call no man father

[Scott]

How would people respond to this Catholic apologetic piece, Call No Man Father?

 

[JKLeoPCA]

Calvin on 1 Corinthians 4:15

15. For though you had ten thousand. He had called himself father, and now he shows that this title belongs to him peculiarly and pecially, inasmuch as he alone has begotten them in Christ. In this comparison, however, he has an eye to the false apostles to whom the Corinthians showed all deference, so that Paul was now almost as nothing among them. Accordingly he admonishes them to consider what honor ought to be rendered to a father, and what to a pedagogue. "œYou entertain respect for those new teachers. To this I have no objection, provided you bear in mind that I am your father, while they are merely pedagogues." Now by claiming for himself authority, he intimates that lie is actuated by a different kind of affection from that of those whom they so highly esteemed. "œThey take pains in instructing you. Be it so. Very different is the love of a father, very different his anxiety, very different his attachment from those of a pedagogue. What if he should also make an allusion to that imperfection of faith which he had previously found fault with? For while the Corinthians were giants in pride, they were children in faith, and are, therefore, with propriety, sent to pedagogues. He also reproves the absurd and base system of those teachers in keeping their followers in the mere first rudiments, with the view of keeping them always in bonds under their authority.

For in Christ. Here we have the reason why he alone ought to be esteemed as the father of the Corinthian Church "” because he had begotten it. And truly it is in most appropriate terms that he here describes spiritual generation, when he says that he has begotten them in Christ, who alone is the life of the soul, and makes the gospel the formal cause. Let us observe, then, that we are then in the sight of God truly begotten, when we are engrafted into Christ, out of whom there will be found nothing but death, and that this is effected by means of the gospel, because, while we are by nature flesh and hay, the word of God, as Peter (1 Peter 1:24, 25) teaches from Isaiah, (Isaiah 40:6, 7, 8,) is the incorruptible seed by which we are renewed to eternal life. Take away the gospel, and we will all remain accursed and dead in the sight of God. That same word by which we are begotten is afterwards milk to us for nourishing us, and it is also solid food to sustain us for ever.

Should any one bring forward this objection, "œAs new sons are begotten to God in the Church every day, why does Paul say that those who succeeded him were not fathers?" the answer is easy "” that he is here speaking of the commencement of the Church. For although many had been begotten by the ministry of others, this honor remained to Paul untouched "” that he had founded the Corinthian Church. Should any one, again, ask, "œOught not all pastors to be reckoned fathers, and if so, why does Paul deprive all others of this title, so as to claim it for himself exclusively?" I answer "” "œHe speaks here comparatively." Hence, however the title of fathers might be applicable to them in other respects, yet in respect of Paul, they were merely instructors. We must also keep in mind what I touched upon a little ago, that he is not speaking of all, (for as to those who were like himself, as, for example, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who aimed at nothing but the advancement of Christ´s kingdom, he would have had no objection to their being so named, and having the highest honor assigned to them,) but is reproving those who, by a misdirected ambition, transferred to themselves the glory that belonged to another. Of this sort were those who robbed Paul of the honor that was due to him, that they might set themselves off in his spoils.

And, truly, the condition of the Church universal at this day is the same as that of the Corinthian Church was at that time. For how few are there that love the Churches with a fatherly, that is to say, a disinterested affection, and lay themselves out to promote their welfare! Meanwhile, there are very many pedagogues, who give out their services as hirelings, in such a manner as to discharge as it were a mere temporary office, and in the meantime hold the people in subjection and admiration. At the same time, even in that case it is well when there are many pedagogues, who do good, at least, to some extent by teaching, and do not destroy the Church by the corruptions of false doctrine. For my part, when I complain of the multitude of pedagogues, I do not refer to Popish priests, (for I would not do them the honor of reckoning them in that number,) but those who, while agreeing with us in doctrine, employ themselves in taking care of their own affairs, rather than those of Christ. We all, it is true, wish to be reckoned fathers, and require from others the obedience of sons, but where is the man to be found who acts in such a manner as to show that he is a father?

There remains another question of greater difficulty: As Christ forbids us to

call any one father upon earth, because we have one Father in, (Matthew 23:9,)

how does Paul dare to take to himself the name of father? I answer, that, properly speaking, God alone is the Father, not merely of our soul, but also of our flesh. As, however, in so far as concerns the body, he communicates the honor of his paternal name to those to whom he gives offspring, while, as to souls, he reserves to himself exclusively the right and title of Father, I confess that, on this account, he is called in a peculiar sense the Father of spirits, and is distinguished from earthly fathers, as the Apostle speaks in Hebrews 12:9. As, however, notwithstanding that it is he alone who, by his own influence, begets souls, and regenerates and quickens them, he makes use of the ministry of his servants for this purpose, there is no harm in their being called fathers, in respect of this ministry, as this does not in any degree detract from the honor of God. The word, as I have said, is the spiritual seed. God alone by means of it regenerates our souls by his influence, but, at the same time, he does not exclude the efforts of ministers. If, therefore, you attentively consider, what God accomplishes by himself, and what he designs to be accomplished by ministers, you will easily understand in what sense he alone is worthy of the name of Father, and how far this name is applicable to his ministers, without any infringement upon his rights.

Yet, I personally add that when the Pope takes the title to himself as The "Holy Father", and stands with himself and others perscribing upon him divine attributes, they have taken the title beyond perscribed limits.


Westminser Shorter Catechism

Q. 47. What is forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment forbiddeth the denying, or not worshipping and glorifying the true God as God, and our God; and the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone.

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God´s names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word and works.

 

[Puritanhead]

Yeah, Jesus always means the opposite of what he really said...

 

[crhoades]

So was Darth Vader wrong to tell Luke that he was his father? Is it a dark side thing?

 

[Scott]

Ryan: What do you mean?