Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hermas – a primary eyewitness source regarding the leadership structure of early church at Rome
Beggars All ^ | October 05, 2010 | John Bugay

Posted on 02/15/2015 10:17:53 AM PST by RnMomof7

Hermas – a primary eyewitness source regarding the leadership structure of early church at Rome

Paul writes to the church at Rome without addressing a leader. He writes in the years 57-58, a date that is very firm in history, in a letter that is not contested. Excuses are made as to why there is no mention of Peter in Rome, even though the church has been attested in Rome perhaps from Acts 2, when visitors for Rome were present at/saved at Pentecost. In Acts 18, Aquila and Priscilla are expelled from Rome by the edict of Claudius, attested in secular history, 49 ad.

So the church at Rome is attested long before Paul writes and there is no leader there.

Ignatius, who knows and writes about Bishops in the east, writes to Rome without mentioning a Bishop. There is no question the city of Rome is important. It is the capital of the empire. This church “which presides in the place of the district of the Romans…”

Shepherd of Hermas: According to the Muratorian Canon, the oldest (ca. AD-180-200?) known list of the New Testament and early Christian writings, Hermas was the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (ca 140-154). So he was writing earlier than Hegesippus, whose “list of bishops” is said to be the first one (c. 166), and earlier than Irenaeus (c.180). Hermas was, in fact, listed in the Muratorian Canon as a book to be read in the churches [i.e., it was liturgical].
As I slept, brothers and sisters, a revelation was given to me by a very handsome young man, who said to me, “Who do you think the elderly woman from whom you received the little book was? I said “The Sibyl.” “You are wrong,” he said. “She is not.” Then who is she?” I said. “The church,” he replied. I said to him, “why then is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.”

Afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church." (Vis 2.4)
Roger Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy,” (New York: Basic Books, 2008), notes “The author of the Epistle of Clement may have been the man of this name later described as the person responsible for drafting communications sent behalf of Christians of Rome to other churches.” If this Clement did compose 1 Clement, then it certainly would be understandable why the Corinthian church would have thought they received a letter from Clement (even though the name of Clement does not appear within that letter. Rather, it is from “the church of God that sojourns in Rome”).

But Hermas could not be more clear. There is a plurality of presbyters who “preside over” the church at Rome. This is no fuzzy mention, as in Ignatius, of a church in “a place of honor”. This is a clear explanation for the “argument from silence” in Paul’s letter to the Romans, in the absence of a clear leader in both 1 Clement and Ignatius.

Hermas reiterates the structure of this leadership, and the fact that they are not leading, but rather that they fight among themselves. He calls them “children”.
Look therefore to the coming judgment. You, therefore, who have more than enough, seek out those who are hungry, until the tower is finished. For after the tower is finished, you may want to do good, but you will not have the chance. Beware, therefore, you who exult in your wealth, lest those in need groan, and their groaning rise up to the Lord, and you together with your good things be shut outside the door of the tower. Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)
Hermas here is chastising the multiple leaders of the church at Rome. This is important to note because Hermas identifies himself as a slave (Vis. 1.1). It will not do to say that this is a group of priests who work for a bishop. The entire group "presides."

Yet here, in the leadership of the church of Rome, there are multiple elders who "preside"; they are acting like sorcerers. They exult in their wealth. They take the seats of honor. They want to teach, but they are guilty themselves of having no instruction.

This is very clear writing. Very clear reporting of what the church was like. For those of you who want to understand what the leadership structure of the church at Rome was like, it is hard to find a better primary source witness than Hermas. [Please pay no attention to the fact that there are many scholars whose work corroborates what Hermas says here. This is a post about primary sources.]


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: catholicism; history; papacy; protvsrc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: CynicalBear

I could almost have recited every verse in the NT with the word shepherd in it from memory, but didn’t want to go into that detail. You are correct that the original word is shepherd - of course I knew that. It’s a good thing all Latin-based languages such as Spanish and Portuguese (which I speak) only have the word shepherd as it should be and is in the Greek.

Now, my dear Catholic brother (BTW, I love Catholics and have nothing against them), I suggest you read every one of these verses and you will find by context that exactly what I said is true.

I had no intention of being snarky, but only of wanting to point out the truth.

I have been a serious student and teacher of scripture for almost 50 years - no I am not perfect and still see “through a glass darkly”, meaning there are surely areas where I am off, of which I am seeing every year as I age. I will not attain perfection in knowledge or doctrine in this life...only in the next.

The only church I am a part of is the one true church which includes all true believers in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, be they Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, whatever. Only God knows who is in it and who is not. No man does, no group does. You can’t join it. You are either born into it from above when you are saved, or you are not in it regardless of what religious group you are a part of.


21 posted on 02/15/2015 1:36:30 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

——Almost all “Protestants” practice a papacy that’s as bad or worse than Rome’s.....only their pope is local and called “The Pastor”.——

That’s about the silliest thing posted on a religion thread...

Tells me you never studied scripture....


22 posted on 02/15/2015 1:44:48 PM PST by Popman (Christ alone: My Cornerstone...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I actually agree with you for the most part. But I wasn’t 110% wrong.

The only part that was wrong with my statement was using the phrase “almost all.” Too strong. Should have been simply “many.”

But many Protestant groups put a very unscriptural spin to the role of “Pastor” that is plain wrong and very contrary to what scripture teaches. I spent years with them in non-denominational ministry.

For you to say “nobody believes that” simply shows you haven’t been around much in the huge world of what is called Christianity. That’s ok.

In far too many churches, the pastor is the true single leader who is looked to for all spiritual direction, wisdom and insight. Too many churches are actually a cult-like following of a man. Yes, they may fire him. Years after believing and following every word he said and later discovered he was, in actuality, only a man.

Most groups do teach the pastor is the highest authority in a local church - glad to hear your group does not. I’ll not name names (”conservative, evangelical”, etc.), but I could because I’ve walked with and amongst the pastors who truly believe and are taught in their seminaries that they are indeed the highest authority and they believe it amongst themselves....but would never say or admit it among “the sheep”, who are lowly and beneath them.

Are there true men of God who are pastors who truly walk with God and speak for Him? Of course! I could name many and the list would be long, from an amazing width of groups.

That is a separate issue from my specific point: today’s (and much of history’s) concept of the pastor is wholly man-made and unscriptural.

We only accept it because it’s been around since the 2nd or 3rd century AD. It is nothing but a human tradition accepted by so many who so strongly berate our dear Catholic brethren for their emphasis on tradition.....


23 posted on 02/15/2015 1:52:24 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Arlis; CynicalBear
Now, my dear Catholic brother (BTW, I love Catholics and have nothing against them), I suggest you read every one of these verses and you will find by context that exactly what I said is true. I had no intention of being snarky, but only of wanting to point out the truth....

....The only church I am a part of is the one true church which includes all true believers in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, be they Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, whatever. Only God knows who is in it and who is not. No man does, no group does. You can’t join it. You are either born into it from above when you are saved, or you are not in it regardless of what religious group you are a part of.

What happened to "Almost all Protestants practice a papacy that’s as bad or worse than Rome"? Suddenly we're your buddies again?

24 posted on 02/15/2015 1:53:52 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

Yes, a stultifying and depressing situation vis a vis the early Church. But the picture wasn’t rosy for long with them based on the letters, was it? Curious what your practical answer for this is, given that we have a snowball’s chance of changing the setup (pastor at head, sucking everyone into his orbit).


25 posted on 02/15/2015 2:17:50 PM PST by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
Well then I surely misread the intent of your post and I do apologize. I also am a member of the one true church that has no earthly name other then being called the ekklesia, those who have been called out by God to be His.

Whether paster or shepard is immaterial as far as the intent goes. Both feed and care for a flock. Christ called Himself a shepard and told the apostles to feed His sheep. I don't suppose He meant we were mutton either did He. :-)

26 posted on 02/15/2015 2:44:09 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
How do you check what the pope says to see if it is true?

You know the answer to that one.

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. [emp. mine]

All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

27 posted on 02/15/2015 3:35:40 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
Another great article RnMomof7! It’s so sad to see the number of people that have fallen for the falsehoods of Catholicism.

Ping

28 posted on 02/15/2015 3:45:10 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
All the Christians on Earth were Catholic.....PERIOD

Impossible (besides needing to define what kind of Catholics).

While much can be said about the state of the evangelical church today (and of my need for Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

"surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church • The context of the Reformation

29 posted on 02/15/2015 3:47:09 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
I agree, why would you check the validity of the word of faith from a man who God promised would be infallible in such matters?????waste of time...

Because God never told any man that (outside of Jesus)...You were told that by the guy who told you he was infallible...

If one day he tells you that he is God come in the flesh and is to be worshiped, are you going to believe that as well???

30 posted on 02/15/2015 3:53:13 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

Ephesians 4:11

“And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,”


31 posted on 02/15/2015 3:58:26 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
Ephesians 4:11

In regards to the words in greek for pastor/teacher...

Pastors and teachers are listed together because they are governed by one article (“the” occurs before “pastors” but not before “teachers”) and because the word “and” (kai) differs from the other “and’s” (de) in the verse. This may imply that these are two kinds of gifted people whose ministries are among settled congregations (rather than itinerant ministries like those of the apostles and evangelists).

More likely, they refer to two characteristics of the same person who is pastoring believers (by comforting and guiding) while at the same time instructing them in God’s ways (overseers or elders are to be able to teach; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9).

Hoehner, H. W. (1985). Ephesians. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 635). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.


32 posted on 02/15/2015 4:03:52 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
I agree, why would you check the validity of the word of faith from a man who God promised would be infallible in such matters?????waste of time...

At least you care consistent with the implicit assent Rome and cults call for, but as the basis for your assurance of Truth cannot be the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then it seems it must be based upon the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, and thus papal infallibility. Is that not correct?

33 posted on 02/15/2015 4:11:56 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Bingo


34 posted on 02/15/2015 4:59:22 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
All the Christians on Earth were Catholic.....PERIOD

No, there was only the Church of Jesus Christ

There was no "pope", no priesthood, no mass, no 7 sacraments , no "holy water".. no assumption or immaculate conception..no prayer to saints.. those are all the works of men

35 posted on 02/15/2015 5:02:31 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Religion Moderator; Faith Presses On; redleghunter

Hey, here’s another keyword....

“falsehoodposting”


36 posted on 02/15/2015 5:20:21 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I warmly embrace all my dear brothers and sisters in Christ wherever I find them. There is one catholic church.

And if someone says they are a believer in the Lord Jesus, I accept that, and do not immediately issue my “litmus” test of 100 questions about faith and doctrine to determine if their faith is real (see true story following this paragraph). God knows. Only with time would I be able to get a better idea of the reality of someone’s faith by observing their life - something one usually does not get the chance to do, and learning what they really believe about the Lord Jesus and His finished work on the cross. God knows. I don’t have to. If I find true fellowship with one who loves the Lord Jesus, our heavenly Father, I will rejoice in that.

When I first entered the ministry in ‘67, I was reading my Bible one morning at a restaurant, and by the conversations of about 6 believers at the table next to me, perceived that they were Christians.

When they broke up to leave, one came to me seeing my Bible. He immediately began a very serious questioning of me and my beliefs. He must have asked me 20 questions or more, in a very stern, challenging manner.

When I at last answered his last question satisfactorily, only then did his face light up with a big smile, “Praise God, brother! It’s great to meet another Christian!” and he heartily embraced me with a hug.

What’s wrong with this picture? It troubled me greatly for a long time. He could not/would not have fellowship with me until I passed his rigorous test for “the faith”......”the faith” as determined by him and his group. Could have he been more sectarian?

Our fellowship would not have been based solely on knowing the Lord Jesus - but on his understanding of doctrine. That is not true fellowship “in the spirit” at all, but a fellowship of the flesh, the carnal man. That is man’s church - not God’s.

In Ephesians 4 there are two “unity”s that are referenced. One is “the unity of the Spirit” in vs. 3. The other is “the unity of the faith” in vs. 13. Paul tells us to PRESERVE the first one, so that we might ATTAIN the second one. You can only preserve that which you already possess. All believers possess the “unity of the Spirit” as the same Spirit indwells us all...the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Christ.

Only by preserving that, can we then ATTAIN “the unity of the faith”, which is common shared belief and doctrine.

One we possess, the other we work for, by preserving the first.

Most of Christendom has the two reversed, and is trying to PRESERVE the unity of the faith (doctrine, beliefs, etc.)[which does not exist and we do not have], and seeking to ATTAIN the unity of the Spirit (as if we don’t have it and need to work for it).

Because we do not follow the instruction of scripture here, and don’t understand the difference between the two unities here, we end up with neither.

If any are serious about looking into these and other issues mentioned in this thread, PM me and I can send you a long, involved research piece I did years ago. Not pushing anything but only wanting to see Jesus Christ glorified and exalted in His body which is the church.


37 posted on 02/15/2015 5:53:01 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; terycarl
If one day he tells you that he is God come in the flesh and is to be worshiped, are you going to believe that as well???

check out the fifth marian dogma....she's about to get the job.

38 posted on 02/15/2015 7:03:59 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
I warmly embrace all my dear brothers and sisters in Christ wherever I find them. There is one catholic church.

And if someone says they are a believer in the Lord Jesus, I accept that, and do not immediately issue my “litmus” test of 100 questions about faith and doctrine to determine if their faith is real (see true story following this paragraph). God knows. Only with time would I be able to get a better idea of the reality of someone’s faith by observing their life - something one usually does not get the chance to do, and learning what they really believe about the Lord Jesus and His finished work on the cross. God knows. I don’t have to. If I find true fellowship with one who loves the Lord Jesus, our heavenly Father, I will rejoice in that.

When I first entered the ministry in ‘67, I was reading my Bible one morning at a restaurant, and by the conversations of about 6 believers at the table next to me, perceived that they were Christians.

When they broke up to leave, one came to me seeing my Bible. He immediately began a very serious questioning of me and my beliefs. He must have asked me 20 questions or more, in a very stern, challenging manner.

When I at last answered his last question satisfactorily, only then did his face light up with a big smile, “Praise God, brother! It’s great to meet another Christian!” and he heartily embraced me with a hug.

What’s wrong with this picture? It troubled me greatly for a long time. He could not/would not have fellowship with me until I passed his rigorous test for “the faith”......”the faith” as determined by him and his group. Could have he been more sectarian?

What if you were having a conversation with one who presented themselves as a Roman Catholic....would you inquire if they were a follower of Jesus or a church?

Wouldn't you want to know if they were relying upon the intervention of Mary for their salvation or Jesus?

Little questions, but very revealing ones.

I've always wondered by catholics identify as roman catholic vs Christianity.

I wouldn't have a problem with people asking me what I believed. It's an opportunity to witness.

39 posted on 02/15/2015 7:10:17 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Yes, Constantine really did a number there, redefining and recreating a version of Christianity that suited his needs


40 posted on 02/15/2015 7:20:05 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson