Featured How do Catholics obey Jesus concerning Matthew 23:9?

So show me where Jesus made this exception of "before the other Christians" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

You will have to tell me since it isn't in Scripture and you are just making it up.

Since Jesus said, " And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." it would appear that Paul is declaring himself to be the one Father in Heaven by calling himself "father in Christ".

 

I understand you just fine.

When confronted with Scripture that doesn't fit with your beliefs you contort...

Like Stephen adressing the high priests as "fathers" in Acts 7:2 that in your world meant that they were "somebody's" fathers.

That interpretation of yours still gives me a chuckle. :laugh:

 

That sure as heck makes a lot more sense then the Baptist epistemology of having every congregation believe what they think right to themselves (cf the beginning of Judges).

 

I think I have the solution -- practical if not theological -- to this issue:

For those who don't mind having a human in authority over your souls, then you can call that one "Father" (or "Mother", as the case may be); for those who do mind, don't call anyone that.

In the CAC, if any minister wants to call himself "father" or be called "father", he is allowed that liberty of conscience. We have people coming from Catholic and Anglican backgrounds, and I am sensitive to that situation.

However, the position of the CAC on this is clearly stated on the site. Personally, I will not be called "Father" or any artificial title. As much as I admire Anglicanism and the Old Catholics, one thing I do not agree with is the "ranks of reveredness" -- "Reverend", "Right Reverend", "Very Reverend", "Most Reverend", "Venerable", etc.

I would hope that any of our ministers who allow themselves to be called such would one day change their minds, but that is between them and God.

 

Paul did not claim an office that would be addressed as "father" nor did he call upon his readers to address him as "father." Jesus has in mind such a spiritual position before men.

The context of Christ's prohibition was not parental or in the physical sense but in a spiritual sense and title of address.

That is simply silly! They already had the ten commandments which made that clear! Jesus is referring to a spiritual position over them as in the term "Rabbi" where they honor a man with such a title or address.

Not at all! Paul never called for his followers to address him as "father" and never claimed any spiritual position to be addressed as "father." He simply used an analogy to describe how God used to him instrumentally to bring them to salvation and as a NATURAL father to instruct them as dear children. Never did he or any other apostle call upon their followers to ever address them as "father."

All the apostles were EQUAL and NONE were popes for if one were a Pope then all would EQUALLY be Popes as they were all EQUALLY apostles holding the same EQUAL office. The office of Pope has no Biblical basis whatsoever and clearly violates the prohibition by Christ to call no man on earth "Father" in that spiritual sense or position.

Here is a fundemental misunderstanding of the design for the apostolic office. The office of apostle and New Testament prophets were only "foundational" (Eph. 2:20) because they were to furnish the church with the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa. 8:16-18) which would be the means the Holy Spirit, the continuing Advocate, Comforter would use to qualify bishops and deacons and maintain the church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:1-4:1; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture would replace the apostolic office and scripture would be the final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).

Rome usurped the Scripture by its heirarchy and traditions of men.

Peter was replaced by James who acted as the Pastor of the church at Jerusalem which allowed church sent and authorized delegates from the sister church at Antioch to attend and participate. The Holy Spirit was the final authority in this matter and James and the apostles and whole "church" at Jerusalem took part in the final decision.



I

Nowhere in Ephesians 4 does it say the "church" is to lead the people! The leaders IN the church are listed but their leadership authority is restricted within the framework of God's Word or administrative only. Indeed, it is the members of the church that choose and qualify those who will be in positions of leadership. The apostolic office was "foundational" and not enduring except through what they left as a permenant authoritative record - the New Testament Scriptures.

Sorry but this line of logic does not work even in the New Testament record. The seven churches of Asia were obviously not supervised by any pope or any heirarchy like the Roman Catholic heirarchy. There was no unity between these churches as each had embraced false doctrines somewhat differently than the others. Christ and the Holy Spirit personally addressed each congregation separately from the other. John wrote by inspiration but claimed no personal authority over any of these churches. They were not in unity with each other or with Christ in many different areas of faith and practice.

This is an absolute lie! One of the cardinal doctrines of all Baptist chuches is that the Scriptues are their final authority and so to say "there is no authority" is just plain false! The scriptures are the INSPIRED apostolic tradition passed down to each generation of churches through the practice of the great commission.

1 Cor. 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Here is a member in the body that is called the metaphorical "head" which is not Christ. Such are in the position of leadership over the body as designed by Christ. Each congregational body is complete with a metaphorical "head" or "authority" that leads the body under Jesus Christ.

.

Like the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2-3). They were not united in all doctrine and practice and were individualized in many different aspects. However, in spite of all their differences they still possessed essential characteristics that Christ could still claim them as His churches even though many were in serious errors which if continued in would remove their candlestick.

None of these churches answered to any other nor were they all united in every doctrine but there were manifest differences. Hence, there was no obvious ROMAN CATHOLIC TYPE HIARCHY supervising them. John did not address them as their Pope but only as a FELLOW SERVANT writing under inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ.

What see in Revelation 2-3 is a glimpse of independent Baptist churches - some in grevious errors that contined in would be rejected by Christ as His churches and it is from some of these very erring churches that the system of Roman Catholicism developed in later centuries after centuries of corruption.

 

Er...you're quoting Catalyst here, not me!

 

Jesus said: “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:47. How many of you who object to calling elders of the church "Father" have only one eye because you plucked the other one out?

Jesus said: “When you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” Matthew 6:6. How many of you refuse to pray in church because it is done in public?

Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” Luke 9:23. How many of you carry a heavy piece of wood around with you all day long?

Unless you literally obey all these commandments, you have no standing to complain about Catholics and others using the title "Father" for their priests.

Jesus was a master of hyperbole and that was what He was doing when He said, "Call no man father." He meant that no man should be accorded the honor and respect that we give to God.

 

NAILED IT!! :thumbsup:

 

Like I pointed out early in the discussion...

For you to demand answers of Catholics on a Baptist forum where Catholics are not permitted to participate smacks of nothing better than gossip...

And probably much worse than simply gossip.

 

Thanks, Moriah, for that enlightened commentary. I'm glad you got that off your chest. I notice you failed to comment on my use of Matthew 6:6. I would also remind you that if you intend to take Jesus literally you must believe in transubstantiation. See John 6.

 

Ok - this is a very odd expression.

"Johhny, obey your mother's words - it is if you are eating her when you obey."

Whaaaa?

 

So words have a different meaning when applied to God?

You just make stuff up and attempt to present nonsense and meaningful.

Like saying that Stephen calling the high priests "father" was because the high priests must have been "sombody's" father.

Is this how you evangelize?

How would a non-Christian have a clue of what you are talking about when you attempt to give words bizzare and unique meanings to try to prove your point?