A Call To The Remnant

Scottish Warriors for Christ- http://www.facebook.com/acalltotheremnant

Death by denomination.

Posted by appolus on October 1, 2014

” The histories of the monks and the friars shows that if a spiritual movement can be kept within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church or any similar system, it is doomed and must be dragged down to the level of that which it sought originally to reform.It purchases exemption from persecution at the cost of its life. Francis of Assisi and Peter Waldo were both laid hold of by the same teaching of the Lord and yielded themselves to Him with uttermost devotion. In each case the example set and the teaching given gained the hearts of large numbers and affected their whole manner of life. The likeness turned to contrast when the one was accepted and the other rejected by the organized religion of Rome. The inward relation to the Lord may have remained the same, but the working out of the two lives differed widely. The Franciscans being absorbed into the Roman system, helped to blind men to it, while Waldo and his band of preachers directed multitudes of souls to the Scriptures, where they learned to draw for themselves fresh )and inexhaustible supplies from the ” wells of salvation.” (The Pilgrim Church, pg 117)

Can you see what Broadbent is saying? Those who bow to an institution,any denomination, are doomed to die a slow death and that which began as fire is doused by the waters of compromise and idolatry. God is a jealous God. He shares His glory with no one and no institution. You cannot serve two masters, you will ultimately love the one and hate the other. The burning fire of God takes place outside the walls, outside the bounds of organized religion. This fire ultimately becomes the enemy of all religion. That is why Frank Bartleman was so upset when the Azusa street revival morphed into a denomination. This would guarantee the demise of the movement itself. Whether a movement begins within the confines of organised religion or becomes an organised religion, the end result is the same. Better to stay within the confines of God and God alone and be persecuted and killed, than to die the slow death of compromise and idolatry. The Waldenses that Broadbent makes reference to when speaking of Waldo, was ruthlessly hunted down and eventually wiped out by religion. Yet, the gates of hell did not prevail against the genuine Church nor can it. God always maintains a witness in the land, a remnant.

Gods end-time Church will burn with the fire of God outside the camp of religion. They will be no less hated by all men. They will fulfill the high priestly prophecy of John 17 and they shall be one for a witness to the world, without compromise and idolatry. The only authority that they shall bow to will be the authority of God. The authority of man ultimately corrupts the moving of God. Self preservation and a desire to avoid persecution in all its many forms is the death of any movement of God. The last great movement of God shall embrace persecution and count it an honor to suffer humiliation and rejection and persecution for His sake, for in this they follow closely in the footsteps of Jesus. And the greatest persecution will come from those who seek to control and organize the people of God. When Gods people reject the authority of religion, they become its greatest enemy and this leads to their persecution. Only lovers of truth will stand in the coming days of darkness. One must be willing to forsake all in order to gain eternal glory.

25 Responses to “Death by denomination.”

  1. Pam Proper and Mark Proper said

    That’s true brother, History is repeating itself. That spirit of destroying anyone who opposes “them” Is deemed an enemy of God and will suffer at “their” hands, and “they” will always destroy you as severely as they can and use all the wrath and fury of hell against you according to how much power they are given. I have known some that the hatred was so deep that it seemed as if they were given power, they would have gleefully taken me out and burned me at the stake. Listen very carefully, many of these self proclaimed or church proclaimed prophets, are pouring out their wrath on any who disagree with them or expose them to what the word of GOD says. They don’t hear the truth of the word of God because they hear another voice, the voice of their father the devil, not the Saviors voice. They are deceived into thinking they are Gods prophets and the wrath of God will be upon you if you don’t follow or agree with them, or try to warn others about them. The question is how is it that some don’t get deceived, or deceived very long? There has always been a remnant. In these days as in the days of old, many thought they were the remnant, and were not. We know what our Lord Jesus, The Christ, will say to so many deceived ones on that day. Please stop looking to man (or a woman) look at all you see, hear and read in light of the scriptures. Pray and ask God to help you hear only His voice. Listen for Gods voice and learn to recognize it. Have a beautiful, deep, prayerful time alone with God every day. Seek Him with all that is within you. Examine yourself daily. Bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, giving God your whole heart and mind. Submit yourselves to all the commands of Christ. They are for all of Gods lambs brought down from heaven through Christ, to us. They are not for another age. His commands are not legalistic and people who say they are legalistic are deceived. Remember to ask God to lead you by the Holy Spirit and ask not to be deceived by man. Before I was saved I was about 15 years old. I was confused about religion.Some how God showed me that when I die I will be accountable to him for how I lived my life. I asked God not to let man deceive me into the wrong religion. I was in the new age and He later showed me the Savior,the Truth. Please ask God not to let man deceive you. He will show you. Remember not to develop spiritual pride along the way, that’s why so many have fallen. Please work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. I ask myself. Do I fear God? Do I tremble at His word? Do I die daily to self? I ask God am I worldly?( if I am, then I am an enemy of God.) James 4:4 Read the word, pray the word. Examine yourself in light of the word. Don’t skip over convicting scriptures. If there is any sin in your life get rid of it now! And with all this, I know that I am still a little lamb, not even a sheep. I am so slow to learn. God is so patient with me, but I try to stretch forth, to the mark of the high calling of God, and in end, or when Christ comes, i hope I can say I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith. Thank you all for helping me along the way! Brother Mark

  2. Hello Frank

    I was reading this same post on SermonIndex as well and wanted to comment about what you wrote. Perhaps I should say what you wrote in response to the quote from THE PILGRIM CHURCH by E. H. Broadbent

    Having read both the context of the quote and the broader ambition of that book I am not so sure that Broadbent was making a precisely similar point to the one you have made. I am of course assuming that your point is reflected in the title of this post itself, being, DEATH BY DENOMINATION. The term does not appear in the book nor the precise same idea if by denomination we mean all denominations. The overwhelming emphasis of the book has to do with Rome, although Broadbent does make ample reference to other denominations in a variety of different contexts. He never once makes the specific claim that Pilgrims must of necessity leave their churches because they have a denominational appendage.

    For this reason it would seem reasonable to assume that the centrality of the point you are making reflects your own beliefs, particularly regarding the USA. In this case what you are sharing would have to be prophetic in nature.

    In this sense I have really nothing to say. The USA is peculiar and unique in many respects and so it would appear to be likely that the Lord’s answer to the USA will be unique and peculiar as well. Although I have noted that you have set the USA in context of specific scriptural prophesies. For example you have said that you believe that the man of sin will be revealed in the USA. I suppose given that this is very specific and therefore must of itself be a prophetic statement, then it may not be reasonable to believe that most of what you have to say about the USA will be coloured and informed by this very clear and unequivocal belief.

    For reference Frank I am using your own words taken from this site.

    As to the business which seems to lie at the heart of your take on Broadbent’s words and the real purpose of his book, I would tend to think that what is being spoken about hinges on one singular point. He acknowledges that the Church is as yet unknown, as by definition, it contains both past, present, and future pilgrims. Clearly if this is true, and if further, Christ is the Head of His own body, and His Body is the Church, then the Church must mean something other than any denomination by name, or for that matter any group of believers who simply meet in Presbytery or Catholic (Local or Worldwide).

    Taking these things to be true then the only thing left to ask is what is the local church? After all the local church is all we are able to comprehend in experience of fellowshipping with other pilgrims, whether by two or three, or by thousands, where Christ is in the midst. I believe that if we express our understanding of the Church as Christ the true shepherd and teacher, and mean this to be applied to the Church, we may miss the advantage and meaning of shepherds and teachers in the local churches. This is because the local church is not the Church. The Church is not yet fully known, even as Christ Himself is not yet fully known. Is it not written that when we see Him we will be like Him because we will see Him as He is?

    In the mean time Broadbent does not encourage anyone to leave their local denominational church, he seems to press that matter in respect of Rome alone. I believe that my explanation above was his reason for not going so far as to make the point as emphatic as you have suggested he has made it.

    On the SermonIndex site Frank you said to Gary that he/we should “play the ball and not the man”. You also insisted that you were merely pressing Broadbent’s argument. I wonder if by playing the ball and disregarding the man we may not end up missing what the man means to say in the fullness of his prophetic claims? This site Frank sets all your beliefs in context of each other and so it is of course much easier to know what you mean to say regardless as to how much we dismiss the man and play the ball. I suppose that if we simply separate our beliefs into isolated threads, and do not connect the parts we may well see that advantage of playing the ball and disregarding the man. Myself I am inclined to believe that it is always the man we must keep in our sights otherwise we may miss reality altogether.

    What do you think Frank?

    Andrew M. R. Kelly

    • appolus said

      HI Andrew. The post is not only a reference to America. You write……….. “For this reason it would seem reasonable to assume that the centrality of the point you are making reflects your own beliefs, particularly regarding the USA. In this case what you are sharing would have to be prophetic in nature.” I do not disagree with that brother.

      ” Luther by his mighty strokes hewed a way through long consecrated privileges and abuses, so the reform became possible. He revealed Christ to countless sinners as the Saviour to whom each one was invited to come, without intervention of priest or saint or church or sacrament, not on account of any goodness in himself , but as a sinner in all his needs, to find in Christ, through faith in Him, perfect salvation, founded in the perfect work of the Son of God. Instead, however, of continuing in the way of the Word, Luther then built up a church in which some abuses were reformed, but in many aspects was a reproduction of the old system………………and the hopes awakened among the brethren gradually faded away as they saw themselves placed between two ecclesiastical systems, each of which was ready to enforce conformity in matters of conscience-by the sword” (The Pilgrim Church)

      You see the point that Broadbent makes? He says that the great mistake of Luther was that he did not continue in the way of the Word but built an ecclesiastical system to rival Rome. And in this system, conformity in matters of conscience were enforced by the sword, and might I add, fire. Now in our modern times we, in the West in our denominations do not enforce conformity by the edge of the sword or by fire, but we do enforce conformity in the ecclesiastical systems by ” strong leadership.” And those, who refuse to conform to that which is not written but is merely the traditions and theologies of men, will soon find themselves outside of these camps, which I would argue is a good thing. Following the Word of God in all its simplicity and profoundness is the way and the truth and the life and it is a lamp unto our feet in an ever darkening world………bro Frank

      • Andrew M. R. Kelly said

        I don’t know too much about Luther although I have noticed a growing trend to minimise his efforts in some key areas in the last 30 years. Broadbent was of course writing his comments and thoughts from a somewhat large reference of books to which he draws attention in his preface and encourages the reader to prefer those sources to his own efforts. He appears to be suggesting that he isn’t seeking to make a prophetic statement at all, but rather he was making an informed study of what others have said and drawing them together to highlight something of the point he makes in the above quote as well as the original quote you gave in the beginning of the thread.

        In any event I think that I would certainly agree with Broadbent’s observations to the extent that there were clearly somethings amiss in Luther’s ministry, or at least the consequence of his ministry. Was Luther really seeking to rival Rome? Its an easy thing to say but I am not so certain of it myself. This is because Luther was not simply Luther. He was both himself and the unintended realities of men, not least German princes and Statesmen, who for their own reasons supported Luther in their provinces. Broadbent even asserts that Cardinals and bishops supported the Thesis which Luther first declared until they found that his ambitions went further than mere reform of clerical and monastic abuses. Who knows if that is true. It suggests that some Cardinals and Abbots were in favour of reform. That would suggest a decency of itself of the very men who were the chief proponents and architects of the Roman Catholic system at that time.

        Luther may well have been the architect of an ecclesiastical system which itself formed the basis for others to flee Rome with sufficient justification not to be concerned by the great numbers who followed on. Yet it is those very numbers which necessitate a local church governance, and which some then claim to be an abuse of “strong leadership”. There is absolutely no way to win and every single person who has been used by the Lord to do such a work as Luther did in the purity of its core meaning, has either gone on the become a denomination or a sect, or else has been destroyed by violent means. Now either the Lord intends that everyone who hold to a supposed purity of the word is to be destroyed from the face of the earth or else the Lord knows that in the end all local outcomes in multiplication of effects will in the end become a sect or a denomination. Does it take strong men to resist persecution to the point of destruction from the face of the earth? Or does the Lord really intend to give His brethren over to destruction regardless? If it is the latter then we had better not marry, give in marriage and become the father’s of children lest they too be given over to destruction as well.

        I know what some would say Frank because I read it all the time. I have personally never found the Lord seeking to drive me in such a way that my children must become the sacrifice for my obedience if obedience means an adherence to a legal application of the word of God. It is in my view perverse when placed in the context of the local church in times and seasons. In times it is a reality and it is unavoidable. In seasons it is a being delivered from these realities. Which is why I ask the question because the answer lies in an understanding of these times we live in. Isn’t this why Paul said to some that he would rather that they were as he was, a single man, in order to spare the brethren the reality of what was to come upon them? And that is the problem for all gifted men when they do serve the Lord and have wives and children. The local church regardless of denominational ties or agreements is in the end not simply gifted men and women. It is husbands and wives and children. Therein arises a civil reality with its political vulnerabilities to Princes and Kings, Governor,s and their officers.

        I am not sure why you are pressing with me at least the point regarding denominations. I have never been a member of one since I came to Christ. In fact when I was first saved I asked the Lord that very thing. “Why are there so many divisions in the Church?”

        Do you want to know what the Lord said to me, a new babe in Christ, and wholly ignorant of what I was even asking Him? The Lord said, “Because they will not submit to one another!”

        The issue of denominations may well be explained by saying “strong leadership”, but in the end its true meaning is not strong leadership, it is a lack of submission to one another. It must be clear that submission has a meaning other than becoming a door mat for strong men. To me at least it means a failure to recognise Christ in each other as a true and fundamental reality giving rise to a fear of the Lord. I am not concerned with strong leadership. The Lord has His answer for such men because their strength is governmental and it is God Himself who establishes governments both in the Church and in the world. God’s instrument to deal with strong men are the prophets, and they have the authority to lay them down in obedience through obedience and not in rebellion. Read the Scriptures. There are no rebellious prophets. None were able to disobey Kings unless they were also able to lay down their lives as well. And none were delivered from speaking plainly to kings and peoples unless the Lord Himself delivered them in the sight of kings and peoples, or else unless they were willing to become false prophets.

        That is the great weakness in denominations and not the fact of them. It is a lack of prophetic reality and prophetic accountability in the visibility and sight of all. Not everyone who is called pastor, are pastors. Many are prophets and they become false the instant they speak with a mind to pleasing men. Not all who speak prophetically are true prophets because some are always inclined to falsehood due to greed and personal gain. It is not strength per se which defeats a man if that means intellect and ability. It may be simple compromise or else personal greed and ambitions. But none of that changes the reality of those who truly believe. It simply makes for futility and an ever increasing apostasy of those who take the name of Christ. The world has never been anything but apostate. Israel has never returned from apostasy despite that a remnant did return in their bodies, and for a season in their hearts as well for a purpose of building the temple. Had Israel been truly walking in the spirit they would not have crucified the Lord. I see the church in the same place today for a purpose of God, and whilst I do not pretend to know what it all means, I am convinced that there is a purpose of God in apostasy which is unavoidable and irreconcilable with a claim to end time unity of any good purpose. Unity is real whether men know it or not. This is why I say that we need to put flesh on the bones of whatever we say. If we do not and claim that somehow the Lord Himself will mysteriously excite every man to obedience, then in the end those who have been disobedient will have a basis for accusing the Lord Himself. On the other hand if we fill out fully that which we are called to speak, then men are left without excuse because in hearing all they had to do to be obedient was sincerely ask the Lord concerning that which they heard and He would confirm it and lead them into the fold once more.

        “You shall go in and out, and find pasture”.

  3. […] is from A Call to the Remnant […]

  4. Tim Shey said

    Praise the Lord! Excellent post.

    A great example of a movement of God being absorbed into an institution would be what happened at the Council of Whitby in 664 A.D. England and Scotland before the Council of Whitby had a very vibrant form of Christianity called Celtic Christianity. At the Council of Whitby, the Celtic Christians agreed to submit to the Roman Rite (ruled by Rome and not by God). Within one hundred years, the Vikings began to invade and pillage England.

    Synod of Whitby

    “Christian History”

    “The Hidden Streets of Babylon”

  5. Andrew M. R. Kelly said

    Adisciple asks Paul West if he has not proven your point Frank. May it not be that Paul West simply proved the opposite point? The fact that divisions and potential denominations existed from the beginning ought to surprise no one. If that was your point then it is proven. However your point is that every believer needs to come out of every denomination lock stock and barrel or die. That was your point Frank. If not then your whole presentation is meaningless.

    What do you think Frank?

    • appolus said

      Hi Andrew, good to hear from you brother. I see you are still following the forum on SI. My point was, what does Scripture teach us. Whatever Scripture teaches us we should follow. I assert that Scripture teaches a unity for the Body of Christ so that it will be a witness to the world, as taught by Jesus in John 17. Should I follow the teachings of the word of God or the traditions of men? And so, to answer your question, yes all men everywhere should give up their factions if they are truly Christian and simply call themselves by the name of Jesus and not by the names of men. We are who we identify ourselves to be……….bro Frank

      • Andrew M. R. Kelly said

        Its not good enough Frank to claim that which is self evident and which no one who is truly born again would disagree about. If what we are talking on is a unity which is in the Father and the Son being mirrored between brethren then I agree that is often lacking. However there are in every place evidences which do demonstrate genuine unity. This is especially true when it comes to evangelism. Denominations however cannot of necessity be solely concerned with evangelism. In the end they become local churches pressed together on specific teachings and whilst that is wrong, their underlying purpose beyond evangelism is local church fellowship and life. These groups form missionary societies very often, or have done historically, and the book you took the quote from points to how that is wrong as well because it simple leads to evangelising local populations into a specific way of thinking which may in some important ways prove harmful. But none of these will prove to be harmful unto death. They are simply harmful. If what we are talking about is the actual end of days and believe them to be “our days”, then we may have to adjust our thinking to take account of the exceptional nature of what the Father is permitting in order to fill up the sins of men.

        I think that you have some way to go in explaining yourself if you are to bring your beliefs about apostasy and end time outcomes in the USA, and your speaking about unity of the Body of Christ, into visibility and true meaning. I would go as far as to say that at the moment what you are presenting is actually misleading because you are presenting two very profound and different realities. Unity whether visible or not in the way I have described in Leicester back in the 1980’s , or as the Lord prayed for at the supper table, is true whether or not it is understood or experienced. There is no doubt that denominational distinctions are real, but they are not so real as to make ruin of that which Christ has accomplished in His own body.

        I think that true unity is not men agreeing on doctrines, rather doctrines of life because unity is that life and not some agreement between men. I know that denominational realities can even make that seem unlikely at times as well. In the end Frank there is a coming unity and it will be in the name of Christ, but it will not be true Christ but a false one. Those who are born again and finally separate from this world, not denominations, will prove what that true unity is. To suggest that it will be characterised by persecution does not prove the unity. Persecution happens against all manner of men and women and not all are by any means sound in their faith. Of course you may be speaking about the USA. If so then I have little to say because I have no burden for the USA. Europe is another matter and so I look to Europe to work out my calling according to obedience. We all have to do that. But the unity you have expressed yourself to having known, otherwise you have no knowledge of its meaning, is in fact true regardless as to whether men experience it or not. That is what I am talking about in Leicester and I can see that this is the same reality you spoke of in California in March this year. The brother who hails from South Africa may well have never experienced such a sense of true unity before between himself and other brethren, but I know many people who have and I know at least a few dozen people with whom I have experienced it on a regular basis for many years.

        I cannot explain precisely why that is the case, but it is real. The one thing it teaches me really does go way beyond all other considerations, save for Christ Himself. Yet in that reality men and women are not lost in their individual meaning, nor are denominations lost because the Spirit moves all according to a more substantial purpose than those things which express doctrines and denominational divisions. So can I ask you how you came to believe that believers must separate themselves from denominational ties and start meeting as an essential obedience in these times, in two’s or three’s. The post Frank is titled Death by Denomination. If that is simply a figure of speech than it is misleading of itself. But if it alludes to apostasy of the saints with all of that implication, then clearly unity to would in that event mean, coming out of the world. Denominations cannot come out of the world because they are mere shells of ideas and governments with no more consequence in their effects than the world itself from which mind they were shaped and formed. We don’t have to come out of denominations per se, we may simply need to separate ourselves from the world itself.

        What do you think Frank?

        By the way my first post is still awaiting moderation.

        • appolus said

          Andrew, you write….”So can I ask you how you came to believe that believers must separate themselves from denominational ties and start meeting as an essential obedience in these times, in two’s or three’s.I”

          I made no such call Andrew. I have pointed out Scriptural truth. What anyone does with that is their own business brother. We are called to unity according to the Scriptures. We are called to be one so that we shall be a witness to the world according to Jesus. Now the question must be ” how do we stack up to that?” It is the Scriptures and the word of God that must be our guide, not the weakness nor the traditions of men. The standard is Christ and His word. If, upon reading te Word of God one comes to the conclusion that denominationalism is counter to the teachings of Jesus, then one must decide how to move forward. I cannot tell men anything, but merely point them to the truth which is so simply and overwhelmingly stated in Scripture……………bro Frank

          • Andrew M. R. Kelly said

            I accept that you didn’t use the words “believers must separate themselves from denominational ties and start meeting as an essential obedience in these times, in two’s or three’s”. In even in writing the comment I realised that you qualified your comments about two’s or three’s with according to the Lord’s will or some such qualification. You will find with me Frank that I tend not to think about what people write of necessity of avoiding a claim to prophetic speech, and tend to focus on the underlying implications of what people write. That’s all I am doing here really. We have the whole of this website to make all the necessary connections, including what others say and to which you agree. That’s it Frank. It is a pity that we cannot move on from this one single point you keep making and not put some flesh to the bones. The Lord commanded many things and there are many things so commanded which are neglected. If that alone were to form the basis for pressing any point then we may as well start saying we hate one another because we have spoken words which the hearer takes to be unloving. Not to worry Frank.

        • Andrew – As a former Roman Catholic, I must agree with Frank. There is no unity in error. And the denominational disunity is evidence of that. Paul yelled at the Corinthians for separating into sects following after different men. The same is true today – whether we follow Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons or “Peter” as Rome likes to believe is the head of their church. Actually, today’s denominational landscape is nothing more than a break-up up the Roman Church. They are the daughters of Mother Rome because the Reformation never really departed from her system- -it simply reformed it. They did not protest enough! The corruption continued. “A little leaven [eventually] leavens the whole lump.”

          When men receive divine truth that conflicts with acceptable doctrine in their denomination or church they will either leave voluntarily or be excommunicated or shunned. This is true worldwide, not just in the USA. As Frank said, when those who experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit left the church system in the early 1900s here in America they were on the right track. But foolishly they returned to form their own denomination and died. The Pentecostal churches, at first the cutting edge of what God was doing in that day, soon became as moribund as the rest of the denominations.

          I believe the whole church was taken captive by a Hellenistic spirit in the early centuries which eventually led to the development of the church system most believers belong to today. And for centuries the Lord has been calling us to come outside that camp through the restoration of biblical truth in different generations. The ecclesia of Messiah Jesus is an organism, not a organization. Where we meet, how we meet, and when we meet is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes he will lead us to meet in a Bible study or prayer group that meets regularly. There is no rule or “law.” But most often, as our thirty plus years outside the church system has shown, is that our fellowship develops with a handful of believer who keep in touch. And gather as circumstances need allow or dictate.

          • Hello Brian

            Your comment that “there is no unity in error” may not be too clear to me. As far as I know there is a great deal of unity in error. Though I do not imagine you are saying that there is “no unity in error” if it means this! Perhaps it may me more appropriate to say that even where there is error there is unity.

            None of us has a full comprehension of Christ Himself even to this very hour. It seems likely therefore that error is inevitable even where there is real faith into Christ. I suppose that if we want to make a more sophisticated point then we can of course say almost anything about each and every denominational expression as evidenced in every place on the earth without exception, and as you have done, we could speak about philosophy and especially Greek philosophy. In that regard you are of course speaking about ancient Rome and its embrace of Hellenistic philosophies and their eventual manifestation and acceptance as evidenced even in the Lord’s day.The Pharisees were versed in greek hellenistic philosophy to the extent that they were also schooled in Greek culture and learning via Rome as their masters and literature, science and the occult via Babylon.

            When you say that you must agree with Frank am I to take it that you also believe that being part of a denominational expression eventually results in death? I mean of course spiritual death in the same sense that Adam died in the day he sinned.

            No one can sin after the likeness of Adam’s sin and therefore those who have believed into Christ cannot die. If we do not believe this then we have already left the truth and purpose of Christ far behind us.

            I can only assume that you believe that I am in some way against the idea that denominations are poor examples of the unity which is in the Father and the Son, and thus by visible outworking, between the saints themselves! I stated the very opposite and so this seems to be unlikely your main point. I am not against the claim but comprehend and believe it fully. If I go on to say that we can separate Rome out for exceptional attention with regard to error and falsehood, then I would have to say that I have personally seen error and falsehood in every place without exception. Yet on the singular reality of what unity means, I have found that error does no destroy its meaning or its reality if by unity we mean Christ in us the hope of glory.

            I once read a very moving account of a brother sentenced to death by the English protestant court, in response to the Catholic reign of terror of Mary Queen of Scots. On refusing to recant of his belief, that the wafer and the wine were the body and blood of Christ, he was sentenced to death by hanging and quartering. Upon being brought to the gallows he asked his protestant executioner to ensure that he was fully unconscious before he was cut down for quartering. In the event the recorder of the execution says that this poor man came to immediately he was cut down and groaning said “Oh brother why did you not hear me my request to be spared such suffering?” Who is the brother and who is the murderer in this account?

            You may imagine that they were both in error and that they were both party to murder. Most would say that the Catholic was the greater at fault and that the executioner was obeying his government. The one (catholic) was at fault by doctrines of devils and the other (the Protestant) by hating his brother in refusing to hear his plea for mercy. Yet that which bound them together was greater even in the face of terrible death, than that which separated them in their flesh. The one a murderer and the other an heretic. Or how else did the heretic call his murderer “brother?”

            It is always an easy thing to point to the obvious and to claim prophetic realities for oneself.

            There is nothing that could be said in this place that would come near to what has already been said against Rome by numbers of others. This also includes the overwhelming number of denominations by name. How can stating that which others have written clearly, be in any way prophetic? Prophecy is either speaking that which is already known by a few, so well, that the many grasp its meaning so as to lay hold of it, and are thereby benefited by it. Or prophecy is speaking that which is yet hidden to the benefit of whosoever would hear it. If those who write these things and say amen to them are so benefitted then let it show in a disposition of words leading to the evidence of it.

            I was simply saying that to state that which is self evident is nothing. So Frank will have to fill up his claims or else they will become mere words.

            As a matter of reality the post which Frank has made, and to which we have responded has little to do with Rome in the sense this would be ordinarily understood. This is because Rome cannot be hidden from clear gaze, so great are its sins and so grave its errors. The meaning Frank has given has to do with all denominations regardless of their name and regardless of their sins and their service. It is a claim to separation in visibility, by a coming out process made necessary for salvation itself. That is heresy itself because at its very heart it denies the true meaning of both separation and unity. Unity is Christ, not many men. The body of Christ is not an organism. By definition an organism is a part and not the whole. Whereas the body of Christ is already full in the foreknowledge of God and hidden in the sight of men. Which means that in this world the body of Christ is that which is nourished and lives in a field with others who also feed upon the same nutrient, but which gives no growth and produces no life. In short it is the world itself. As far as I know true separation is only possible in Christ, and it is from the world itself. In the end the world will become the kingdom of heaven by violence of Christ Himself. Yet the world cannot of itself produce death. It is sin which produces death and in Christ sin is defeated unto life eternal be you a Catholic or any other by name. It is Christ and not Rome we should set our eyes upon in my view.

            I am sorry for making this so laborious but I have been against Rome for 30 years and have openly rebuked bishops and priests in full regalia to their faces, before men and without reservation of meaning. It produced nothing whatsoever. Nor can it produce anything if by that means we imagine that men will repent easily of their error. Similarly other men who take on Rome and who speak of men, and yet will not interact directly with those men, are missing the possibility that they may yet repent of their errors. Or shall we consign them to the darkness? This too is hinted at by those who have rebuked and those who have insufficient courage to even whisper in their ears that which they are willing to ever publish to men who already know its meaning. Go to Rome if Rome is you mission field. But be prepared to pay with your life. In the end those who take so much pleasure in correcting others by refusing to address their errors openly and sincerely, simply say “come out of her” and by that mean all denominations are made into her children and consigned to destruction as she is. In this they fail to grasp that the kingdom of heaven is like unto a field and that the field is the world itself. The very Hellenistic influence you speak of is of the world and Rome, as with Israel has embraced it fully in those vain philosophies which tend to error and vanity of men.

            In my understanding it is not denominations which represent the real problem therefore, but a love of the world itself. This malady is common to all men regardless of their participation with others who take the name of Christ. I make an exception with Rome itself and this is because it is Rome alone which is singled out for meaning in the scriptures. The Hellenistic influence had as much an embrace in Israel in the Lord’s day as it has had in every day since Rome began its conquest of the known world. It has influenced Egypt for three centuries before Christ was born and it came to its visible conclusion in that ancient world three centuries after Christ rose from the dead. Yet nowhere did this influence find a more dreadful expression than it did when the Pharisees and leading men of Israel rejected Christ because they were soaked in Hellenistic meaning and occult realities. Or else why did the Lord, speaking of these men declare, “your father is the devil?” If the devil had become their father, and the devil is the ruler of this world, and further, that the world is the field in which both life and death bear fruit, then what is the kingdom of heaven in this hour? We can make of Rome all that is necessary according to the Scriptures. But to make of all denominations this precise same meaning and to speak of a separation which is not possible by merely repenting of denominations, is to miss that it is the world itself in which the wolves find their true home and that it is only when we yet love this world that will we be vulnerable to their influence. If it seems as if the churches have in them wolves who devour it is because the church is in the very same filed as is the devil. Where then can true separation really lie?

          • appolus said

            HI Brian, I agree there is not unity in error. I know what you mean by that as an ex Catholic myself. How could there be unity when there is a disagreement on the essentials of the faith, and in several major points genuine Biblical Christianity is at total odds with Catholicism. And I agree with you again about Luther and the denominations in their fundamental make up. Does that mean there are no Christians in the denominations? No, of course not Andrew. Does it mean that ultimately leads to spiritual death as far as corporate gatherings are concerned? Yes indeed as we are currently witnessing. The ecclesia is certainly an organism and not an organization, the Body of Christ is a living and breathing entity.

            Andrew, simply because one man refers to another man as ” brother,” does not mean you can build some kind of thesis on that. I would put it to you that no genuine saint would ever willingly kill another saint. IN the first three hundred years Christians would not even become magistrates who would have to sentence people to death never mind be an executioner. Andrew can I ask you to keep your replies succinct and to the point? If the comments are twice as long as the original post then it becomes a post in and of itself. I think you would get better replies if you kept your points or questions shorter. Thank you for respecting that Andrew. The short answer Andrew, unity comes through the Spirit of God! ………………….bro Frank

          • I am at a loss to see how we can discuss anything Frank if all you ever do is make one line responses which overwhelmingly trivialise that which is shared.

            My reply was to Brian and not yourself Frank. You have made it clear for already that you are seeking agreement and not truth.

            I can of course follow your request to make any comments short if that were somehow really helpful. In the end Frank it simply means making no responses at all because your claims cannot be responded too in short agreeable comments which would in that vein be more likely to facilitate a false agreement than a true understanding.

          • Just to state the obvious Frank about the man who was executed. If the executioner had thought that the man on the end of the rope was his brother he may well have still had no choice but to put him to death according to the Law of England. Faith may have had nothing to do with it at all. Executioners are not men of faith they are men of obedience to the Law of the Land which Law they have deemed worthy of obedience. Finally Frank it is more than likely that he did not see the man as his brother at all. That is really the paradox. It is a rhetorical paradox, born out of a true death sentence against a man who alone was able to call his murderer “brother”. I am sorry that you are so stubborn in your attitude to resist every meaning and its implication Frank. The Lord knows!

        • I understand you point Tim about the Anglo-Saxon Synod of 664 but I would suggest that you may need to revise your understanding somewhat.

          Although there is a reference to a Christian being martyred in Briton as early as 323 AD there is little evidence of any church in Briton in any significant sense.

          Palladius established a Celtic church in Ireland along with Patrick in the fifth century and this was itself modelled along very different lines to Rome because at that time Ireland was completely rural and there were no cities upon which to base a city wide recognised ecclesiastical boundary. However we may miss the fact that Palladius is chronicled as being sent to Ireland by Pope Celestine in 431. Even though both of these men would have known the Roman Church and its ecclesiastical traditions they could not have established the precise same pattern even if they had wanted to do so. Patrick himself was the son of a tax collector or tax cleric in the then failing Roman Empire and so he would have been familiar with both the controversy and the reality of Roman acceptance of Christianity under Constantine. By the time of Patrick and Palladius christianity throughout the Roman Empire had been decriminalised for very nearly 80 years.

          It is not until the first Arch Bishop of Canterbury in 597 that the church, in what was essentially becoming Anglo Saxon dominated lands, began to emerge. This is only true however for the North-East, East & Central Midlands and South East and Southern England. Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall were never Anglo Saxon and remained Celtic throughout. None of these areas were subject to a Roman Catholic model of ecclesiastical boundaries and governance until the 9th Century. Wales was subjected by England. Ireland was ceded by the Danes (Vikings) and Cornwall was ceded by Celtic Friars and Abbots. Hence none of these areas were subject to a Roman model of city wide ecclesiastical influence as defined in the Bishopric, and instead had Abbots as head of the local ecclesia based on clans and tribal boundaries. It is also a fact that none of these so-called Celtic Churches held doctrines which were in any serious part in disagreement with the Catholic Church (soon becoming Roman Catholic) save for in details of holidays, and calendars. The Celtic Church was informed by the Jewish Rabbinical Lunar Calendar and Rome was informed the Greek Solar Calendar. The conclave at Whitby was convened primarily over a disagreement over dates and calendars. Too much has been made of the idea that Whitby was a turning point for Rome in Briton. It is simply not true. Rome had its influence in Britain by the end of the 6th Century in Augustine the first arch bishop of Canterbury, and he formed the Canterbury School and laid the foundations for the English Church. It had its man in Ireland by the end of the 5th Century both in Palladius.

          The important point to make therefore is that before the time of the 7th century conclave at Whitby, the predominant representation of churches in Briton was Anglo Saxon and not Celtic. It was already in agreement with Rome via a Catholic and not Roman Catholic reality of submission between brethren.

          An earlier 6th century Celtic community had started on the Island of Iona off the shores of Scotland and the Abbot of that place eventually was included in the general map of ecclesiastical fellowship of believers throughout Briton. Yet it was not until the 12th Century that Iona was overwhelmed by Roman Catholicism in the sense we now speak of here. The Abbey of Iona was founded in 563 by Columba of Ireland. It is also necessary to realise that the first arch bishop of Canterbury, of the name of Augustine, was directly sent to Briton by the Bishop of Rome personally in 595 to evangelise Briton. You have to remember that Briton was still overwhelmingly heathen at this time and so any claim that Briton (or England) was Romanised in the 7th Century is a false one. It was not. The Christian settlements in Briton were almost none existent at that time and the few that did exist were pressed into the North and the West by the Anglo-Saxons before they were converted to Christianity themselves.Thus whilst it is true that at the time of the Whitby conclave of Abbots and Bishops there was both a Celtic Church and an Anglo Saxon Church, the Anglo-Saxon Church was begun by Rome directly nearly 100 years before that conclave even happened. The Celtic Church started some two hundred years before that by a man directly sent by the bishop of Rome for that purpose. The true Celtic Church which was Irish only came to Scotland, and later Lindisfarne, which was the Bishopric seat of the king of Northumbria at the time of the Whitby conclave by the hand of Irish missionaries sent by those who were sent by Rome. The reason why it is said that the somehow pure Celtic Church succumbed to the more Pagan and idolatrous Roman Church has to do with a weakness in ecclesiastical history and an inability to precisely correlate the significance of the Ionian (Formerly Irish) monks and their evangelism of north East England which the Anglo-Saxons did not find attractive and did not attempt to settle before the Whitby Abbey was founded. Hence it is perceived to be Celtic.

          I am only saying this because it is a simple matter to infer that the consequence of the King of Northumbria ceding to Rome in 664 led to Viking raids in the North-East of the country. On that basis one would have to ask what happened to the Christians who were either Roman or Celtic after 410 which marks the approximate end of Roman rule in Briton. Perhaps the real failure was theirs and not an already Romanised Anglo Saxon Church established 100 years before the Whitby Conclave of 664. So what happened to these Celtic and Roman converts after 410? The answer is, they went west and evangelised the Celts in those regions which Rome failed to conquer, including Patrick who was in his twenties when Rome was finished. Nothing is a simple as we believe it is in my humble view. Why blame Rome when you can blame Patrick?

          Finally at risk of incurring Franks wrath I would also point out that the same historical source from which the record of the Whitby conclave and its outcome was derives also tells us that in 156, during the reign of Roman emperor Marcus Antoninus, a British king named Lucius wrote Pope Eleutherus in Rome requesting instruction in the Christian faith. Perhaps all men lie and all men exaggerate their point for their own ends. So far as I can tell the only reality beyond this inclination of men is to have direct revelation of God.

  6. Andrew M. R. Kelly said

    You said Frank “The world will see that kind of unity before the Lord returns and it will probably be persecution that brings the Body of Christ together in a visable unity.”

    Amen to the unity Frank but the meeting in California in March this year is testament to what true unity is. It is the very same thing Paul West spoke of as well and Oracio as well. I was once part of an evangelistic team where there were more than forty preachers, brothers and sisters from across a great city of every denomination save for Roman Catholic. I have never known such unity in any place every as I knew in those outreaches. It was truly wonderful and I wept with tears of joy many times at the peace, love and fellowship we all had together. It was not without argument at times as well. The fact is what we experienced in the times of fasting and prayer, witnessing and seeing God move in remarkable and supernatural ways was predicated on a unity which already existed in the Father and the Son. Denominations have nothing to do with anything Frank it is a red herring. One time Frank the Lord brought more than 100 people from across that city with no knowledge of one another save for the witness of Christ and we all stood in an ever growing sea of faces and voices declaring the things of God. The largest crowd of people to listen to us stopped that day and we were all astonished, both believers and unbelievers. Denominations had nothing to do with any of it. They neither divided us, nor did they make for a false unity. The unity was in Christ Frank. It was not of men.

    What do you think Frank?

    • appolus said

      I think you have just proven my point brother. Thank you. If in every city, men put away their denominations and names of men and simply gathered together, there would be the very same Spirit that you spoke of that would fall upon them because this is the will of God for His people……………bro Frank

      • Perhaps Frank this comment will serve to be worthwhile, perhaps not. The Lord knows.

        I feel sure that you know that I am not posting to prove your point Frank. Nor am I posting to make one of my own. If I had a point to make I would just make it and leave the contending out of it. After all if I did have a point to make, then I presume I would also have a way of making it clear. If not then nothing really matters anyway because I would be simply expressing opinions anyway.

        I cannot help but see that the overwhelming message you are presenting is much more than a simple understanding of unity or else obedience to the Lord’s prayer that “They would be one, even as We are one” in speaking of the Father and the Son. KHM has rightly said that those who were in the upper room were already in unity of purpose and in one mind before the Holy Spirit was given in power. That seems like a good point to make because it demonstrates that unity is not power, or gifts or even ministry. It must be something other than these things. What is missing of course are the more than 380 others who also saw the Lord after His resurrection and were at least as well aquatinted with the reality of Christ risen from the dead as any man has been in all history. Yet they were not there.

        Some brethren, myself included, find it difficult to make a clarity on this point and the consequence seems to be a division in meaning and understanding which itself can be as much of a division as can any other thing.

        When I lived in the Hebrides on the Isla elf Lewis Frank, I didn’t know it at the time, but whenever I drove through Sky to reach the port to the outer islands I passed within a few hunted yard of my ancestral home in Scotland. Had I known at that time that my mother was born in Edinbane, Sky, and that my maternal clan was within my reach, I might have been diverted from my purpose and left off the journey to seek them out in order to refresh the unity which was evident all around me. I did notice several times how much of a similarity there was between some men in that place and myself and wondered about it, but I had no idea that they were my flesh and blood.

        Because I missed this unity of the flesh I pressed onto the Isle of Lewis and far north of that place according to God. When I arrived I was ignorant that there had been a revival in Lewis at any time, let alone more than ten revivals in the past 200 years in the Hebrides. When I met local believers I was also ignorant of the denominational realities of that place as well. An elder of the Church of Scotland by the name of Murdo Maclean became my friend and respected brother and though he was saved in the revival in 1950 he never mentioned it to me at the time of meeting him. Yet when we prayed together I sensed a deep need in him and at times I was moved to tears without really knowing why. Later on I met and befriended a brother by the name of John Smith. He was with the Free Presbyterian Church and I found sweet fellowship with him also. He too was much older than myself and so I was able to love him as an older brother. I was always struck by his calm and clear conviction and confidence in the Lord. Later I met another older brother and he was from the Presbyterian Church and his name was Angus McRichie. He lived alone as a single man in his seventh decade of life and he too was faithful and consistent in his walk. I leo loved him and he as with the others freely extended the right hand of fellowship in their privacy and homes, and were easily willing to speak about the Lord and nothing besides.

        The remarkable thing which I found in speaking and having fellowship with these three men on a regular basis for more than four years was that although they lived within two miles of one another, in a district in which everyone is known to everyone else, they had not spoken or fellowshipped together in the Lord once. In Christ they were united and were of the same Spirit and mind, yet in the flesh they were three separate irreconcilable men. I once stood in a queue in the local shop and found myself saying hello in Gaelic to several men and women who I knew were believers and they greeted me with the usual kindness which they always showed to me and yet in that wait for food they did not acknowledge each other once. They were friendly and polite and truthful to the man who ran the shop and made small talk with him. But they were unable to speak to those who were of another denomination in that queue. Having seen these things I really sought the Lord to understand it. I also benefitted from others who came to the Island in ministry and they were able to acknowledge the same reality.

        So my question Frank or my observation is this.

        Does this denominational division really deny or else prove your point?

        I think it proves it much more than my account of the Clock Tower Outreach in Leicester which I spoke of earlier. It may seem like I am making a point Frank, but I am not doing that at all. What business of mine is it if you press those things which you believe are sound and reasonable? I am not really making a point. If I were, then I could make it with more alacrity and meaning than many could make it. I am contending for something which is more precious than simply realising that in Christ there is unity of purpose and mind, or that denominations represent disunity to some men because of doctrines and teachings. It is precisely because I know that the unity which I saw in these three men was far greater and much more real that their inclinations not to fellowship with denominational others, that I am able to see beyond both the unity and the seeming disunity, and make a clear separation which goes beyond pressing one part or the other.

        I knew as they did not know that they all three truly loved the Lord and truly desired to please Him, You may not believe this Frank but the revival in Lewis did not so much as change a single part of that Island from what it has been for several hundred years when these distinctions came about. Even those who were saved in the revival were in the end drawn into a reality of local church life in which they were bound in the end to make their focus local to the point of a denominational reality at the expense of fellowshipping with others from other denominations. Moreover this reality did not alter one jot of their faith in Christ nor their faithfulness in that which they believed unto life or practised according to their obedience.

        One time Frank I was moved to hold a mission in this particular part of the Island and so I prayed for an evangelist to come to the Island for that purpose. In the end it was a brother from the Clock Tower Team in Leicester, who with no contact or encouragement from myself, took a holiday on the Island. He somehow heard that I was living in the North of the Island in the hotel he was staying in and contacted a neighbour who came to me and told me he was on the Island. Less than a year later he moved to Lewis and we began looking at the practical needs of a mission. My wife and myself had been praying for several years and so when this brother came we were genuinely encouraged and excited. To my enormous disappointment this brother proved, at that time, to be as divisive a person as one could imagine as far as laying hold of the Lord’s purposes were concerned in that place. One day I ministered to him in such a way that he literally sat bolt upright and in real grief at his condition he asked me what he had to do. Then in the same breath he made a fatal and irreconcilable error. He told me that he was with me and that I was to lead. I knew in an instant that there would be no possibility after this statement that he could be the evangelist in that place.

        In the end Helen and I went ahead with our preparations and when the day came over 200 people were at that first meeting. Of that number just one person was from the district we were in and all others were from the rest of the Island. I had already started to realise that the purpose of the Lord was other than what one would normally anticipate from a mission and so it proved to be. Of the thousands of believers in Nis the one who came was an elder of the local Church of Scotland. That same week of the mission he came to me and shared a vision he had had when he was drawing water from a local well in which he was shown the woman at the well in Samaria. He asked me what I thought it meant. He said that it was a vision of the mission and its meaning. I had no answer, but this too formed part of my eventual understanding. Those of Israel eventually rejected Christ and His purposes for their lives, whereas the Samaritans’ who were despised by Israel received Christ by the hand of one woman who was open to Christ. Nis rejected an opportunity to come together to bear witness of Christ Himself, in a way which would have been truly unique outside of revival, because their divisions made it impossible for them to be together in an agreed work and purpose to reach the lost in their place. Had they seen Christ and not men they would have come as the others came from across the Island.

        Helen and I had done what were were commanded to do and so we slowly packed our things and moved on according to the Lord.

        This too speaks of divisions and it also speaks of unity. The divisions are easily seen and understood, but unity is Christ Himself and denominations do not of themselves destroy that reality. Like the evangelist who God appointed for that hour, who was divisive in himself, so were the people of Nis. Their division along denominational lines were not the problem. Their problem was their flesh and their unwillingness to set aside all things for the sake of Christ. Yet I didn’t ever once believe that anyone of them did not love Christ and truly know Him. I have spent fifteen years meditating on that mission and I ask myself constantly where my fault lay. It is an easy thing to see ones own faults if one is minded to see them, yet even then seeing them will not explain others faults and problems unless we see that theirs are as ours are, and they are all the flesh. Denominations are nothing. It is a red herring to make denominations the cause of disunity by an explanation. Disunity is men and denominations are mere shells of houses in which men gather to serve worship the Lord.

        Frank I am not trying to make a point brother. I am genuinely trying to provoke a better understanding. I know that your own understanding regarding the Roman Church stands in no small part in explanation and I have seen one comment on your blog which spells this out clearly.

        By David:

        I posted on this site before about a visitation I received from the Lord in the night while I was asleep. Three times did this vision visit me that night and I awoke with a lingering presence of it that I could not shake it…

        I posted it here Frank : https://scottishwarriors.wordpress.com/a-coming-reformation/#comment-1008

        I believe the time for this vision to come to pass is even at the door. There is a remnant, whom God is calling out into the wilderness, whom He has chosen and set apart for this time that is before us. There will be a great falling away from God, of all of humanity (Adam’s race) which includes some of the fractured parts of that which is also known as the church.

        I do not believe that the R/C church is in the way of the Lord at all, and neither is most of what is known as established denominations, Protestant, evangelical or otherwise.

        The collapse of the Grand Old Mansion is imminent, the judgement has gone out, because of what man in his vanity has done to it. They have turned intimate relationship with the Father into empty dead lifeless religion, and the Lord will collapse this old house now (except for the core part or remnant) and will rebuild His Church from the remnants of the ruins from the ground up. This occurs during the time of the Great Tribulation which we must go through as a body…

        During the time of unprecedented persecution against Christians, and in the midst of all the global chaos (Great Tribulation), there will be a revival and a move of the Spirit of God, …such as has not been seen to this day, no not even in the beginning…for God shall pour out of His Holy Spirit upon the Body of Christ …to strengthen and purify/beautify the Bride of the Lamb, that she may be pure and holy – and without spot or blemish, or any such thing…and her gown shall be as white as snow….many will turn to the Lord during this time in a global revival which is the rebuilding of the “Grand Old Mansion” of which it is also written:

        The glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the former,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘And in this place I will give peace,’ says the LORD of hosts.” Haggai 2:9


        Appolus said

        June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm
        Amen brother, the time is at hand. A great shaking is coming to the land of America. I believe right here in the mid-west. An earthquake unlike any other, right in the heartland, the ” Bible belt.” Jehovah rides upon a swift cloud and has come down. We, His children, can only now pray for mercy in the midst of judgement……… brother Frank

        This Frank is the bigger picture which may be in your mind of understanding, and clearly denominational realities form just one part of that prophetic belief. It seems also to be true that the term “strong leaders” has a part to play and that may well be one central point that Broadbent is making in his book. It seems that there are also other inevitable consequences which arise from these ideas as well. One of them has to do with a remnant which has no clear “strong leadership” if that means men directing local meetings in positions of clear spiritual authority. If we take these seemingly irreconcilable ideas and make of them a single idea we may well end up with meetings which prove more harmful than any denomination has proven to date. That will in the end reflect the very darkness which is even now becoming blackest darkness. Yet not yet that darkness Frank.

        So why am I writing in this way then? It is because there are many brethren who are concerned about these things and like them, I too have been concerned about the Church since I first believed. Rather than emphasising a sudden present judgement of God however I have always been led to first emphasise the unity which is real, despite the denominational divisions which are also of course very real. I asked the Lord the questions about division, but the Lord emphasises the unity by showing that He has His answer to these things. At the heart of this answer lays a promise to refresh, heal and uplift the churches to a state of comprehending Christ Himself, which of itself will prove the unity. This will not change denominational realities however. These things will in any event be swept away by a growing and total apostasy in which mere labels will be as nothing to the diabolical agreement which that false unity will prove. This is the churches laying hold off, confirming and agreeing with the Man of Sin.

        Nothing can change that reality but it may only truly make sense if we have all been given an opportunity to lay hold of Christ firstly as a mechanism of separating from the world itself. It is the world which is coming under judgement of God and persecution in that reality becomes the hatred which men feel towards those who love God who is judging the world with a terrible judgement. It will not produce repentance but will lead to even greater wickedness. And this too is a reflection of the world itself. In keeping with the Lord’s prayer that “they may be one, even as we are one” it means becoming visible to the world because in that hour it will be evangelism which will form its chief characteristic and the fellowship of brethren will as always be a hidden reality. No unbeliever can comprehend Christ or the unity of faith that is in Him, let alone that the Father and the Son are one.

        Its ok Frank I have no more desire to contend on this point. I simply want to understand what you really mean and why you feel that your insight has to do with more than the USA. I can easily believe that the USA will come under swift and sudden judgement. But as I have said before this is perhaps because the USA may well prove to be an example and not the evidence of the end of the age. If you believe that the Man of Sin is coming out of the USA this alone will defeat what I have said. But if you were able to accept that the Man of Sin is also to be called king of Israel and Christ, then perhaps you would be able to see that the USA has no part in that.

        • I wonder if you have given any thought to what the words “Death by Denomination” means in either plain English or else consistent with the intention in which you wrote them? Just to say it Frank, the plain meaning is absent, as the words mean absolutely nothing. They lack structure, context and validity. Intention of course is another matter, and despite what you have said to Greg about the hearts of men by way of seeking to defend your undisclosed position, the hearts of men are as visible to some men even as the sun and the moon give visibility. I am surprised you don’t know this, as it is the very reality of prophetic utterance. You may be missing that prophecy is not about seeing men’s hearts and then disclosing them. It is a gift which discloses mens hearts by faith in a purpose of God and then by that means other men can see them. Perhaps if you had such a gift Frank you would understand it more fully. As it is you have put the horse behind the cart and have missed that you yourself are now pulling the cart to market with the horse following on.

          If denominations really means death to the one who persists in them, desires them, presses into them, follows their traditions, and believes their peculiar doctrines then God could not bring together men of many denomination traditions and prove in them the unity which is in Christ Jesus by their mouths in a confession of faith which stands in agreement regardless of those other traditions. Similarly Frank three men in a place which has been blessed with true revival more than any other place on the earth, agreeing on the same intimate reality of Christ, would not be possible were denominations capable of producing the death you elude to. You cannot have it all ways Frank and your choice of words is singularly poor when you say “Death by Denomination” but they do of themselves reveal their true meaning despite their lack of rational meaning. You have always resisted taking me on Frank in a poor claim to being non contentious. What you have just done on SermonIndex puts that idea to bed. The difference between these two men Frank is that this man has no problem speaking plainly and feels no need to always cry “brother” as a mechanism to detract from the accusations of men. Goodbye Frank.

  7. KMH said

    Acts 2:1 YLT
    And in the day of the Pentecost being fulfilled, they were all with one accord at the same place…

    You know what happens next! Tozier says the unity came before the Holy Spirit.
    Thank you, Brother Frank, for feeding us through your blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: