The Rise of the Papacy

There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.

The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.

The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.

It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.

In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.

Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.

Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.

The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.

Truth where it flowers, yes. But the systematic rejection of Jesus does not establish a good basis for ecumenical coziness between the follower of Jesus and the teaching authorities that call themselves rabbinic, though Jesus told us expressly to give no one such titles. I am not comfortable with disobedience in such a thing.

As for my attitude toward Jewish people generally, that is an entirely different matter, and you would render your own apologetic approach more effective if you could allow for recognition of that distinction.

To bolster my case, I will tell you I have a special place in my heart for my Jewish friends who presently are not enjoying the blessings of their own Messiah, and that has been true my whole adult life. I have been to Israel, not on a brief tourist visit, but with the intent of living among them to share the Gospel. Those plans did not work out, but my heart has never changed.

So please do not presume that rejection of the rabbi rabbit trail in any way reflects on someone’s eschatology or their sense of the value of God’s covenant people, physical Israel. His plans for them are rooted in His promises to Abraham, and He will be faithful to His word. That does not entitle me or anyone else to corrupt the Christian Gospel with the false teachings of anyone, no matter how esteemed they may be among men. If they have rejected the Son, they have rejected the Father, and they are to be opposed at every turn, lest we be complicit in hiding the light of the Gospel from those suffering in darkness. Love would have it so.

Peace,

Honestly, the text does not say not to call a Jewish religious leader "Rabbi." Jesus was speaking to Jewish apostles and disciples, telling them not to be called "rabbi," to call no man "abba" ( possibly ala 2 Kings 13:14 where Elisha calls Elijah "abi, abi, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof."), and perhaps "nagid."

Look at the reason for not being called Rabbi:

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

It is an acknowledgment of who our Master is. If we who believe are not allowed even from among ourselves to acknowledge an earthly spiritual master, how much less can we get away with acknowledging someone as spiritual master who brings false, anti-christ teaching? In their rejection of Jesus as Messiah, they disqualify themselves from any honorific of either an ecclesiastical OR a spiritual nature.

1. What honorific titles do you call the leadership in your congregation ?

Among Protestants such as I associate with, there is almost no use of ecclesiastical honorifics. A pastor is just an undershepherd (old French "herdsman"), also sometimes called a senior presbyter/elder, or teaching elder. Mostly we call them Jeff, or Dave, etc. Seriously, who needs the fancy? We don't.

2. Do you call anyone "Doctor," "Reverend," or "Professor" in any religious context ?

No, I do not.

3.What do you call your mother's husband ?

My mother's husband I call a citizen of Heaven, as he now walks among the angels.

And he agreed with me on the use of father. As between he and I, I regarded him as an elder brother in the faith and he approved of that.

Having said that, remember that in the context of Matthew 23, Jesus was objecting to ecclesiastical titles, of which abba (father) was one, along with rabbi, etc. Truthful identification of biological or spiritual facts was not at issue. It was pride of title that Jesus wanted His disciples to avoid. So for example, even though Paul was a spiritual father to those he brought to the Gospel, and said so, yet He was never called their father by way of title. This seems to prove the apostolic interpretation of the command would allow for factual recognition, but would still refuse pride-inducing titles among church leaders.

What I find fascinating is after all your talk about taking the words of Jesus seriously, here you are seemingly ready to discredit some of those words, out of what? Common disregard? Everybody does it, so it must be right? I don't know. I'm not trying to read your mind. All I know is you happen to be talking to someone who really does take it seriously. What else can I do? That's how I was raised. That's what I believe.

Peace,

SR

Having said that, remember that in the context of Matthew 23, Jesus was objecting to ecclesiastical titles, of which abba (father) was one, along with rabbi, etc. Truthful identification of biological or spiritual facts was not at issue. It was pride of title that Jesus wanted His disciples to avoid. So for example, even though Paul was a spiritual father to those he brought to the Gospel, and said so, yet He was never called their father by way of title. This seems to prove the apostolic interpretation of the command would allow for factual recognition, but would still refuse pride-inducing titles among church leaders.

It's beyond the rest of us as well, how Catholics can claim to so adamantly hold the very words of Jesus in such high regard and follow them, and yet when it doesn't suit them, they can excuse or explain them away, rationalizing and justifying all kinds of disobedience.

And this isn't the only area they do it in.

I remember being raised Catholic and hearing my Catholic friends and relatives excuse away sin, like drinking and smoking, etc. After all, the priest did the same and HE's going to heaven, and everyone else is doing it too, so I'm not so bad, at least not any worse than the rest of them.

And if they're going to make it, I certainly will.

That's the fruit of a works based religion.

And yet we have these so that I'm uncertain if the prohibition is in the letter or the spirit of the law.

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

My mother's husband I call a citizen of Heaven, as he now walks among the angels. And he agreed with me on the use of father. As between he and I, I regarded him as an elder brother in the faith and he approved of that.

So I understand, you never called him "Father" or "Dad" or some similar derivative acknowledging him as your parent ? Most unusual and you observed the letter of the law.

Among Protestants such as I associate with, there is almost no use of ecclesiastical honorifics. A pastor is just an undershepherd (old French "herdsman"), also sometimes called a senior presbyter/elder, or teaching elder. Mostly we call them Jeff, or Dave, etc. Seriously, who needs the fancy? We don't.

unusual for Protestants too, what does "almost" mean ?

example, even though Paul was a spiritual father to those he brought to the Gospel, and said so, yet He was never called their father by way of title. This seems to prove the apostolic interpretation of the command would allow for factual recognition, but would still refuse pride-inducing titles among church leaders.

you cannot prove the assertion from absence of a direct example in his letters; you would have to have a full set of all letters sent to him from his sons, and be privy to his private conversations; He called himself their father and he an Apostle.
I think regard rather than pride is in play; do you regard a man as being a spiritual guide or master ? Were the Apostles spiritual guides or masters ? This opens an interesting path. In the unity of the holy catholic apostolic church, which our Master commanded, there was no risk; yet if any one Apostle or primary Disciple had gone off by himself to found his own LLC, Institute, Center, and taught say like Bill Gothard, well you see the ramifications.

What I find fascinating is after all your talk about taking the words of Jesus seriously, here you are seemingly ready to discredit some of those words, out of what? Common disregard? Everybody does it, so it must be right? I don't know. I'm not trying to read your mind. All I know is you happen to be talking to someone who really does take it seriously. What else can I do? That's how I was raised. That's what I believe.

I would find it foolish and against the spirit of the law to refuse to acknowledge my father as my father. Similarly, to deliberately insult a priest or rabbi by refusing to use their honorific and resorting to a familiar first name when not invited to do so would be rude. I was even corrected recently when I inadvertently left out "doctor" for a professor who holds the PhD degree. I know I am perfectly able to not spiritually elevate or "call" any man my Father, Master, Rabbi, Rebbe, Reverend, Doctor, Brother, etc., in place of my Father which is in heaven or my Messiah who sits at his right hand. Unless, and until, the Comforter shows me otherwise I would rather not do something silly that would bring disrepute on the Gospel.

So I understand, you never called him "Father" or "Dad" or some similar derivative acknowledging him as your parent ? Most unusual and you observed the letter of the law.

Context is everything.

Jesus is certainly not teaching that children should not call their male parent *Father*, or whatever.

What and who he is addressing is important. He is telling His disciples that they are not to use or be called by the title of *Father* as a religious leader term.

Catholicism deliberately defies the CLEAR instructions of Jesus, and resorts to the *everyone else is doing it* meme to justify said disobedience.

There is no excuse for disobeying God's commands when they are spelled out that clearly.

Context is everything. Jesus is certainly not teaching that children should not call their male parent *Father*, or whatever. What and who he is addressing is important. He is telling His disciples that they are not to use or be called by the title of *Father* as a religious leader term. Catholicism deliberately defies the CLEAR instructions of Jesus, and resorts to the *everyone else is doing it* meme to justify said disobedience. There is no excuse for disobeying God's commands when they are spelled out that clearly.

The text does not say what you claim. You are making a subjective interpretation. There is no "as a religious leader term" in the text and the Apostles did not illuminate it in other NT texts other than to use "father" as a religious leader term. Surely you would admit they would know better than you or me.

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 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.

From my view, this was obviously a Jewish issue and the LORD Jesus Christ gave instructions to the Jews in this context. When you look at his words, "Rabbi" has the possessive attached to it, meaning "my teacher" or "my master." It makes sense to me to regard "father" in the same context, as in "my father, my father" as the prophet Elisha clearly did in the Scriptures. Now I do not regard Elisha's use of "my father" in regard to Elijah as a sin per se, but subsequent to Jesus' word, I would not call another "my father," "my teacher," or "my master" in a spiritual sense, only the Father for that, and my earthly father for the physical sense. Between your interpretation and the clear examples of the Apostles Paul and John, I'm going with the Apostles. I will use honorifics rather than be rude and offend, even though I really don't care for some of the honorifics ("father," "reverend," "right reverend," "brother," "professor," "doctor," etc. We even use "Mister" derived from "Master."

“Mister” has evolved so far from its origin it really isn’t an honorific anymore.

As to the rest, Jesus didn’t say it was a “Jewish issue.” The only limiting factor evident in the context that would be generic enough to apply to the apostles was the use of ostentatious religious titles. The apostles are not the apostles of a Jewish congregation, but the apostles of the “one new man” in Christ, in which identity as Jew and Gentile was to have no role. And given that pride (or undue regard, if you like) knows no ethnic boundaries, the reasons given for the prohibition are equally universal. We simply are not supposed to feed our pride with titles that elevate men into virtual mediators between men and God. Our equal status as brothers and sisters, with no priestly class above, was Christ’s design for His church. This title business was one of the ways we were to be reminded of our peer status in Christ. That’s not a Jewish issue. That’s for all of us.

As for Paul’s occasional use of father, it fits the context. It is never given as an officious title. You cannot show me any reference to “Father Paul.” But we have shown how Paul literally did father some in Corinth into the faith, and so functionally had a paternal relationship to them. There is nothing remotely like a title of superior rank involved, or it would have been used by others of Paul. No such thing occurred.

But we have been over this ground multiple times now, and I see only limited benefit in going forward. Whether seeming rude to someone is a good enough reason to ignore an explicit command of Christ is a judgment each person must make on their own. We all stand or fall before our own Master, and it is His approval that is ultimately most important, not what any of us think.

Peace,

Cherry picking verses or parts of sentences is always a recipe for disaster.

Even if it DID mean not to call your biological father *Father* or *Dad* or whatever, how does that excuse, justify, rationalize, the Catholic church’s disobedience to Jesus’ command.

Because either way, whether Jesus meant that we are not to ever call any man on earth *Father* even our own dads, or if it is limited to the issue of religious titles to religious leaders, He said don’t do it and the Catholic church continues to do it and continues to justify and excuse it using the argument that Jesus meant it for all time and all situations.

Therefore they can rationalize or *interpret* it away and disobey Jesus since little kids call their fathers *Dad*, then the church is justified in disregarding the command as well.

That’s a REALLY, REALLY weak argument.

“Mister” has evolved so far from its origin it really isn’t an honorific anymore.

Nonconcur; It really is an honorific still, derived from "Master" and we use it all the time.

As to the rest, Jesus didn’t say it was a “Jewish issue.”

I said it was; "Rabbi" anyone ?

The only limiting factor evident in the context that would be generic enough to apply to the apostles was the use of ostentatious religious titles.

Nothing ostentatious about "Rabbi"; quite common.

The apostles are not the apostles of a Jewish congregation, but the apostles of the “one new man” in Christ, in which identity as Jew and Gentile was to have no role.

Of course they were Apostles of a Jewish congregation; But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.. The inclusion of the Gentiles came later, and the almost complete conversion to a Gentile congregation took generations and a series of wars with the Romans so that being Jewish or associated with Jews was a liability; and we have all the martyrs.

And given that pride (or undue regard, if you like) knows no ethnic boundaries, the reasons given for the prohibition are equally universal. We simply are not supposed to feed our pride with titles that elevate men into virtual mediators between men and God. Our equal status as brothers and sisters, with no priestly class above, was Christ’s design for His church. This title business was one of the ways we were to be reminded of our peer status in Christ. That’s not a Jewish issue. That’s for all of us.

But we have the Apostles using "father" albeit not "rabbi"; and we have "teachers" and "bishops" and "elders."

As for Paul’s occasional use of father, it fits the context. It is never given as an officious title. You cannot show me any reference to “Father Paul.”

No, but neither can you prove he was not called "father Paul" by any of his spiritual flock. "Occasional" is misleading; he used it specifically for his spiritual sons in multiple locations in his letters; I did not quote them all. "Rabbi," "Teacher," and "Father" are not prohibited terms, per se. James used "Master." But we have shown how Paul literally did father some in Corinth into the faith, and so functionally had a ~~paternal~~ spiritual relationship to them.

Fixed it

There is nothing remotely like a title of superior rank involved, or it would have been used by others of Paul. No such thing occurred.

I have already shown the Apostle John wrote to "children" and "fathers;" do you think he was writing to actual children or new belieivers/babes in the faith ?
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Concur; use your judgment and faith as God gives it. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Cherry picking verses or parts of sentences is always a recipe for disaster. Even if it DID mean not to call your biological father *Father* or *Dad* or whatever, how does that excuse, justify, rationalize, the Catholic church’s disobedience to Jesus’ command. Because either way, whether Jesus meant that we are not to ever call any man on earth *Father* even our own dads, or if it is limited to the issue of religious titles to religious leaders, He said don’t do it and the Catholic church continues to do it and continues to justify and excuse it using the argument that Jesus meant it for all time and all situations. Therefore they can rationalize or *interpret* it away and disobey Jesus since little kids call their fathers *Dad*, then the church is justified in disregarding the command as well. That’s a REALLY, REALLY weak argument.

Again, I submit you misinterpret the command and try to enforce your interpretation of it on others. Perhaps you should simply refrain ala And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I prefer not to deliberately insult priests and rabbis, but of course one could simply say "I don't have faith to call you by your title because I believe that Jesus forbade me to call anyone "Father," "Rabbi," or "Master/Mister."

Or better yet, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

I would prefer no honorics of any kind, but I neither want to offend.

Thinking that something is OK doesn’t make it not sin when God tells you not to do something.

True; thinking something is sin when you say so, ... that is different. After all, are you permitted to teach or is that a violation of the Scriptures ?

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication , and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Lest you say that is only one Apostle's opinion, we see that the LORD himself had something against the woman referred to as Jezebel in Thyatira, the first being that she was teaching, so Paul's Apostolic restriction may be more wide ranging that some think, if you are heading that way.

Seems that you don’t get the Romans 14 thing.

There are things that are sin, no if’s, and’s, or but’s.

The *whatever is not of faith is sin* is not about doing something that God already has defined as sin.

It’s not a matter of *if I do it in faith, thinking that it’s not wrong, then it’s not sin for me*. That’s the kind of rationalization that people have used for committing adultery and getting divorces.

It’s in regard to something that God has not defined as sin that a person cannot do without a clear conscience. Examples would be drinking, dancing, gambling, and things such as that where there is no clear cut command against it.

So in the case of Jesus commanding His disciples to not call any religious leader on earth by the title of *Father*, it doesn’t mean that if you think it’s OK, it’s not disobeying Jesus. Disobedience is disobedience, hence sin, whether you want it to be or not and whether you feel like it is or not.

Seems that you don’t get the Romans 14 thing. There are things that are sin, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. The *whatever is not of faith is sin* is not about doing something that God already has defined as sin.

Of course it was defined as sin. It was in the Law of Moses as sin. Jews who believed in Jesus had liberty, if they had faith, but not as an occasion to sin. If they did not have faith it was still sin to them. What, you thought the believers in Rome at that time were not Jews with some Gentiles included ? There was a large Jewish community in Rome.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

You agree with the Catholic view that divorce and remarriage is adultery.

You are not dealing with the text and context of what Paul was writing about. It's about the Jews and the law of Moses. You can apply the principle to your life but you cannot replace the original context and text with "drinking, dancing, gambling, and things such as that."

So in the case of Jesus commanding His disciples to not call any man ~~religious leader~~ on earth by the title of *Father*, or *Rabbi* or *Master/Mister* or presumably any of the other derivatives (Doctor, Professor, Pastor, Reverend, etc.) as he was certainly not speaking in English when he said it and you would have to go back to the Hebrew or Aramaic to get a sense of what he was talking about.

it doesn’t mean that if you think it’s OK, it’s not disobeying Jesus. Disobedience is disobedience, hence sin, whether you want it to be or not and whether you feel like it is or not.

You, however, are not qualified to teach on the this subject to men, and violate the Scripture when you try to do it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.