Democracy in the Kingdom of God

[TER]

Mathew 23.9

We don't call those who disciple in the faith "father" in biblical Christianity. Perhaps being a bible believer is no longer or in fact ever was Orthodox.

I am not sure what you mean by 'biblical Christianity' but I assume you are referring to the tradition of Sola Scriptura which was started relatively recently.

In the Scriptures themselves we find St. Paul calling himself a spiritual father to the believers in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 4:15

For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

But I do appreciate your qualification of 'we don't call those who disciple in the faith father'. Yet Jesus didn't say that in Matthew. He said call no man father. Do you believe, therefore, that it is a sin to call your father 'father' regardless if he disciplines you in the faith?

[donnay]

TER is referring to Big-C Churches. Specifically, those of Apostolic Lineage (Roman Catholic and non-schismatic Eastern Orthodox).

I understand, Thanks. Lot's of churches have traditions that are not necessarily Biblical but twist the translation to make people believe it is traditions of God and are not. The Rapture Theory is a good example. That's why out of the seven churches in the book of Revelations, Jesus commended Smyrna and Philadelphia for being faithful and following God's word and not traditions of men.

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”


Matthew 15:2 - 15:6

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he [Christ] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.


2 Thessalonians 3:6

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

[TER]

Donnay, you continue to ignore the question I asked you earlier. If we can continue with that dialogue, perhaps we can then move onto the quotes you mention above and discuss how they fit in.

I will try again: Did the Apsotles start any traditions?

[heavenlyboy34]

I understand, Thanks. Lot's of churches have traditions that are not necessarily Biblical but twist the translation to make people believe it is traditions of God and are not. The Rapture Theory is a good example. That's why out of the seven churches in the book of Revelations, Jesus commended Smyrna and Philadelphia for being faithful and following God's word and not traditions of men.

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”


Matthew 15:2 - 15:6

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he [Christ] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.


2 Thessalonians 3:6

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Indeed. Proper tradition is that handed down from ancestors long past, not charlatans on teevee and pop media and assorted modern heretical groups. ~hugs~

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[TER]

I would add that you are correct donnay in that there exist traditions which can be castigated as 'traditions of men' or 'traditions apart from God'. No one is denying this. The question is, how can we know which are the bad traditions which St. Paul is alluding to in some of the quotes above and which are the good traditions which St. Paul is alluding to in the others? Here is a hint: What did the same St. Paul say was the bulwark and foundation for the truth? Perhaps knowing that, we might better know which are the God-inspired traditions beneficial to the Christian and which are not and should be avoided.

In one breath, you post a quote which gives the impression that traditions (in general) are bad, and then in another, a quote which speaks to the traditions of the Apostles and how they must be handed down. The question, as asked above, is who or what determines which traditions are beneficial and which are not, which should be discarded and which should of be faithfully followed and handed down?

[donnay]

Donnay, you continue to ignore the question I asked you earlier. If we can continue with that dialogue, perhaps we can then move onto the quotes you mention above and discuss how they fit in.

I will try again: Did the Apsotles start any traditions?

I don't quite follow, in what respect--on their own accord or through the words of Jesus?

[TER]

I don't quite follow, in what respect--on their own accord or through the words of Jesus?

Through the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But more specifically, for reasons of this current dialogue, through the Holy Spirit after Christ ascended to be at the Right Hand of the Father.

[donnay]

I would add that you are correct donnay in that there exist traditions which can be castigated as 'traditions of men' or 'traditions apart from God'. No one is denying this. The question is, how can we know which are the bad traditions which St. Paul is alluding to in some of the quotes above and which are the good traditions which St. Paul is alluding to in the others? Here is a hint: What did the same St. Paul say was the bulwark and foundation for the truth? Perhaps knowing that, we might better know which are the God-inspired traditions beneficial to the Christian and which are not and should be avoided.

In one breath, you post a quote which gives the impression that traditions (in general) are bad, and then in another, a quote which speaks to the traditions of the Apostles and how they must be handed down. The question, as asked above, is who or what determines which traditions are beneficial and which are not, which should be discarded and which should of be faithfully followed and handed down?

I did answer your question: II Timothy 2:15 KJV


2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It is incumbent to each person to seek the truth and not listen to men, per se.

[TER]

I did answer your question: II Timothy 2:15 KJV


2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It is incumbent to each person to seek the truth and not listen to men, per se.

Then why did St. Paul tell his spiritual children to listen to him and to the Apostles? Were they not men? Perhaps because the authority lay not in them, but in the Holy Spirit in them?? And if so, perhaps it is because of the Holy Spirit in them which gives the authority regarding dividing which are good traditions and which are bad.

[TER]

Btw, while there are local non-dogmatic traditions which vary from region or nation and ones which change in time and space according to the challenges being faced by the members, the notion that we are to hand on to the teachings of our fathers before us is a fundamental Christian teaching, completely consistent with the history of Israel's relationship with God and the teachings handed down by Christ to His Apostles and the Church. We can say to be wary of traditions which are apart from God, but at the same time we should earnestly seek to find which are the ones which are according to His pleasure.

When we put even just a small effort in studying the writings of the early witnesses, we clearly learn how important good traditions are according to Christ and the Apostles, and to the Church Fathers and the Saints of the early Church. A great part, perhaps the very essence, of being a Christian is one of obedience and control over one's own will in order to find the will of God. This includes following the commandments of God and the traditions of God (whether in word or epistle) and no more reliably visible is the will of God discerned than through the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. For it is God Himself working within the Church which gives it such great a power, just as it was God Himself working through the Church in the writing of the Holy Scriptures, which was one part of the fulfillment of the apostolic commission.

[Biblefundyfun]

I am not sure what you mean by 'biblical Christianity' but I assume you are referring to the tradition of Sola Scriptura which was started relatively recently.

In the Scriptures themselves we find St. Paul calling himself a spiritual father to the believers in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 4:15

For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

But I do appreciate your qualification of 'we don't call those who disciple in the faith father'. Yet Jesus didn't say that in Matthew. He said call no man father. Do you believe, therefore, that it is a sin to call your father 'father' regardless if he disciplines you in the faith?

Ive always called my dad, dad. You're drawing a long bow to suggest Paul stating that Timothy is his son in the Lord that this opens the door to label oneself "Father" considering Christ commanded us not to do so. Further more in the scripture you have provided we do NOT find Paul referring to himself as "Spiritual Father" at all he is clearly pointing out that only Christ saves not ten thousand blokes in black robes calling themselves "Father"

Trusting only in the scripture is not new. Any good preacher of the word will tell those listening to go the scripture to confirm what is being preached and taught to insure it is in perfect alignment. That said it might be a new idea in the Roman Catholic Church

[heavenlyboy34]

Ive always called my dad, dad. You're drawing a long bow to suggest Paul stating that Timothy is his son in the Lord that this opens the door to label oneself "Father" considering Christ commanded us not to do so. Further more in the scripture you have provided we do NOT find Paul referring to himself as "Spiritual Father" at all he is clearly pointing out that only Christ saves not ten thousand blokes in black robes calling themselves "Father"

Trusting only in the scripture is not new. Any good preacher of the word will tell those listening to go the scripture to confirm what is being preached and taught to insure it is in perfect alignment. That said it might be a new idea in the Roman Catholic Church

Sola Scriptura (as an "official" sort of doctrine and such and as Reformers mean it) is new (in the grand scheme of things) to ALL Christianity. Same for the other Solas and a bunch of other things.

[TER]

Ive always called my dad, dad. You're drawing a long bow to suggest Paul stating that Timothy is his son in the Lord that this opens the door to label oneself "Father" considering Christ commanded us not to do so. Further more in the scripture you have provided we do NOT find Paul referring to himself as "Spiritual Father" at all he is clearly pointing out that only Christ saves not ten thousand blokes in black robes calling themselves "Father"

Trusting only in the scripture is not new. Any good preacher of the word will tell those listening to go the scripture to confirm what is being preached and taught to insure it is in perfect alignment. That said it might be a new idea in the Roman Catholic Church

Trusting only in Scripture is most definitely an innovative doctrine which is completely foreign to the teachings and writings of the Apostles and early Church Fathers. The rest of your post seems like word-play.

Let's slow things down a little bit...

If I call my father 'father', am I sinning against God?

[Biblefundyfun]

Trusting only in Scripture is most definitely an innovative doctrine which is completely foreign to the teachings and writings of the Apostles and early Church Fathers. The rest of your post seems like word-play.

Let's slow things down a little bit...

If I call my father 'father', am I sinning against God?

Point 1. In what circles is trusting in scripture innovative?

If this place was any slower bro, I might start believing in evolution.

If christ said "call no man father" then I must assume he means everyone so yes it is a sin if that's what the lord meant.

[Natural Citizen]

If christ said "call no man father" then I must assume he means everyone so yes it is a sin if that's what the lord meant.

My dad was fond of reminding me of this, too.

I'd have to agree with you here.

[TER]

Point 1. In what circles is trusting in scripture innovative?

It is not that trusting in scripture is innovative, but rather that trusting in scripture alone which is innovative when judged against the historical writings and witness of the Christian Church going back to the earliest writings. Please don't build strawmen.

If this place was any slower bro, I might start believing in evolution.

Ok.

If christ said "call no man father" then I must assume he means everyone so yes it is a sin if that's what the lord meant.

Well, is that what the Lord meant? If so, then why the change by you?

Above you qualified your statement with 'those who discipline in the faith' should not be called father. Why is this qualification not necessary anymore?

[TER]

My dad was fond of reminding me of this, too.

I'd have to agree with you here.

Christ also said in Matthew 23 'do not be called teachers', and yet later on He refers to Nicodemus as one. Did Christ contradict Himself?

Perhaps the spirit of what Christ is saying (which happens to be the understanding of the Church from the beginning, including St. Paul who called himself the father of those whom he brought the gospel to), is that we are to understand that our Father in Heaven alone is the source of all things, including knowledge and wisdom, and that we should of put no one else above Him or as a replacement, for God alone is the Father. Whether we call our paternal dad 'father' means nothing as long as we understand it is God above through whom all things find being.

[erowe1]

Sola Scriptura (as an "official" sort of doctrine and such and as Reformers mean it) is new (in the grand scheme of things) to ALL Christianity. Same for the other Solas and a bunch of other things.

Why do you believe this?

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway, it doesn't appear that the author has a grasp on Democracy versus A Democracy. Which fundamentally flaws the logic in his personal assessment.

[erowe1]

I am not sure what you mean by 'biblical Christianity' but I assume you are referring to the tradition of Sola Scriptura which was started relatively recently.

In the Scriptures themselves we find St. Paul calling himself a spiritual father to the believers in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 4:15

For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

But I do appreciate your qualification of 'we don't call those who disciple in the faith father'. Yet Jesus didn't say that in Matthew. He said call no man father. Do you believe, therefore, that it is a sin to call your father 'father' regardless if he disciplines you in the faith?

Paul was the spiritual father of the Corinthians and others in the sense that it was under his preaching that they first came to faith in Jesus. This is just a statement of fact. "Father" was not an honorific title he had, or wished them to apply to him.

[TER]

When the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bossom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham," Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called 'father'?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember. . .

[TER]

Paul was the spiritual father of the Corinthians and others in the sense that it was under his preaching that they first came to faith in Jesus. This is just a statement of fact. "Father" was not an honorific title he had, or wished them to apply to him.

and how do you know this? I am not saying he did or didn't, I am simply asking how you know.

[TER]

Anyway, it doesn't appear that the author has a grasp on Democracy versus A Democracy. Which fundamentally flaws the logic in his personal assessment.

Please elaborate.

[Natural Citizen]

Please elaborate.

Yeah, I will. I'm going to follow up there in my placeholder on the first page. I want to avoid contributing to the direction the thread went so I'll go back there where my thought was on the op itself.

[TER]

Why do you believe this?

Because of writings which include the Holy Scriputres and the writings of the Church Fathers of the apostolic era and afterwards.

[Biblefundyfun]

Let's slow down a bit..what do you think Christ meant when he said "call no man father"? And do you think all the blokes referring to themselves and being called father Are sinning? If you are going to add other biblical references to the discussion , please provide them, you have already said Paul reffred to himself as spiritual father when he did nothing sort he sort in the scripture you provided. Why?

[TER]

Let's slow down a bit..what do you think Christ meant when he said "call no man father"? And do you think all the blokes referring to themselves and being called father Are sinning? If you are going to add other biblical references to the discussion , please provide them, you have already said Paul reffred to himself as spiritual father when he did nothing sort he sort in the scripture you provided. Why?

Was Timothy his biological son? He called Timothy his son. That would make Paul a father to him. Since St. Paul had no biological children, and when one reads the words of his epistles, it is clear that he is referencing himself as Timothy's spiritual father. Indeed, as the spiritual father to all in Corinth. This does not mean he put himself above God the Father, which is what Christ warned against.

[erowe1]

This passage, treating the question of the resurrection of our bodies, has traditionally also been seen as a reference to differences in eternity between one person and another. Christ Himself speaks of some as being “greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven,” or as being “least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” In the same manner, He speaks of some as having a “greater condemnation” than others, implying greater and lesser sufferings in hell.

These distinctions undermine the legal framework of salvation taught by many who hold to a disordered understanding of salvation. There is an extreme version within the legal model that holds that we are saved by grace alone, with no regard whatsoever to our works. If our salvation is truly a legal matter, if God “considers” us righteous simply because we believe (and that’s the end of the matter), then why indeed would He consider one more righteous than another. Thus, a kind of equality of grace is argued because anything else would seem unjust (if there is no merit involved whatsoever). But in the classical model of salvation, “grace” is not God’s “unmerited favor,” (simply a matter of how God thinks about us), it is, quite literally, the Divine Life, the Divine Energies. It is the life and power of God given to us in order to change us and conform us to the Divine Image through our union with the Crucified and Risen Christ. And though no individual can possibly save themselves (because we cannot ourselves manufacture the Divine Energies), nonetheless, for varying reasons, some yield themselves more fully and completely to this work within them. Some, indeed, become great saints.

The author makes bunches of errors here. First of all, nowhere does he establish that the distinctions between people in the resurrection are a function of some being more righteous than others, as he says.

More importantly, he ignores the most explicit passage of Scripture addressing the differing degrees of reward for saints, which is a passage that totally undermines his argument: 1 Corinthians 3:10-14. This passage explicitly recognizes the distinction that the author of the OP tries to deny. The basis of salvation itself, and the basis of different rewards for the saved are two different things. The latter is a function of works. But a saint who lacks good works will not on that account not be saved, they will still be saved, but lack the additional rewards that they could have had by good works.

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

[TER]

The author makes bunches of errors here. First of all, nowhere does he establish that the distinctions between people in the resurrection are a function of some being more righteous than others, as he says.

More importantly, he ignores the most explicit passage of Scripture addressing the differing degrees of reward for saints, which is a passage that totally undermines his argument: 1 Corinthians 3:10-14. This passage explicitly recognizes the distinction that the author of the OP tries to deny. The basis of salvation itself, and the basis of different rewards for the saved are two different things. The latter is a function of works. But a saint who lacks good works will not on that account not be saved, they will still be saved, but lack the additional rewards that they could have had by good works.

So you do agree that there be will those called great in the Kindgom of Heaven and those called the least in the Kindgom of Heaven (as Christ described), and what distinguishes these are the rewards they were given on account of the good works they did?

[erowe1]

So you do agree that there be will those called great in the Kindgom of Heaven and those called the least in the Kindgom of Heaven (as Christ described), and what distinguishes these are the rewards they were given on account of the good works they did?

Of course I do. If you're surprised by that, then you know much less about the beliefs you often criticize than you think you do.