Call No Man “Father”?
In a recent online exchange, I was talking to a non-Catholic called Salvador who made some claims about the Early Church which were demonstrably false, so I asked him if he had read any of the Early Church Fathers.
He was now stuck in an awkward position, he didn’t want lie but he also didn’t want to admit that he hadn’t actually read any of the primary sources from the Early Church and had been speaking from a position of ignorance.
No Fathers?
He therefore decided to avoid the question and instead attack the use of the word “father”:
I’m not going to do the catholic thing, THERE IS ONLY ONE FATHER , peace
Salvador
In response to this, I pointed out that Paul refers to himself as a father:
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Corinthians 4:15
Only for those who first preached to you the Gospel?
Salvador conceded that he was wrong “in a way”. He then claimed that I was taking this passage out-of-context. He said that:
1 Cor 15 is talking about THE IMMEDIATE PERSON who presented the gospel to the newly converted.
Salvador
St. Paul says the same thing of Timothy, but St. Paul wasn’t the first person to preach to Timothy, he was already a disciple by the time he met Paul:
And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico′nium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Acts 16:1-3
However, even this aside, Salvador didn’t even attempt to justify his claim using Scripture, which is what you’d expect a Sola Scriptura Christian to do. After all, Matthew 23:9 says “call no man your father upon the earth”. If we’re going to interpret this passage literalistically, no exceptions are given for those who first preach the Gospel to someone.
All the evidence
There’s no getting out of it, St. Paul calls individuals, as well as congregations, his children and describes himself as their father:
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
1 Corinthians 4:14
My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!
Galatians 4:19
…for you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you
1 Thessalonians 2:11
To Timothy, my true child in the faith…
1 Timothy 1:2
To Titus, my true child in a common faith…
1 Titus 1:4
Not just Paul…
Apparently St. Paul wasn’t the only one who apparently didn’t know what Jesus said about calling earthly men “father”, because Peter and Stephen make the same mistake!
Peter refers to their ancient Patriarchs as fathers and King David as their father:
“The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, …”
Acts 3:13
“…by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit…”
Acts 4:25
Stephen also refers to their ancestors, specifically Abraham, as well as to members of the Jewish Council in front of him:
“Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food.”
Acts 7:11
“Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, …”
Acts 7:2
What does that leave?
I don’t think Salvador actually interprets this passage as literally as he suggests. I’m sure he calls his biological father “Dad” and that there is a similar dynamic with any children. Also, if someone really interpreted the Bible this literally, he would not be able to call someone “Reverend”, “Pastor”, “Doctor”, “Rabbi”, “Instructor”, or even “Mister” as these would fall under similar condemnations.
What about the Early Church Fathers?
In case you were wondering, I never got Salvador to return to the question of what he had read from the Early Church, despite bringing it back up in every response. He couldn’t bring himself to lie, which is a good thing, but he also couldn’t bring himself to admit that he knew nothing of the Early Church, which was a shame since then he might have started reading the Early Church Fathers and discovered that the Early Church was Catholic.