- Feb 10, 2013
- 14,982
- 8,671
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Of course!Does God become your one true Father when you believe the gospel?
Upvote
0
Of course!Does God become your one true Father when you believe the gospel?
What does that even mean? God becomes a Christian's Father by adoption when the Christian is received into the Church by baptism, and baptism may either precede an explicit confession of faith in Jesus Christ or it may follow it. And by becoming a Christian one does not lose one's natural earthly father, who remains your father both before baptism and after it, nor does one exclude the possibility of having earthly spiritual fathers as the scriptures show - see 1 Corinthians 4:15 DRB.Does God become your one true Father when you believe the gospel?
I think you are trying to compare Matt. 16:19 with Is. 22:22?See Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:18. It's uncanny how similar they are. Peter, and his successors, The Pope, are the Prime Ministers of Jesus Christ.
It might be the Words of Jesus:I do not know why so many people object to the use of the word father in connection with a priest or a bishop.
And no ordained person that I know of was "ordained because he was a successor to someone" -- neither were NT prophets given that office because they claimed to be "a successor".Indeed, I don't think she was the successor to any ordained person whatever.
since this is one of the anchors in your proposal - a few questions are in orderLet me give you a few illustrations:To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles
1. asks if the term "Pope Clement" was used by his contemporaries.These questions seem a bit redundant; #1, #2, and #4 all seem to be asking basically the same question.
This may help -I'm also confused as to why you ask for a source that says Clement "sat in Peter's chair"
1. So then it could not be a title that Clement even knew about much less a term any of his contemporaries knew to call him.But your main question, as shown by the fact it's asked multiple times, is whether Clement was referred to as pope in the first or second century. The title of "Pope" developed in the third century as a term for various bishops
agreed. It is not a term that Clement or any of his contemporaries would recognizeBut since that was a later thing, obviously you won't see "Pope Clement" (let alone "Pope St. Clement") used as a phrase in the first or second centuries.
Agreed - our use today is as you say.However, even if the specific term "pope" was not used, as has been noted, pope in English is simply used as shorthand for "Bishop of Rome".
There were many bishops in the first and second century church - such that many held that title at the same time.So the question becomes, did anyone refer to Clement as being the bishop of Rome in the first or second century?
"episcopate" -- office of bishop.Irenaeus did so in Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3 (note for context, the "blessed apostles" mentioned at the start
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
That is what some say but they seem to be ignoring 1 Corinthians 4:14.It might be the Words of Jesus:
Matt 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
That could be why....
No - it doesn't - once again there is zero - none - nadda - not one reference in Scripture or contemporary writings of someone calling Paul father - perhaps because Jesus the Lord said not to.That is what some say but they seem to be ignoring 1 Corinthians 4:14.
Except for saint Paul calling himself the father of the Corinthian church.No - it doesn't - once again there is zero - none - nadda - not one reference in Scripture or contemporary writings of someone calling Paul father - perhaps because Jesus the Lord said not to.
Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church? Or is it you who wants to call him that?Except for saint Paul calling himself the father of the Corinthian church.
I have no idea how saint Paul could be "literally the father of the church in Corinth", but he most certainly was the spiritual father of the church in Corinth as he himself says. And the title "father" is about spiritual fatherhood; in the sense in which saint John uses it in his letters.Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church?
Sorry, but where does he 'say' he was their spiritual father? I believe I Cor. 4:14 simply reads..."but as my beloved sons".I have no idea how saint Paul could be "literally the father of the church in Corinth", but he most certainly was the spiritual father of the church in Corinth as he himself says.
When Jesus spoke in Matt. 23:8-10, the Pharisees were being hailed as someone of importance. Jesus simply stated that these titles interfered with who was really the important figure. There were no masters among men to Jesus, just as there was no one who was to be hailed as a spiritual father in His Kingdom. God was the only Father and Master when it pertained to His Kingdom.And the title "father" is about spiritual fatherhood;
Oh, and don't forget 2 John1 when John calls the elect (church body) the elect lady (woman) and her children. (My Emphasis).in the sense in which saint John uses it in his letters.
1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just. (saint John writes as their father)
Good for him. I don't believe he was calling them spiritual fathers, just as he simply calls the younger males...young men.1Jn 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. (Saint John writes to the fathers among the saints)
I see, well it isn't verse 14, try 15 which saysSorry, but where does he 'say' he was their spiritual father? I believe I Cor. 4:14 simply reads..."
I see. Well, thank you for your post.I see, well it isn't verse 14, try 15 which says
1Co 4:15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.I referred to verse 14 with the implication that the context would be read. so to make it as clear as I can:
1 Corinthians 4:6-21 ASV Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. (7) For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? (8) Already are ye filled, already ye are become rich, ye have come to reign without us: yea and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. (9) For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. (10) We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor. (11) Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; (12) and we toil, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; (13) being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now. (14) I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (15) For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. (16) I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me. (17) For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church. (18) Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. (19) But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of them that are puffed up, but the power. (20) For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (21) What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?
Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church? Or is it you who wants to call him that?
I think Paul is taking some pride in making this statement.. like a father might brag over his children, when he says that he begat them (mongenes= uniquely born). Some would even call this the act of born again.
Paul is telling the Corinthians they were begotten through the gospel (truth) he preached. .(My Emphasis).
And this rings true as we also see in James 1:18 that it is God that begat us with the word of truth..."Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.."
God is the Father who begat us all in the truth...the gospel. We are born again through the preaching of the true gospel. Paul did the presenting and preaching of the truth...and the were begat by God.
Paul also bragged on Onesimus Phil. 10..when he stated that he had begotten him while in bonds. Paul was not a literal father over those he helped bring to the real Father. Sometimes one can't help but brag out of pride.
No.Are you willing to overlook the Scripture that states that God begat us with the word of truth? James 1:18?
No, no assumption is required, saint Paul states it explicitly in verse 15. "I begat you"In other words, one must assume, or read into the verse that, Paul is calling himself a father of sorts.
Pharisees are not Christians. Saint Paul is a Christian. His use of "father" for himself is not an honorific to make himself seem important.the Pharisees were being hailed as someone of importance
We are off topic, in a little side-issue that you brought up as a part of the "master critique" of the papacy, "pope" apparently being a word too far (like a bridge too far) for your theology to cope. So I do not especially mind the diversion, for a little while. I am, I confess, a little surprised about how few passages relating to fatherhood your posts use. And even more surprised at how scant the exegetical information in your posts is.And tampasteve, you can stop pretending that you are some kind of neutral moderator. I see your thumbs up, when you previously suggested we were getting off topic. So much for sticking to your guns. Your preconceived leanings show.
I'm not neutral on this at all, and I didn't intend my post to seem that way. My post was pretty clear that I see the issue as being tangential to the real question of Papal supremacy. Nearly all of the churches tracing any historicity don't hold any issues with using the term "father", it's a pretty recent development to have issues with it. I see the evidences against it (essentially based around one verse) to be base and superficial, ignoring what Christ was really meaning and focusing too much on a word.And tampasteve, you can stop pretending that you are some kind of neutral moderator. I see your thumbs up, when you previously suggested we were getting off topic. So much for sticking to your guns. Your preconceived leanings show.