Democracy in the Kingdom of God

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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. . .
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top