- Nov 28, 2005
- 763
- 261
- 58
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The title of this thread is a prayer, in which I encourage all to join.
One of the most raging questions I've ever studied in Christ, is how it is that there are so many denominations. What are the dynamics involved? Where is man and woman in this, where is God, where are others?
And there are questions closely related. How is it that the church of Rome could champion Roman emperors, and even crown the Emperor Charlemagne, producing one thousand years of killing all unbelievers and dissenters it could reach?
And it's not just Rome. When the Anabaptists came along, there was an awful splintering, a very large number of groups ranging from tiny to relatively small, some of them literally bent on killing each other, often along with as many Romans as they could. The wars of the the Romans versus the Lutherans and others are well known. And the English civil war, where the Puritans tried to stamp out everyone not like them in England, is yet more.
And then how does that word "apostolic" fit in? That word refers to a doctrine in which Rome, and a number of other denominations, say that their leaders have an unbroken line to the Apostle Peter, whom the Lord discussed in startling ways, in Matthew 16:17-19.
But if there was an unbroken line that mattered, of people in charge of churches, those people in charge could not have directed the wholesale slaughter, for more than one thousand years, of everyone who would not submit. Remember, the Roman church authorities routinely burned people at the stake if they did not eagerly participate in and recruit for, armies bent on killing everyone they found on their route who did not bow the knee, tribals first, but also Christians and Jews and Muslims. The goal was to kill enough people such that they could claim to have "christianized" the whole world, and especially to claim to have a christian king over Jerusalem. Look up Charlemagne and many others, if you are not familiar. Also, in these latter days, many who are devoted to Rome claim that the Crusades were all self-defense; if you are one, I'll suggest finding a reference which includes the "Children's Crusade" and several others, and see how your "apostolicity" holds up, if you can be honest with yourself, given the vows you have sworn. More on this later.
But the "unbroken line" doctrine is useful in another way. It's not entirely impossible that the line may exist, even though its thousand years of mass murder is on record. And it is certainly perfectly reasonable that a line of talk and mutual prayer does exist. So let's ask: what exactly happened to it?
We do have one profoundly worthwhile item which can help quite a lot:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Matthew 5:33-37
Swearing is a very important concept. It is behavior in which we add a sort of power, to a promise. Before the Christ was given, God Himself participated in much human swearing. But since then, He does not: all swearing since then, is of evil.
And in spite of that which Christ the Lord said on the topic, Paul and four others swore vows. We have this recorded in Acts 18 and Acts 21. The churches have very often followed their leadership, against that which Christ the Lord has said.
Until just a few centuries ago, all church-leadership was still defined according to swearing. One could not do formal church-leadership, without swearing. And those vows include obedience. This is still the situation, of the largest and oldest of the dominations.
It's important to note, that there are many situations today, where the word "vow" is used where there is no swearing. For instance, there are joyful marriages where the man and the woman rely on God to keep them. There are also ball-and-chain marriages which rely on that which they swore at their beginning.
We now need to consider, what happens, when we have hundreds of generations of church-leadership, who were swearing vows, especially vows including obedience. Consider what happens when an archbishop gets something wrong, perhaps demanding the burning of an irritating manuscript. The bishops have all sworn vows to obey that archbishop. For a bishop to require a correction, is to break a sworn vow. The more words in the vows sworn -- the more caveats and "only ifs" and other items -- the worse it gets for the bishops, because the archbishop got to be archbishop, in large part, by skill of tongue. The archbishop calls upon the obedience sworn by the bishop, and the evil remains. And this is just one tiny incident of billions. The pattern builds up over the long times, worse and worse over the generations. Eventually it is the sworn vows that have the more power over human behavior, and the things Christ the Lord has said, having the less. For quite a lot more than one thousand years, perhaps from the fifth century to the seventeenth, this monstrous mess held power unparalleled, killing everyone who did not agree to submit, wherever it found itself able to do so.
So it is quite interesting that around the tenth century, at the big division of 1054, the power of all of that swearing is clearly weakened enough, for the division to remain. And by the seventeenth century, the power of those sworn vows had declined enough to produce far more freedom for many. This is that time of the Anabaptists and many others. Some used their freedom to devote themselves to God, the things He has Personally said, done, and discussed. Many used their freedom to kill as many people, or shame as many people, who were different than they, as they possibly could. Mixes of the two were common.
And so the question is, how do we understand all of this, with the things we have that God has said. Well, we know that the only one who is good, is God. We know that He is in this world. We know that He has said that all swearing is of evil. And we will suggest that it is He who has been taking away the power of the sworn vow, not all at once, but in His ways and times and extents. All power, after all, is His, and He will give it and take it at His will.
Denominations exist, because people knew no choices but to invent them, especially when the killings were still going on. There are also those who drive denominations for the glorification of human nations, or human perversions, or both. But Christ the Lord is not divided against Himself. He does not denominate. His followers love Him, and all of that which He has Personally said, done, and discussed. There have been and are a great many of us, all through and around it all.
One of the most raging questions I've ever studied in Christ, is how it is that there are so many denominations. What are the dynamics involved? Where is man and woman in this, where is God, where are others?
And there are questions closely related. How is it that the church of Rome could champion Roman emperors, and even crown the Emperor Charlemagne, producing one thousand years of killing all unbelievers and dissenters it could reach?
And it's not just Rome. When the Anabaptists came along, there was an awful splintering, a very large number of groups ranging from tiny to relatively small, some of them literally bent on killing each other, often along with as many Romans as they could. The wars of the the Romans versus the Lutherans and others are well known. And the English civil war, where the Puritans tried to stamp out everyone not like them in England, is yet more.
And then how does that word "apostolic" fit in? That word refers to a doctrine in which Rome, and a number of other denominations, say that their leaders have an unbroken line to the Apostle Peter, whom the Lord discussed in startling ways, in Matthew 16:17-19.
But if there was an unbroken line that mattered, of people in charge of churches, those people in charge could not have directed the wholesale slaughter, for more than one thousand years, of everyone who would not submit. Remember, the Roman church authorities routinely burned people at the stake if they did not eagerly participate in and recruit for, armies bent on killing everyone they found on their route who did not bow the knee, tribals first, but also Christians and Jews and Muslims. The goal was to kill enough people such that they could claim to have "christianized" the whole world, and especially to claim to have a christian king over Jerusalem. Look up Charlemagne and many others, if you are not familiar. Also, in these latter days, many who are devoted to Rome claim that the Crusades were all self-defense; if you are one, I'll suggest finding a reference which includes the "Children's Crusade" and several others, and see how your "apostolicity" holds up, if you can be honest with yourself, given the vows you have sworn. More on this later.
But the "unbroken line" doctrine is useful in another way. It's not entirely impossible that the line may exist, even though its thousand years of mass murder is on record. And it is certainly perfectly reasonable that a line of talk and mutual prayer does exist. So let's ask: what exactly happened to it?
We do have one profoundly worthwhile item which can help quite a lot:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Matthew 5:33-37
Swearing is a very important concept. It is behavior in which we add a sort of power, to a promise. Before the Christ was given, God Himself participated in much human swearing. But since then, He does not: all swearing since then, is of evil.
And in spite of that which Christ the Lord said on the topic, Paul and four others swore vows. We have this recorded in Acts 18 and Acts 21. The churches have very often followed their leadership, against that which Christ the Lord has said.
Until just a few centuries ago, all church-leadership was still defined according to swearing. One could not do formal church-leadership, without swearing. And those vows include obedience. This is still the situation, of the largest and oldest of the dominations.
It's important to note, that there are many situations today, where the word "vow" is used where there is no swearing. For instance, there are joyful marriages where the man and the woman rely on God to keep them. There are also ball-and-chain marriages which rely on that which they swore at their beginning.
We now need to consider, what happens, when we have hundreds of generations of church-leadership, who were swearing vows, especially vows including obedience. Consider what happens when an archbishop gets something wrong, perhaps demanding the burning of an irritating manuscript. The bishops have all sworn vows to obey that archbishop. For a bishop to require a correction, is to break a sworn vow. The more words in the vows sworn -- the more caveats and "only ifs" and other items -- the worse it gets for the bishops, because the archbishop got to be archbishop, in large part, by skill of tongue. The archbishop calls upon the obedience sworn by the bishop, and the evil remains. And this is just one tiny incident of billions. The pattern builds up over the long times, worse and worse over the generations. Eventually it is the sworn vows that have the more power over human behavior, and the things Christ the Lord has said, having the less. For quite a lot more than one thousand years, perhaps from the fifth century to the seventeenth, this monstrous mess held power unparalleled, killing everyone who did not agree to submit, wherever it found itself able to do so.
So it is quite interesting that around the tenth century, at the big division of 1054, the power of all of that swearing is clearly weakened enough, for the division to remain. And by the seventeenth century, the power of those sworn vows had declined enough to produce far more freedom for many. This is that time of the Anabaptists and many others. Some used their freedom to devote themselves to God, the things He has Personally said, done, and discussed. Many used their freedom to kill as many people, or shame as many people, who were different than they, as they possibly could. Mixes of the two were common.
And so the question is, how do we understand all of this, with the things we have that God has said. Well, we know that the only one who is good, is God. We know that He is in this world. We know that He has said that all swearing is of evil. And we will suggest that it is He who has been taking away the power of the sworn vow, not all at once, but in His ways and times and extents. All power, after all, is His, and He will give it and take it at His will.
Denominations exist, because people knew no choices but to invent them, especially when the killings were still going on. There are also those who drive denominations for the glorification of human nations, or human perversions, or both. But Christ the Lord is not divided against Himself. He does not denominate. His followers love Him, and all of that which He has Personally said, done, and discussed. There have been and are a great many of us, all through and around it all.
Last edited:
