F
feedm3
Guest
No, not in the sense that every one called father is doing it because of pride. Some may just jump on the bandwagon, yet is humble in heart. Yet, Paul's usage as I said was not in the sense of he wanted to be exalted, nor named "father Paul". I am sure he knew the Lord's command concerning this, and would not violate it. As for "my son" "child" Jesus did not comment on that, why would I? I am speaking what Jesus said in plain words, along with the other names mentioned, the context of being prideful. At the least, even if I did not think it was wrong to call someone that out of spritual meaning, i would not because of what is plainly stated. Yet I do not see a name being added to oneself as lawful, especaclly a name He specifaclly forbade..
And how is the Catholic usage demonstrated in this portion of my post: Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). inconsistent with that usage?
That's correct we don't know at all. We do not it's not there, so we can say with all assurance that no where is the name found in the Bible. I know for sure that NOT calling someone Father is not a sin. I will base my beliefs on what I do know rather than what I don't. If new light comes to me through others in study, then I am happy to change what I believe to keep my conscience clean knowing I am abiding in the will of God.Meh. We don't have any of the letters written from, say, Timothy to Paul, so we can never actually know how the congregations addressed Paul or how these men who Paul describes as "his sons" addressed him.
Nothing so far mentioned on this subject has ever convinced me, soundly, that I can call a man father. So it would be a sin for me either way, just as eating meat sacrificed to idols can be a sin for one who just believes its wrong and still does it, because other do it - I Cor 8.
As I said I do not believe Paul violated the Lord's command in the way he used the term, as for others who add it to their name, I cannot say that with the same assurance. You may, but I cant.
Well this is really a whole other topic, but I will say in the NT we are all referred to as "priests", with only one High priest Christ. The entomology of the word, I never looked up, yet does not mean if has the same function. But before I say too much, I will look into the words and see more about what your talking about.Somewhat. The office of Priest comes from the presbyters which performed the same function as priests today (the word priest actual comes directly from presbyter by way of French). The Apostles exercised authority over multiple congregations, which Bishops do today as descendants of the Apostles.
Yes the Apostles did exercise their authority over multiple congregations, your right there. Yet the Apostles are the only ones who were given that authority, the only authority they themselves gave was sending other men to appoint elders within each congregation. And these congregations remained autonomous. Of course I don't believe the apostle office, nor rule was passed down through time, it ended with the death of the Apostles, and as the Bible was written and put together to give us the unity of the faith, the authority lies in the word of God, which is now by the written word. No one has authority over scripture. The Apostles and writers of the NT commanded the congregation to submit to those who were in the offices, of course not if anything they did violated the word of God.
Last edited by a moderator: