Rabbi, Father, Teacher?

Yet another case where scripture alone cannot resolve a dispute. Paul and Stephen call Abraham and Isaac their "Father", which is not a literal father, but a father in the Jewish faith. Paul says there are teachers in the church, despite Jesus' statements. Paul calls people his sons in the faith. Even protestants can't help but refer to the "early church fathers".

A real conundrum for sola scriptura on where to draw the line. Protestants, due to their own traditions have got all worked up over "Father", but don't give two hoots about "teacher" or "Sunday school teacher". There is another schism in the making.

 

Does it really address speaking only to Christians. Does NO MAN mean only christians?

This there really anything wrong with an elevated title? The positition of Bishop and Elder is an elevation.

Very intelligent of you to recognize that aspect.

 

I don't think that is true. One of his titles is Vicar of Christ. Vicar means representative. The successor of Peter is the Prime Minister of Jesus' kingdom. This is illustrated in Isaiah 22:19-24 when the King of Jerusalem (rightful heir to the throne of david) appoints Eliakim( a minister in the kings cabinet ) to the position of Prime Minister. You can deny the that Jesus was quoting Isaiah 22:19-24 when he was giving Peter the same authority. That is your choice. Jesus' left someone in charge of his earthly kingdom. And that person was Peter and his successors. I believe that now whereas I did not believe it before.

 

Korah made the exact same claim as well in the book of Numbers.

You can read further and see what eventually happened to Korah.

God has opened another chasm in which those that make the same claim as Korah are falling into and on "THE DAY" God will close that chasm by means of the "SECOND DEATH".

 

What is the difference between it. When you are assigned it, the Title comes automatically.

 

The authority Peter was given was in binding and loosing. Not in determining what is holy and acceptable unto God. Not in establishing true doctrine. If I accept that doctrine or not is not the question, has the Pope over stepped his boundries?

 

Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name is still a rose.

So should we ignore all of the synonyms of Father?


Main Entry: father
Part of Speech: noun 3
Definition: priest
Synonyms: abbe, confessor, cure, ecclesiastic, minister, padre, parson, pastor, preacher,
prophet, reverend

 

He may have and again me may have not. It depends on how it is veiwed.

 

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The New Covenant is the fulfillment and completion of the Old Covenant.

The New Testament is the fulfillment and completion of the Old Testament.

The RCC priesthood is the fulfillment and completion of the Old Judaic priesthood.

The law established the priesthood in the Torah. Jesus fired the old priests and hired 12 new ones. one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law!

 

you're really mincing there. Generic? Is that how you side step the word? Does it really exclude natural fathers? I don't read an exception in that verse. Where do you see an exception? If there is one it is not plain and easy recognizable.

 

Sadly you are far away from the Bible Truth in many ways.
It is quite pity that such stubbornness can hardly be cured.

Is Peter like Korah in saying this ?
1 Pet 2:
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light


What about Apostle John ?

Rev 1:
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 5:10
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Can you read this ?
Mt 23:
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Why are you continuously trying to distort the Words of God?

Is your church performing the service this way ?

1 Cor 14:
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted

Or is your church dictated by Mono-Pastoral or Clergy system ?


Do you know the difference between Korah's time and New Testament time ?

Do you offer the burnt offering at the court of your church these days?
If not, why do you abolish the Law ?

 

I can and will say the same applies to you as well.

 

Why are you doing the same thing?

 

Do you? Please pray tell.

 

This true but it is also true that Jesus established a Priesthood where Jesus is the High Priest just as in the Old Testament.

Bishop, Priest, and Deacon

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos ("servant" or "minister"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos ("overseer"), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

 

Good one! The grandfather effect of the sacrifice on the Cross provides and meets the need for the burnt sacrifice. All future needs of a burnt sacrifice are met via the Crucifixion.

And to anticipate your next question:

The Sacrifice of the Mass



The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better translated "Offer this as my memorial offering."

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).


AND FROM THE VERY FIRST TEXTBOOK ON CHRISTIANITY I GIVE YOU AN EXCERPT FROM THE DIDACHE:

 

Ignatius of Antioch


"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2).

"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience" (ibid., 7:2).

"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).


Clement of Alexandria


"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere" (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).

"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel" (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).


Hippolytus


"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .

"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.

"Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).


Origen


"Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married" (Homilies on Luke 17 [A.D. 234]).


Council of Elvira


"Bishops, presbyters, and deacons may not leave their own places for the sake of commerce, nor are they to be traveling about the provinces, frequenting the markets for their own profit. Certainly for the procuring of their own necessities they can send a boy or a freedman or a hireling or a friend or whomever, but, if they wish to engage in business, let them do so within the province" (Canon 18 [A.D. 300]).


Council of Nicaea I


"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


John Chrysostom


"[In Philippians 1:1 Paul says,] ‘To the co-bishops and deacons.’ What does this mean? Were there plural bishops of some city? Certainly not! It is the presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop" (Homilies on Philippians 1:1 [A.D. 402]).


Patrick of Ireland


"I, Patrick, the sinner, am the most rustic and the least of all the faithful . . . had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, a son of Potitus, a priest, who belonged to the village of Bannavem Taberniae. . . . At that time I was barely sixteen years of age . . . and I was led into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of persons, in accordance with our deserts, for we turned away from God, and kept not his commandments, and were not obedient to our priests, who were wont to admonish us for our salvation" (Confession of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 452]).

"I, Patrick, the sinner, unlearned as everybody knows, avow that I have been established a bishop in Ireland. Most assuredly I believe that I have received from God what I am. And so I dwell in the midst of barbarous heaths, a stranger and an exile for the love of God" (Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus 1 [A.D. 452]).

 

I would say it's prevailant in all churches whether it's first person on third person. The issue of whether it's first person or third person is a cowards cop out.

If some one comes up to you and asks:

"Who is your Pastor?"

or

"Who is your Preacher?"

or

"Who is your Reverend?"

Most people will answer the person name or they include the qualifier to the question.

You may not have placed the Pastor, Preacher, or Reverend in front of it, which does not take away from the point that it is implied.

The question is asked!

You respond either:

Pastor Bob Smith or Bob Smith.

Both answers mean the same based on the question.

 

What I really think that scripture is saying is this:

Don't call someone Father with the intent or manner or position that you would call God Father.

Don't call someone Teacher with the intent or manner that you would call Jesus Teacher.

Don't call someone master with the intent or manner that you would call Jesus Master.

Christian slave owners had no problem being called Master by their slaves. Some of these slave owners were Pastors themselves.