could not bring this evil upon them by God, he devised a plan to turn the children of Israel over to idol worship -- truly not the way of a prophet of God.
Later, the Bible speaks of how the children of Israel killed Balaam, who was a sorcerer and soothsayer, not a prophet of God:
Balaam also, the son of Beor, the one who practiced divination, was killed with the sword by the people of Israel among the rest of their slain. (Joshua 13:22)
God does not change his mind about his Word. Every Christian minister will tell you that, and it needs no 'divine interpretation.' It is written in God's Word.
It does condemn those who inject their own ideas into the Word of God, going forth with 'some other Gospel.'
WMB knew in his heart that it was wrong, and knew others could see his fault:
Now, in this, and you people out in the--on the telephones, I want to first say that I--I do not wish to be critical, and I hope I'm not. But, the Message that's been given to me, I must be faithful to that Message, or I'll be a hypocrite. See? I--I can't say no more than what I am sent to say.
As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. I will spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not some other Gospel.
WMB then takes the side of Esau (in the physical), confusing followers as to the reason why God would choose Jacob as the one who gained the birthright.
Now notice, the natural always tries to type the spiritual. But, as in Jacob and Esau, it will not work. It would not. Now, when it come to doing good works, I--I believe that Esau actually was a better man than Jacob, in the sight of man. He tried to take care of his daddy; he was blind, a prophet. And all these things that he tried to do, but yet Esau didn't think about that being just carnal work. He thought he could get in by what he done, do something good for somebody, which was all right. But Jacob, his whole soul was to get that birthright, and that's what God recognized in him spiritual.
Esau would have fit WMB's mold much better than Jacob when you take a full study of his life. He loved the wilderness. He avoided studying the things of God, making nature his 'bible' and not knowing the spiritual things that he should be aware of. His focus was not on God. Remember, this is a man that was so full of anger that he was going to kill his own brother.
Biblical history has it that the two brothers were very different in character. Jacob spent all his time at home, engaged in study with his father and grandfather Abraham. Esau, however, avoided studying, and spent most of his time in the fields. He enjoyed hunting and killing, and was often absent from his home for many days.
Legend has it that on the day of Abraham's death, Esau was not at his grandfather's side -- he was out in the fields as usual. He had lost his way and was trying to find his way back, when King Nimrod arrived with two servants. Esau hid behind a rock, and when Nimrod was left unguarded, he killed him. Esau escaped with King Nimrod's clothes, which were Adam's garments that later became the property of Noah. These divine clothes had made Nimrod a powerful and skillful hunter and a mighty ruler over all other kings.
Esau had come into possession of the most valuable and cherished property a hunter could desire, and could have cared less about his birthright. This was not the way of a man who was focusing his mind upon God. Jacob was truly the most holy sibling.
Though the legend cannot be counted as Biblical fact, it seemingly fits the character of Esau. Either way, Jacob was a more holy choice for the birthright.
WMB then contradicts the sermon subject matter, with an unscriptural account of the law of Moses:
God permitted Israel to take a law, in Exodus the 19th chapter. When grace had already give them a prophet, Pillar of Fire, a sacrifice lamb, a delivering power, but they cried out for a Law. It wasn't God's will, but it was injected because man wanted it. And he was cursed by the very law that he wanted.
God's law given to Moses was perfectly according to God's plan throughout the ages. WMB never fully understood the purpose of the law, because he would make references to his belief that we were still bound by some of that law.
The law was given to the children of israel in order to prepare the situation for the sacrifice of God's only Son. If the law were not given, then Jesus could not come to fulfill that law!
The people did not 'cry out for a law.' The people looked to God to guide them. Exodus 19, when studied in its entirety, is a direct conflict with this statement.
Historically, WMB makes a false statement on the history of baptism:
Now, that man who reads that Bible, he can't read It unless he sees that that's the Truth. There is nobody ever baptized using the titles of "Father, Son, Holy Ghost." It's a Catholic creed and not a Bible Doctrine. No person in the Bible was ever baptized, or three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, but what was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church started that, and the rest of them come to it. And any minister setting in his study and will look at that, knows that's the Truth. But, for popularity, to hold his position, better thought of among the people, he compromises.
"Well," you say, "God blessed him."
The Apostles wrote a scroll called the Didache long before the Nicene counsel. They baptized in the way that Jesus commanded them:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)