Matthew 23:9

How about if we all sing Faith of Our Fathers with the Adam Shores Bible Baptist Church :

http://www.asbbc.com/faith_of_our_fathers.htm

Faith of our fathers, living still
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword,
O how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene'er we hear that glorious word!
Faith of our fathers! holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

Our fathers, chained in prisons dark,
Were still in heart and conscience free;
And blest would be their children's fate,
If they, like them should die for thee:
Faith of our fathers! holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto thee;
And through the truth that comes from God
Mankind shall then indeed be free.
Faith of our fathers! holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!

Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife,
And preach thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.
Faith of our fathers! holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death!


God Bless

 

Thessolonian,

Whatever the circumstances, the Bereans were never told that they did not have the authority to check Paul's message with the scriptures to see if it was true. There is no mention here of the fact that the Bereans were not able to interpret the scriptures outside of Paul and the other apostles teachings, to the contrary it stays in line with the NUMBER of scriptures that showed us the emphasis of their teaching was proved by scripture alone.

This is a fine example of how the catholic church must "spin" the meaning to justify their own doctrine of infallibilty with no lay person being allowed to question whether or not what the pope or the church says is true. That scripture needs no further explanation since they were not reprimanded for questioning the authority of Paul. Why is that? Because unlike the catholic church, what Paul was preaching was in agreement with the scripture, Paul had nothing to hide.

Biblically we see that Christ gave us an example as he asked "Have you never read in the scriptures?", the apostles always emphasized that what they were preaching was written in the scripture and instead of interpreting it, they often quoted it. The whole picture reveals that the scripture is the basis for our believing any testimony to be true.

These verses confirm that we are not only allowed to understand the scriptures, we are expected to already have knowledge of them. No verses say that we can only have knowledge of them as interpreted by the catholic church.

~Lorelei

 

Please get off your high horse and deal with reality. I shared a hospital room with an Anglican priest who got angry with me because I wouldn't acknowledge him as Father. He was even envious that others would call me pastor when they entered. He was not their Father, and was not addressed as such. His poor pride had been hurt.

No, technically not; not if one has freedom of speech--or soul liberty. You could call him the antichrist, or the false prophet. You are at liberty to do so.

[QOUTE] further you muddy the water on this thread with your arguement. The arguement of saying that Mt. 23:9 of calling anyone father is not the same arguement as calling the Pope Holy Father. I don't think that the Bible intends to expound every title anyone on earth should have. There are titles for God which also apply to man, such as Holy One.[/QUOTE]
Now who is muddying the water? In the context where God is called the Holy One, it refers to the fact that God alone is holy. No one else is holy. How can an unholy person like you or I stand before a holy God? It is an impossibility. Don't deceive yourself into thinking that you are holy. You are not.

On the contrary, the opposite has been demonstrated. The Scriptures used by the Catholics on this board have been amply refuted, and then just reposted again and again, is if the refutation has not even been read. You just keep ignoring the evidence.

God gave a covenantal promise to Abraham to make him a father of many nations. Did He do the same to your priest? I think not! He changed the name of Jacob to Israel, meaning prince and gave him the same promise, meaning a prince among nations.
By your reasoning then we should call each other Prince so and so??

The bias is on what the Bible teaches which is against the Catholic church teaches. We believe what the bible teaches. The interpretation is based on the Bible.

Paul was as a father to Timothy when he took him under his wing, and treated him as a son. He took him on his missionary journeys and treated him as his son. The relationship was different and unusual. The fact that John addresses his hearers as "my children" or "My little children" is no indication that he considered himself as their father, even though at that time he was a very aged man. The reference to children is to children of God, which we all are, if we have put our trust in Christ. The other reference to children in 1John 2 was in a physical sense. He addresses chilren as young men. He addresses the fathers--not as priests but as physical fathers.

2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
--children of God having a relationship with their heavenly Father.

2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
--Note the difference between fathers and young men. This is a physical differentiation.

And you point is? Perhaps ignorance. What was said is true. The punctuation and captilization was put in later, much of it by the translators themselves. So in reading there obviously was no difference between father, and Father.
In many places of the Bible it takes a proper study of the Scriptures to know what paragraphs should be connected. Sometimes the translators were not accurate in paragraph differentiatin. But then if you don't believe in sola scriptura, you would not understand that concept anyway.
DHK

 

I would say this is more catholic habadashery. I never said they did. I said they demanded that their titles were scriptrual. Is that true, or are you telling me that they agree with me that the titles have no scirptural basis?

The argument is muddied because we chose to show what scripture really says?

You don't think? That's not really a solid basis for me being able to believe your argument. As much as you are probably used to agreeing with the church because they say so, I am not inclined to do the same. I need solid proof, not what you seem to think is the intent.

What we know is what I have already stated. No where in the Bible will you see these titles used to address any one person. The titles were never applied to individuals, they were used to address the body as whole. What you are and Who you are, are two different things. See above posts for further clarification.

And I think it has been quite clearly shown to be a false teaching that violates scripture.

No it does not. Kathryn has admitted that the Bible shows no man being called "holy father" and you admit that:

So though their doctrine may be coherent to you, it is not following what scripture says since the scriptures do not tell us to do this.

Since neither of you believe in sola scriptura I am wondering why you both seem so intent to have to prove otherwise. All you have to do is admit that the church uses them even though the Bible never does.

~Lorelei

 

No I can not because of "Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." This is our only spiritual Father because if it was our physical father it would contradict "Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

 

"Please get off your high horse and deal with reality. I shared a hospital room with an Anglican priest who got angry with me because I wouldn't acknowledge him as Father:

Last I checked, I wasn't Anglican. Now if you have an example a little closer to home please let me know.

 

I can't let this discussion go by without mentioning the NAB footnote on Mt 23:8 - the U.S. Bishops of the RCC condemn themselves and all Catholics as not being disciples of Christ - http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm#foot6

"The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests" that the RCC's Bishops in the U.S. don't consider themselves or their fellow Catholics disciples of Christ!

 

Is that all you can come up with Thessalonian. Both Anglicans and Catholics use the same reasoning, the same Scriptures to try and prove their case that their priests should be called "Father." Both become disgruntled when you don't. If you have to just insert the word Catholic in place of Anglican, and then you will understand my point a little clearer.
DHK

 

Is that all you can come up with Thessalonian. Both Anglicans and Catholics use the same reasoning, the same Scriptures to try and prove their case that their priests should be called "Father." Both become disgruntled when you don't. If you have to just insert the word Catholic in place of Anglican, and then you will understand my point a little clearer.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if it were me in the hospital, next to an Anglican clergyman, I would simply call him "Rev."

But I suspect that the title-O-clasts would object to that title as well...

Well, let's see, perhaps "Sir" then?

Nope, still a title...

Perhaps "hey you" is the only thing you could do...?????

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Is that all you can come up with Thessalonian. Both Anglicans and Catholics use the same reasoning, the same Scriptures to try and prove their case that their priests should be called "Father." Both become disgruntled when you don't. If you have to just insert the word Catholic in place of Anglican, and then you will understand my point a little clearer.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]It is all the time I wanted to waste on you. Isn't it the Anglicans who came up with the most "perfect Bible ever". The King James Version. He wasn't a Baptist you know.

 

Thessalonian said:

Sheeeeeeeeeshhhhhhhhhhhhhh, be quiet! You just might wake-up the "KJV-Only" crowd! (If they are not already alive here in this forum already.)

In the early days, before the internet, using BBs's (hobby type bulletin boards) as our way of posting comments via the FidoNet backbone, I actually had one of them tell me that Paul really and truly preached from the KJV!

I have "Dr." Peter Ruckman, the archpreacher of this nonsense, here in my town! I'm so lucky!

(I visited his bookstore, first removing the rosary that was hanging from my rear-view mirror, and took a sneak peak inside.
Talk about upchuck time.....)

Keep 'em thinking, Thess!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

Didn't he??

 

Do y'all have anything against Textus Receptus onlyism?

 

I don't. In fact I believe that the Textus Receptus is essentially the text in which the Word of God has been preserved. In reality we have two different Bibles: that which originates from the Critical Text (most of the modern versions), and that which originates from the Textus Receptus, which I believe is more accurate and closer to what the original documents actually said.
DHK