Pages

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The definitive Paul vs James debate: the end of Protestantism is near!

I happened across one of the most astonishing admissions in the history of Reformed Protestant scholarship. One of the most renowned Reformed scholars, Dr. Buchanan, said this in his 400 page tome, The Doctrine of Justification:
'There is not in all the Scriptures,' says one [opponent], 'an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another. There is not in all the Bible one assertion that Adam's sin, or Christ's righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man. Having followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.'
These are bold statements, and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine, as well as a criticism on the term, by which it has been usually expressed; but we refer at present only to the latter. Every reader of his English Bible, without the aid of critical scholarship, may discover,—and it has never been denied, so far as we know, by any competent divine,—that the verbs in question are applicable to cases, in which that which is imputed to any one was personally his own beforehand,—that one man, for instance, who is righteous, is reckoned and treated as righteous; and that another man who is wicked, is reckoned and treated as wicked. But the question is, Whether the same verbs may not be equally applicable to other cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his own, and did not previously belong to him, but became his only by its being put down to his account?
The debt due, and the wrong done, by Onesimus to Philemon, were not chargeable against Paul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being imputed to him: 'If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account,' or 'impute that to me;' 'I will repay it.' In like manner, 'He, who knew no sin, was made sin for us,' and 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree,'—not that our sins were chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on God's part, and voluntary susception on His own. If it be said, that the mere word 'impute' is not employed in this case, it may be asked, whether there be any other which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself is not used in a parallel case, when God is said 'to impute righteousness without works,' as often as 'He justifieth the ungodly?' (Part II, Lecture XII, Proposition XVII)
This quote is astonishing for in it contains a hidden admission that Protestantism is founded upon a grand scam, one of the greatest cover-ups in Christian history. This admission by Buchanan actually surpasses the admission by Dr Albert Barnes (which I also commented upon Here).

Buchanan starts off by quoting an opponent who claims that the Bible never teaches: (a) Adam's sin was imputed to us; (b) Christ's Righteousness was imputed to us; (c) our sins were imputed to Christ. Further, the opponent claims there is not a single example of the Biblical Greek or Hebrew terms for "impute" ever being used in such manner.

"These are bold statements," Buchanan admits. And Buchanan says this for good reason: this claim, if true, refutes the entire doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Notice how Buchanan proceeds to "address" this objection. He begins by admitting that the term "impute," as used in Scripture, is often applied to situations where someone is imputed (or reckoned) to be (or have) something that he actually was (or actually did have). In his words, the Bible uses "impute" in such a way as to say someone who is actually righteous is reckoned and treated as righteous. The only question, Buchanan proceeds to raise, is whether "impute" is used to mean something is imputed to someone that doesn't actually belong to that person. Here is where the great scam takes place.

As Buchanan's sole and definitive proof that the Bible uses "impute" to support the Protestant position, Buchanan references the situation of Philemon 1:18, where Paul tells Philemon to "charge" (impute) any debts of Onesimus to Paul's account instead. What Buchanan hides from the reader (recall he said this was basic enough for a layman reading an English Bible) is that the term for "impute" in Philemon is the Greek word ellogeo, which is only used one other (non-relevant) place in Scripture! In other words, this isn't even the same Greek word for "impute" - the Greek word logizomai - that the New Testament uses almost 40 times, and which Paul uses about 30 times, including when speaking of "reckoned as righteousness". It is a classical scam of bait-and-switch: starting off speaking of one issue, but then shifting the focus onto a second (unrelated) issue.

By Buchanan's own admission, though totally indirect, he couldn't even come up with a true counter-example to what his opponent originally charged. And if that wasn't enough, he "concludes" by admitting that even though the term "impute" is never actually used in the cases of Adam's sin to us or our sin to Christ, we none the less can assume (fallaciously begging the question) that this concept is taught using other language. I've seen this very same argument and logic used by Charles Hodge, James White, and William Webster, to name a few.

When I say this is one of the biggest cover-ups in Christian history, I don't say that lightly. This is about scholars who end up shamelessly hiding the truth, even in the midst of unwittingly admitting their Justification thesis is bad, and in a desperate attempt to defend it they end up employing the most absurd and false arguments. This information is so damning that as the word continues to spread, more and more 'aware' Protestants will leave Protestantism, while their apologists will eventually have to face up to these facts as well. It is because of issues like these that I believe we are living in the last days of Protestantism.

Help spread the word!

35 comments:

Stevo said...

Well done, I can't defend sola fide anymore.

Nick said...

Good to hear Stevo. I'm glad this post helped you out.

Jae said...

Right on the mark, Nick. For me the two Bible verses that really dealt a death blow to the "Faith alone" are:

1.) "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:17 RSV)

2.) "And though I have ALL Faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have no Love (good works), I am NOTHING." (1 Corinthian 13:2)

There is no denying that Apostle Paul must have known the teaching of Apostle James from the other side of the world.

Jim Paton said...

"The end of Protestantism is near!"

I would love to be able to say "I told you so" :¬)

Spoils23m said...

Nick,

Nice article, mate. Excellent finds on Protestant admissions on "logizomai." Back in the 1990s, when I first saw Catholic apologists addressing the Protestant assumptions about the understandings of this word, I knew it would eventually get us here.

For the Christians who are part of the traditions most influenced (in their soteriology) by the Lutheran and Reformed movements, this is a BIG DEAL. "The doctrine on which the Church stands or falls," has, for me, been shown to be based on faulty exegesis, erroneous theological presuppositions, etc... and, therefore, is to be jettisoned.

Thanks again, mate... nice job!

Spoils

Spoils23m said...

p.s.

This is forcing adherents of the traditional understanding of Sola Fide to choose between Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide... Again, I think that this is a big deal. Thanks...

Nick said...

Yes, you are precisely on the mark!

This is very damning information, and we already see the wedge between Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura starting in the New Perspective on Paul movement. What is really going to happen though is that more and more Lutheran and Reformed are going to look at logizomai, abandon SF, but look at SS, and know the NPP has got it wrong as well.

Spoils23m said...

Nick.

I have noticed the tendency, among Protestants most influenced (at least soteriologically) by the Lutheran and Reformed branches to link "ellogeo" and "logizomai" for the purposes of "justifying" (pun, so-very intended) their conceptualization of the Pauline teaching on the mechanism of justification.

I actually like some of what Dr. Leithhart has to write, but, when I stumbled upon this article I thought it pertinent to this discussion.

Look where he tries to take the exegesis of "ellogeo" in this article... it goes well beyond simply making it a synonym for the preferred Reformed understanding of "logizomai," but gets into scapegoats and penal substitutes.

Check it out: http://www.leithart.com/archives/print/000756.php

Nick said...

I have kept a very keen eye out for Protestants who falsely "study" logizomai under the cloak of ellogeo and believe it's a mixture of ignorance, deception, and blindly parroting other Protestants who do it. One of the most anti-Catholic attempts at that is William Webster's justification article.

Leithart isn't explicitly guilty of confusing ellogeo and logizomai, but he could be if he clarified certain things. As you said, he starts to go that direction in regards to 'imputing sins', but he doesn't seem to be pushing that in such a way as to "prove" imputation against Catholicism, and instead offering a simple reflection.

What was very good about his "conclusion" is that he rejects the bogus "covenant of works" which Reformed theology is so dependent upon. He would likely be considered a heretic by most Reformed. Looking on his webpage, he has a very favorable view of Catholics, even inviting them to common Communion, so he's going to be in trouble there as well.

David Meyer said...

"It is because of issues like these that I believe we are living in the last days of Protestantism."

I pray so. But unfortunately, most protestants simply dont care about imputation anymore. They couldnt describe what it is and could care less some old dusties like Luther and Calvin got things wrong. To the modern evangelical, even if imputation/sola fide is proven baseless, they will shrug and pompously remain in schism. Protestantism has largely already ended in my opinion. The former protestors just are not returning to the Church, they are lost at sea.

Nick said...

David,

You are correct, most Protestants don't care about imputation...nor much of any other doctrine for that matter. And in that sense, Protestantism has already fizzled out.

But here is the catch, there still remains an "intellectual" strain within Protestantism, notably the Confessional types of Reformed and Lutheran. These are the "conservative" folks who are still attending seminaries, concerned about being "Biblical," and are backing the major radio waves and noteworthy blogs. Once these people disappear, there will truly be nothing left of Protestantism, for no "intellectual" would subscribe to it. All those guys are holding on to the idea Sola Fide is true and is the make-or-break doctrine of all time. As long as they continue to believe in the whole SF package, they will remain Protestant, even if only a minority.

David Meyer said...

Excellent point. Actually, in 2001 I went from the wishy-washy evangelicalism to Reformed precicely for the reasons you mention. I heard RC Sprouls radio show, was quite impressed with the intelectual depth, and decided to be Reformed. If only I had flipped on the Catholic radio instead! (assuming I would have heard something intelectual, which is not guaranteed by any means). Even my cradle Catholic wife at the time suggested Catholicism, but I was horrified at the mere suggestion because of evangelical conditioning.
This is why ANY contact with Catholics like you and me is so important for Protestants. For the evangelical, it may burst their bubble that Catholics are "of the devil", for Reformed/Lutherans, it bursts their intelectual bubble that they think they have the corner on. If Catholicism makes sense, (or if one of the 2 pillars of the reformation does not make sense) years of seminary training can suddennly point them to the Church. My point:
It takes very little for a faithful Catholic to leave a BIG impression on an Evangelical or even a intelectual confessional Reformed/Lutheran. The opposite is NOT the case however.
We have the advantage.
Suit up.
March on.
I agree that the end is near.
Keep up the fight Nick!

PS. I am working on a post similar to this one but about the E. Orthodox. They may not be near an "end", but they will be rapidly declining in the next century in comparison to Catholicism. Stay tuned for the proof.

Christians Truth said...

I am a Christian. I am not a Protestant. If you would like to hear the true Word of God, please visit my blog site, especially my blog Catholic Influence Demolished, and Catholic Influence Demolished Part 2. I would love to show you and your supporters the error of your beliefs. God bless.

De Maria said...

Christians Truth said...
I am a Christian. I am not a Protestant. If you would like to hear the true Word of God, please visit my blog site, especially my blog Catholic Influence Demolished, and Catholic Influence Demolished Part 2. I would love to show you and your supporters the error of your beliefs. God bless.


Hi, I visited your blog and your articles are comprehensive and very long. I prefer to discuss one subject at a time. I think that it is more beneificial that way for everyone. Especially the readers. They don't have to slog through so many confusing doctrines. However, we can examine each doctrine in detail when we do it one at a time.

What's wrong with discussing the subject here being presented, "faith alone". Scripture says, "not by faith only" (James 2:24).

You may not be Protestant, but you certainly aren't Catholic and you probably agree with the Protestants on that score. So, anytime you want to discuss the false doctrine introduced by Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers with which you probably agree, I'm ready to do so, here, at your blog or at my own.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Just getting my followups.

Christians Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christians Truth said...

Hi De Maria, Thank you for visiting my blog. I hope that you read my posts on Catholicism.

There is nothing wrong with discussing the subject of faith alone on your comment section here. However, I do not believe as the Protestants on faith alone. Yes, I believe that we are first saved on faith alone but that there must be an acknowledgment of being a sinner and being sorry for those sins, and there must be the desire in obeying all of Jesus’ teachings. After Jesus saves us, we must allow the Holy Spirit to work through us while we are conscience of working out our salvation. You might already know this but, Protestants do not believe we can even believe in Jesus after learning of him, and that we cannot believe in Jesus until AFTER he saves us. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that. We can believe in Jesus on our own after learning of him. In fact, the Bible says that is how we have faith.

I definitely think that we could discuss one subject at a time; however, do I understand you correctly in that you only want to discuss the false doctrines of Calvinists (Protestants) and not that of Catholics? I hope we can discuss openly together what each of us believes to be false no matter from which denomination we do not agree. What say you?

De Maria said...

Christians Truth said...
Hi De Maria, Thank you for visiting my blog. I hope that you read my posts on Catholicism.


Thanks for coming back. I read some of your comments on Catholicism, but not all. 

There is nothing wrong with discussing the subject of faith alone on your comment section here.

This is actually Nick's blog. I visit here fairly often. If you click on my name, I believe that will take you to my blog. I'm equally comfortable here or there.

However, I do not believe as the Protestants on faith alone. Yes, I believe that we are first saved on faith alone but that there must be an acknowledgment of being a sinner and being sorry for those sins, and there must be the desire in obeying all of Jesus’ teachings.

Which comes first in your opinion? Must we first repent of our sins, obey God and be saved? Or are we saved and then begin to repent of our sins and obey God?

Based upon this verse, I believe it is the first, we must repent of our sins and begin to obey God and then God will save us:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

After Jesus saves us, we must allow the Holy Spirit to work through us while we are conscience of working out our salvation. You might already know this but, Protestants do not believe we can even believe in Jesus after learning of him, and that we cannot believe in Jesus until AFTER he saves us. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that. We can believe in Jesus on our own after learning of him. In fact, the Bible says that is how we have faith.

I agree. In fact, that is Catholic Teaching. I think that answers the question I asked above, but if I somehow misunderstood, please clarify my error. Because as I understand you, we agree that first we must believe, repent and obey and then God will save us. Is that correct?



I definitely think that we could discuss one subject at a time; however, do I understand you correctly in that you only want to discuss the false doctrines of Calvinists (Protestants) and not that of Catholics? I hope we can discuss openly together what each of us believes to be false no matter from which denomination we do not agree. What say you?

Certainly, let us discuss whatever you believe is false in Catholicism, but one at a time. I will also mention that which I believe is false in those doctrines which you bring up which contradict the Catholic Church.

Thanks again for coming back.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christians Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christians Truth said...

I am sorry that I had to delete posts and resubmit them after correcting some typing errors.

You said: This is actually Nick's blog. I visit here fairly often. If you click on my name, I believe that will take you to my blog. I'm equally comfortable here or there.

My reply: Oh, okay, I will check out your blog site and we can discuss there too.

You said: Which comes first in your opinion? Must we first repent of our sins, obey God and be saved? Or are we saved and then begin to repent of our sins and obey God?

My reply: I believe the Bible tells us that there are those Jesus saved and gave His Spirit but they did not verbally repent, see Acts 11:14-15. However, I believe that if they did not verbally repent, that they in their hearts, at the time of hearing the message, understood the full message that they heard and, in their hearts had submitted themselves completely. I hope that makes it clear, and if not, I would love to explain further. You see, from the Bible, we learn that God has given His Spirit to some after repenting, and God has given the Holy Spirit to some after hearing the message. God knows our hearts, see Acts 15:8. Again, I do believe that in hearing the message that saves, that all must have in their hearts the acknowledgment that they are sinners, and that they have every desire to obey every word of the Lord.

You said: Because as I understand you, we agree that first we must believe, repent and obey and then God will save us. Is that correct?

My reply: After reading my explanation about some people hearing the message and God giving them the Holy Spirit before verbally repenting, do you still agree with me on this topic?

Nick said...

Hello everyone, I've been away from the comp for a few days - which has been a relaxing leave of absence in a way.

Christians Truth,
I took a look at your posts and they were typical objections I and De Maria have encountered many times before. I agree with De Maria that they were not focused and instead briefly talked about various "errors" but not often really understanding the Catholic side. In fact, most of your claims can be knocked down quite easily, so it's a bit presumptuous to use the term "demolished".

De Maria said...

Christians Truth said...
I am sorry that I had to delete posts and resubmit them after correcting some typing errors.


No problem. I didn't know that was an option. I wish I had known that before, I've had comments I wish I could have deleted. I've learned something.



My reply: Oh, okay, I will check out your blog site and we can discuss there too.

Great!



My reply: I believe the Bible tells us that there are those Jesus saved and gave His Spirit but they did not verbally repent, see Acts 11:14-15. However, I believe that if they did not verbally repent, that they in their hearts, at the time of hearing the message, understood the full message that they heard and, in their hearts had submitted themselves completely.

I agree. This is a reference to St. Cornelius, the Just Centurion. And St. Cornelius had repented of paganism many years before. Even before he met St.Peter, Scripture calls him a "devout man" who "prayed to God always".

Acts 10
 1There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

I hope that makes it clear, and if not, I would love to explain further. You see, from the Bible, we learn that God has given His Spirit to some after repenting, and God has given the Holy Spirit to some after hearing the message. God knows our hearts, see Acts 15:8.

Those who heard the message had apparently already repented before they heard it as you said above. This reference (Acts 15:8) is St. Peter again speaking and I believe it is a second reference to St. Cornelius. St. Cornelius had repented of his sins, long before he heard the Gospel message.

Again, I do believe that in hearing the message that saves, that all must have in their hearts the acknowledgment that they are sinners, and that they have every desire to obey every word of the Lord.

Agreed.

My reply: After reading my explanation about some people hearing the message and God giving them the Holy Spirit before verbally repenting, do you still agree with me on this topic?

Yes. Because as you said, God reads the heart. And you also said:
However, I believe that if they did not verbally repent, that they in their hearts, at the time of hearing the message, understood the full message that they heard and, in their hearts had submitted themselves completely.

So, we've made a good beginning. So now should we discuss what it means to submit and obey? For us it means keeping the Commandments and persevering in good works. Because Scripture says:

Romans 2:13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

and in another place:
Revelation 22:14
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

What say you?

Sincerely,
De Maria

Christians Truth said...

You said: So, we've made a good beginning. So now should we discuss what it means to submit and obey? For us it means keeping the Commandments and persevering in good works. Because Scripture says:

My reply: I think it is a very good beginning. In addition, I believe that we are to submit and obey, and to keep the commandments, and persevere in good works. This is where we will begin our dispute, because of the "obey" part. I believe that Catholics do not obey enough of God’s commands. In not obeying all of God’s commands, falseness has crept in.
Let us continue to take this slow. Would you like to continue posting here?

De Maria said...

Christians Truth said...
My reply: I think it is a very good beginning. In addition, I believe that we are to submit and obey, and to keep the commandments, and persevere in good works. This is where we will begin our dispute, because of the "obey" part. I believe that Catholics do not obey enough of God’s commands. In not obeying all of God’s commands, falseness has crept in.
Let us continue to take this slow. Would you like to continue posting here?


Sure. But if you are more comfortable elsewhere, let me know.

In the meantime, which of God's commands do you believe we no longer obey?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Christians Truth said...

You said: In the meantime, which of God's commands do you believe we no longer obey?

My reply: I will discuss anywhere you would like to. As for the commands of God Catholics do not obey, these I will list:

Catholics call their leaders "father," and the priests call each other "father." Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholics call the Pope “Holy Father.” The name Jesus called God is “Holy Father” (John 17:11), this is a name reserved for God.

The Catholic Pope walks around in flowing robes, and always takes the seat of importance. Jesus teaches us not to do those things (Luke 20:46).

The Catholic Pope is reverenced by people bowing to him and having his feet kissed. However, the Word of God says not to do these things. Revelation 19:10; and, Acts 10:25-26.

Catholics claim Apostolic Succession from apostle Peter. However, the word of God tells us of no such thing; God’s word forbids us to have favoritism over the apostles. See 1 Corinthians 3:1-8; 1 Corinthians 3:18-23; 1 Corinthians 4:6.

Catholics teach that we must confess to a priest. However, Jesus is our high priest. Matthew 27:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

Catholics perform infant baptisms. Infants do not repent. Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics forbid their Nuns, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and Popes not to marry. The word of God tells us those teachings are teachings taught by demons. In addition, the Catholics teach to abstain from meat on Good Friday that is not from the scriptures. 1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Catholics believe in their traditions. See what Jesus say about tradition from men. Matthew 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Catholics elevate Mary, the mother of Jesus to that of “Mediatrix.” However, there is only one Mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5.

Catholics believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus' body. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12.

There are many scriptures telling us not to make statues, not to have idols. Here is a passage to show why not to make statues. Deuteronomy 4:15-17

Catholics incense images, statues, and relics. However, the bronze snake that Moses made was destroyed because the Israelites burned incense to it, see 2 Kings 18:1-4.

There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. God’s word is plain and clear. We must obey God.

Anonymous said...

you should all read how Luther lived and... committed suicide !

http://christ-roi.net/index.php/Luther

Tony

De Maria said...

‪Christians Truth‬ said...My reply: I will discuss anywhere you would like to. As for the commands of God Catholics do not obey, these I will list:

Thanks for your reply Christians Truth. If you don't mind, let us take each one of those objections, one at a time. Let us begin with this one. You said:

Catholics call their leaders "father," and the priests call each other "father." Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven…..

First, let us go to Matt 23 and see the entire context of that verse. The KJV renders it thus:

Matthew 23:8-10
 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
I think you would agree with me that the original Scriptures were not written in English. They were written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. And the words here translated Rabbi, Master and Father mean other things. Let us look at another non-Catholic translation:

Matthew 23:8-10
 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

So, I would not call anyone "Rabbi" because I'm not Jewish. So, forbidding to call anyone "Rabbi" would not affect me. However, Rabbi means Teacher and I've called all my teachers, "Teacher". Have I sinned?

In fact, I know many who have called their teachers, Teacher. And they are devout people from many Christian faiths. But many non-Catholics seem to be only concerned about the part which says, "call no man your father". But ignore the other parts which say, call no man "teacher, or master". Did you know that the title, mister is another form of the word, "master"? So, does anyone call you "mr."? Or do you call anyone else, "mr."?

Now, I've talked to non-Catholics before on this subject and I ask them, "what do you call your "father"?" And they'll say, "I call him "dad"". As though they have somehow avoided calling him "father" by calling him "dad". But dad means father! So how did they avoid the sin they claim I make by calling the priest, "father"?

For another, the verse says, don't call any man "your father". Whereas, we don't say, Father Dan is my father. We say, Father Dan is my priest. Father is a title. I've never heard a Catholic say, my priest is my "father". Whereas, many people of all denominations say, "My father's name is Joe."

So, please explain why you see there to be a sin in calling a priest, "father", whereas I don't hear you complain about folks calling a man, teacher, master, mister, Rabbi, dad, or any of the other titles which are forbidden in the context of Matt 23:9?

Please help me to understand.

Sincerely,
De Maria

Christians Truth said...

You said: So, I would not call anyone "Rabbi" because I'm not Jewish. So, forbidding to call anyone "Rabbi" would not affect me. However, Rabbi means Teacher and I've called all my teachers, "Teacher". Have I sinned?

My reply: You sin by calling the priests "father." In addition, they sin by teaching you to. They also sin and go against God's Word by calling each other "father." I know this is going to sound harsh but I just knew you would make excuses for disobeying Jesus. Why do you have to disobey Jesus? Jesus says, “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.”
Did the disciples tell others to call them ‘Rabbi’? No, they did not. Did others call the disciples ‘Rabbi’? No, others did not call the disciples ‘Rabbi.’ However, Jesus said they are all brothers. Did the Apostles and disciples call each other ‘brother’? Yes, the Apostles and disciples obeyed and called each other ‘brother’ and ‘sister.’

You said: In fact, I know many who have called their teachers, Teacher. And they are devout people from many Christian faiths. But many non-Catholics seem to be only concerned about the part which says, "call no man your father". But ignore the other parts which say, call no man "teacher, or master".

My reply: Do you think that the Catholics are justified in their sins because other sin too?

You said: Did you know that the title, mister is another form of the word, "master"? So, does anyone call you "mr."? Or do you call anyone else, "mr."?

My reply: I do not call my brothers in Christ my misters, or do I call any of them 'Master.' They are my brothers. I do not call anyone my Spiritual Teacher. However, the Catholics dare call the pope ‘Holy Father.’

You said: Now, I've talked to non-Catholics before on this subject and I ask them, "what do you call your "father"?" And they'll say, "I call him "dad"". As though they have somehow avoided calling him "father" by calling him "dad". But dad means father! So how did they avoid the sin they claim I make by calling the priest, "father"?

My reply: That is a very worldly answer from you. Our biological dads or biological fathers who raise us are not our Spiritual Father. How you claim that we might be sinning for calling our fathers ‘father’ is farcical. The Bible is clear that we have earthly fathers who raise us. The Bible is also clear that Christians are not to call each other in Christ ‘Father.’ It is plain and simple.

You said: For another, the verse says, don't call any man "your father". Whereas, we don't say, Father Dan is my father. We say, Father Dan is my priest. Father is a title. I've never heard a Catholic say, my priest is my "father". Whereas, many people of all denominations say, "My father's name is Joe."

My reply: Jesus says, “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father.’ For you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
So, your reasoning is not valid about not calling any man “your father.” It is plain and simple, do not call anyone on earth ‘father.’ They are brothers. Yet Catholics call their leaders ‘father.’ In addition, the Catholic ‘fathers’ call each other ‘father.’ Again, Jesus says they are all brothers.

You said: So, please explain why you see there to be a sin in calling a priest, "father", whereas I don't hear you complain about folks calling a man, teacher, master, mister, Rabbi, dad, or any of the other titles which are forbidden in the context of Matt 23:9?

My reply: Do not allow another Christian follower to call you ‘father.’ In addition, do not call other Christian followers ‘father.’ Likewise with ‘Rabbi,’ and ‘teacher,’ Why is that hard for you to obey?
I also want to take this time to point out that we are all priests in the Lord, see Revelation 5:10.

Nick said...

!NOTICE!

While it's good to see people respectfully exchanging their thoughts, in this case the conversation is way off topic, and the comment box rules are to keep the comments on topic.

When people subscribe to comments, they want those comments to be on topic, so when people go off on tangents it ends up flooding people's inbox with stuff they don't want to read.

I don't like to delete comments, but to clean things up I might end up having to. That said, I welcome future posts but for now please keep off topic posts on another blog.

Jae said...

Nick, I truly agree with you for some reason which I totally understand that our brother Mr. Christians Truth here is derailing the topic at hand because of his misguided zeal to show his interpretive authority of the Scripture is right amongst the thousands of differing protestant sects and cults.

Christians Truth just to inform you that all your objections were thouroughly rebutted by Biblical and Early Christian history, follow the links so we don't need to derail this topic:

Calling no man "father":

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-do-catholics-call-priests-father.html

Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?


http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/


http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/catalogue-index-catholic-apologetics.html

Happy reading for real Christian Truth.

De Maria said...

Hi, Christians Truth,

This is Nick's blog and I don't want to break his rules. Please meet me at this LINK.

I've posted our last two comments, mine and yours and then my response to your last one. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Sorry for the inconvenience Nick.

De Maria

HGL said...

paul & james - decided by peter, I think

Stuart said...

Nick, not sure where you are finding these awful works of scholarship to represent Protestantism, but they are certainly a fringe group of liberal theologians and bible scholars. Look more into the works of Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, and Millard Erickson to learn about our doctrines.

I do not know the people you are quoting, but they certainly would not be allowed to step foot in conservative evangelical seminaries to teach this kind of theology.

I am not going to defend the doctrine of salvation by faith alone because it would take too much time for a single response, but you really ought to look to the mainstream authors in Protestantism (PCA guys, Southern Baptists, Evangelical Free; that's where the real scholarship is...).

Nick said...

Hello Stuart,

My claim has nothing to do with liberal/conservative scholarship per se. I've read Gruedem, Geisler, etc, and they simply either don't know or keep the truth about logizomai hushed.

And this is not to boast, but I understand the historic doctrine of Sola Fide better than most Protestants, even Protestant professors and clergy. That's precisely how I know that this logizomai issue is in some ways a conspirasy/scandal in that it's never discussed. Never. You'll see a Protestant theologian make a brief comment or two here and there, but never is the Bible analyzed.

I guarantee you that if you invested 2 hours on google, consulting trusted books, and asking trustworthy pastors, you will NOT find any information on logizomai from them.