Reasonable Resources

Well, the new (recycled) series is at an end, and the big reveal was no surprise. The same ol' list of comic books and frauds is what Candy provides for her deep historical research:



Here at Visits To Candyland, we have spent quite a lot of time researching Candy's research. We provide a defense against her accusations, and we take the time to provide respected resources, often non-Catholic ones. This list provides a platform for a Greatest Hits of our Anti-Catholic Writers label.

Candy's Vatican vs. God- No less than 15 posts touched on this one, with seven in the VVG label

Answers To My Catholic Friends/Babylon Religion (Jack Chick)

Mystery Babylon the Great

Bible Study Charts

50 Years In the Church of Rome (Charles Chiniquy)

A Woman Rides the Beast- Must be an annual May event for Candy, we posted this in May of 2008 and 2009!

Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?- Another stellar illustrated history. I think my idea of a good illustrated Biblical read is a bit different.


So, if anyone was wanting more information on Candy's resources, now you have plenty to get you started. And if you'd like a sneak peek of what she might run next, check out the Anti-Catholic Writers label. Perhaps she's veer back into female territory with Sister Charlotte or Mary Anne Collins!

Marian Images

Candy loves to post images of alleged Marian worship. She especially likes the image of Mary with the nail marks in her hands. She specifically points it out in the beginning of her article.

The thing is, that is not a Catholic image. I have only seen that image on fundamentalist sites such as Jesus Is Lord. If anyone can point me to a Catholic site using it, please post in the comments. I believe the stars on Mary's veil are closest to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but it is not the same image.



There are many images of Mary which a Catholic would recognize as common depictions. None of them include nail marks in the hands of Mary. This image is simply an exaggeration, intending to prove the point of Catholic Mary worship.




Mary has long been honored in the Catholic tradition for her sufferings, but her sufferings are not the same as those of Jesus. The sufferings of Mary are known as the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are not physical sorrows, but mental ones.

The Prophecy of Simeon
The Flight into Egypt
The Loss of Jesus in the Temple
The Meeting of Jesus and Mary on the Way of the Cross
The Crucifixion
The Taking Down of the Body of Jesus from the Cross
Jesus laid in the Tomb





Mary says that her soul magnifies the glory of the Lord, and the Seven Sorrows of Mary illustrate that. As in any Marian devotion, it draws us to Jesus. The sorrows of Mary take us through Jesus' life and death. Seeing them through the eyes of His mother give us new insight into His suffering and death. Who would want to be killed before their mother?

The Catholic Mary does not seek to replace Jesus, or to be another saviour. She only seeks to draw us to her Son. She wants us to "Do whatever He tells you."

Vain Repetition

Candy has once again reposted her Vatican Versus God article. She has mentioned previously that she is very proud of this article because she sent a lot of time doing research for it. Certainly, she is to be commended for actually looking over the Vatican's website rather than just cutting and pasting from Jesus Is Lord, the way that she usually does.

As Elena has mentioned, we have really covered all of these points already. However, as I have time this week, I'd like to add my thoughts on a few of them.

What really stood out to me when I read this was Candy's note on vain repetition:

Vatican says - "After a short pause for reflection, recite the "Our Father", ten "Hail Mary’s" and the "Glory be to the Father". reference 7

God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7

My Notes: How would you like it, if your child came up to you, and said "you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy," over and over and over and over and over again? Now do you see why they are vain (AKA meaningless) repetitions?

What a reflection on her relationship with her children! Catholic apologists will often point out that you would NOT want your spouse or children to only tell you once that they love you, but you want to hear it over and over again.

This sort of repetition is very common for toddlers, and not at all meaningless. With each of my children, they have gone through a phase where we have the same conversation every morning that my husband goes to work. The child will ask over and over again, "Papa go to work? No, Papa not go to work, he stay home! Papa go to work? He be back later? He go to work but he be back after supper?" On and on, for about half an hour after my husband leaves, I will listen to this meaningful repetition and reassure the child that Papa loves him, and really will return.

In the same way, it is difficult for us humans, who see as though through a glass darkly, to full understand God. Repetition in the form of the Rosary is a way that we try to understand the "mysteries" of the Christian faith.

You can read our previous article on Vain Repetition here.

I would like to close by pointing you to a Psalm which reads very similar to Candy's example of meaningless repetition (King James Version, of course):

Psalm 136

¹O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

³O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁴To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁵To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁶To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁷To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:

⁸The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:

⁹The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁰To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹¹And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹²With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹³To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁴And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁵But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁶To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁷To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁸And slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁹Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²⁰And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²¹And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²²Even an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²³Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²⁴And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²⁵Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²⁶O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Yawn - Mary, Salvation, the commandments and more

Proving once more that she doesn't have anything new to blog about, Candy has decided to rerun the Catholic stuff today.

We have the complete rebuttal to this nonsense Candy called "The Vatican Vs. God" complete with links here.


All the articles are also easily available here as del.icio. us links.

They are also in the side bar.

The elephant in the room is this. Candy went to a lot of time and trouble to write this a few years back, and we spent a lot of time rebutting them. I know that she is aware of that. Yet she has never EVER tried to respond to our rebuttals. She just keeps repeating her assertions. What discerning readers need to ask themselves is why? I believe it is because she cannot.


Oh and Candy, we can quote readers too:

Anyway, since it's here now, I will add that, even though I was completely infuriated at you guys when this blog opened (I was still in the church of Candy), you also figured greatly in my quest and decision--especially when your focus changed to proving her Catholic claims wrong with Scripture and history. So you guys keep doing what you're doing, too. It is working. 08/19/2008

Codifying the Vatican vs. God essay

The full Vatican Vs. God Rebuttal is complete:
We answered all of Candy's points with links to scripture, outside sources and quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Now just a brief note. When the catechism was first approved by Pope John Paul II, he wrote:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

This is THE source for understanding what the Catholic church teaches and Catholics believe. Please keep that in mind when looking at Candy's sources, or lack thereof.


REBUTTALS TO THE ESSAY VATICAN VS. GOD:
I'm a medical records clerk at heart and probably a librarian by nature - so it's helpful for me to add numbers to lists and points etc. With that in mind I thought I would distill Candy's article down to its basic points and then we can tell which rebuttal goes with which point! Candy tackled a lot of points in this essay (she said she put quite a bit of time into it!) so I think it deserves to be taken on

Let us find out if what the Vatican says matches what God tells us in His Holy Word - the Holy Bible:

CB

1. Salvation for the Muslims apparently. Answered here and here.

2. Sacred Tradition (although interestingly, Candy DID NOT give any references from the catechism. Her scriptural defenses are Mark 7:13 and Col. 2:8

Kelly handled that one aptly here.

3. The canonization of saints. Again no CCC references but she notes the canonization dates of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys, and St. Jeanne Delanoue. She gives an article for the canonization process from Catholic Pages.
The gist of her argument is that ALL saints go through this 6-step process to become a saint. (She apparently doesn't know about All Saints Day!) Her back up scripture is Cor 6:2 and 1 Col 1:2 as well as Rev 14:12. We haven't tackled this one yet.

Updated: We handle this one here.

4. The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

God says - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

We haven't tackled this one yet.
Update: This one is easily taken apart here.

5. Vatican says - "The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary." reference 5

What God says - After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. -Matthew 6:9
OK so does this mean Candy ONLY says the Our Father?

We have oodles of stuff on the rosary here, here and here.

6. Candy also uses this passage which we have not dealt with yet:
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer [necromancy - the black art of speaking to the dead]. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Deuteronomy 8:10-12

It deserves it's own point.
UPDATE: Kelly takes that on and handles it here!

7. Vatican says - "Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother." reference 6

What God says - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; -1 Timothy 2:5

UPDATE: Kelly handles that here.

Vatican says - "After a short pause for reflection, recite the "Our Father", ten "Hail Marys" and the "Glory be to the Father". reference 7

God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7

Handled here and here.

8. Vatican says - [Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the ones God gave us in the Bible] "1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. 2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. 3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day. 4. Honor your father and your mother. 5. You shall not kill. 6. You shall not commit adultery. 7. You shall not steal. 8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods." reference 8

God says - 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord they God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, nor they son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor they maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. -Exodus 20:3-17

We hit this one out of the ball park! See here and here.


9. More issues with Mary:
Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

God says - [Note: It is undisputed in Christian circles that Genesis 3:15 is the first biblical Messianic prophecy.] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. We haven't tackled this one yet either.

UPDATE: Handled here.


It appears then that the points we still need to handle are 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.









Stumble It!

Something About Mary

Let's finish off the Vatican Versus God series so we can get started on the new round of misinformation, shall we?

Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

God says - [Note: It is undisputed in Christian circles that Genesis 3:15 is the first biblical Messianic prophecy.] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

First, it is important to note that Candy quotes from the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is sort of the Catholic King James Bible. We even have Douay-Rheims-only-ists in the Catholic Church. Because we've got something for everyone!

At any rate, the Douay-Rheims Bible is not the currently favored translation. The US Conference of Bishops uses the New American Bible.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

Footnote: The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

The official Catholic Catechism uses the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV states "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

The Catholic Church agrees that this verse is the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. See paragraph #70: Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

So, I guess if the question is which translation is correct, the Vatican has conceded the point. However the verse is translated, the meaning remains the same.

As an article James Akin wrote for This Rock on the topic of this verse explains, "Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, states, "The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head."

Back to Candy--

Vatican says - "Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother." reference 6

What God says - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; -1 Timothy 2:5

The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.

Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website:

7) So, just as we are allowed the unfathomable privilege of participating in our own redemption, likewise God willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, the Immaculate one, the perpetual Virgin, the Second Eve, would play a part in the Redemption of all, by consenting to the Sacrifice on the Cross of her Son, who was God in the flesh. She doesn't (solely and sufficiently) cause the Redemption any more than we (solely and sufficiently) cause our own redemption. Her role is to freely assent and to bear the suffering in her immaculate heart that Jesus bore in His Sacred Heart (hence those two devotions in Catholic theology).

8) "Co" in Latin does not mean "equal"; it merely means "with" or "alongside." We see this even in English. If you have a "co-pay" with regard to health insurance, that doesn't mean that you always pay equally with your insurance provider (I sure hope not!). "Co-Pilot" sometimes means "equal" but usually not. Etc. But because the term Co-Redemptrix is so misunderstood, it has fallen out of use in the last 50 years or so. But nevertheless, Pope John Paul II has used it at least five times, as Dr. Miravelle notes.

9) This was God's marvelous plan - to involve a creature and a woman at every step of the way, so as to achieve a certain "balance" - if I may properly speak in such a way. Eve brought down the human race, acting with Adam; Mary helped to raise it, acting in concert with Jesus Christ, her Son, the second Adam (as Paul describes Him). If Satan could cause the fall of the human race through the frailty of Woman and Man, why is it not plausible that God could in turn bring about the Redemption of the human race in part through the Immaculate Mary, the Second Eve, the Theotokos? To me it all makes eminent sense. It is contrary neither to Scripture nor to common sense and reason.

Catholic Necromancy

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer [necromancy - the black art of speaking to the dead]. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Deuteronomy 8:10-12

Is necromancy just speaking to the dead, as per Candy's definition?

Merriam Webster says 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events

Dictionary.com says 1.a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art.

Catholic Encyclopedia says "a special mode of divination by the evocation of the dead.

Clearly there is more to necromancy than just speaking to the dead. How many times do people go to a cemetery and speak to someone at their grave site? Is that necromancy?

Necromancy would include summoning or communicating with the dead for manipulation in some way, usually for information. As a Biblical example, in 1 Samuel 28, Saul has a witch summon the soul of Samuel in order to get information on how to win the war with the Philistines.

Any sort of occult activity is prohibited by the Catholic Church:

CCC #2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

When Catholics ask for the prayers of Mary, or any other saint, we are not expecting them to appear before us. We are not asking for information. We are simply asking them to join their prayers to ours, in the same way that we ask our friends and family to pray for us.

Yes, but they're dead, you might reply. But, Luke 20:38 says "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."

Well, they aren't aware of us in heaven, you insist. However, Hebrews 12:1 says that "we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses."

Additional reading at Catholic Answers and Scripture Catholic.




Stumble It!

Call No Man “Father”? « Home2Rome: Exploring the Catholic Church

Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

God says - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

This was Candy's entire case on this point. Frankly, if I were a Protestant apologist I would NEVER use this argument as it is so EASILY refuted. Rather than re-invent the wheel, may I direct the reader to these well written and wonderful articles that easily dispel the notion that on using the term "Father" the Vatican is against God!

Call No Man “Father”? « Home2Rome: Exploring the Catholic Church


Kiwi Catholic

This is a good example of rejecting a perfectly biblical Catholic practice by taking Scripture out of context. Jesus was simply using his customary hyperbole to emphasise the fact that no man is to take the place of God in our lives. The exaggeration is reminiscent of his exhortation to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin (Matt 5:29-30), or his saying that mountains can be moved with just a little faith (Matt 17:20) or his statement that one must hate one's father and mother to be his disciple (Luke 14:26).

Call no Man "Father" Catholic Answers
Father Richard Bellew
But is Christ's saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel".2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father Paul", if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers".3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged".4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be called "father", that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, 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..".5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be "fathers".


Father Mitch Pacwa -This Rock Magazine.


AN EXAMINATION of the New Testament shows "father" is a title applied to God, to the ancestors of Israel, to fathers of families, to Jewish leaders, to Christian leaders, and even to the Devil (the Father of Lies). Every New Testament book except 3 John uses the word "father" at least once.

As the table illustrates, the New Testament usually (63% of the time) uses "father" as a reference to God the Father. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and 1 John account for 189 out of 252 occurrences with this meaning. The second most common use refers to human fathers, both from Israel's past and contemporary parents.

(Certainly Christians agree that Jesus' prohibition against calling anyone "father" does not preclude the honor due to natural parents, living or dead, even though that could be taken as the literal meaning of his command, though not even the most literalistic Fundamentalist takes it that way.)

Those Christians who are troubled by the title "father" being given to Catholic priests say it is an honorific that belongs only to human parents or to God, not to religious leaders. This objection can be answered from the Bible: We have six New Testament books which show us that Jewish or Christian leaders may be addressed by this title.

Nearly half the uses of "father" in the Acts of the Apostles appear in Stephen's speech in chapter 7 (17 out of 36 uses). He refers to the ancestors as fathers, both individually and collectively (16 times), and once he addresses his audience as "brothers and fathers." Paul addressed a crowd of angry Jews in the Temple as "brothers and fathers" (Acts 22:1). These are places in which "father" is given to Jewish religious leaders. The title is also given to Christian religious leaders.

THE FIRST New Testament book ever written, 1 Thessalonians, refers to Paul "as a father exhorting his own children" (1 Thess. 2:11). By this usage Paul places himself in the role of a spiritual father. In fact, he insists on being called the spiritual father of the Corinthians when he says, "You have in Christ ten thousand teachers, but not many fathers, because in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through announcing the gospel. Therefore I exhort you to become imitators of me" (1 Cor. 4:15).

Preaching the good news constituted Paul's fatherly begetting of children, making him their spiritual father. He requests they imitate him, not only in good behavior but in bringing others to spiritual rebirth.

In 1 John a group of Christian men are addressed as fathers: "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning" (1 John 2:13-14). By themselves these verses give us warrant to address Church leaders as "father."

WE HAVE, then, a clear authorization from Scripture to call our parents and religious leaders father or mother. It is true Christ gives us an admonition not to let any human being become as important as God the Father or Christ our teacher and rabbi, yet neither should we deny that certain people in the Christian community are our spiritual parents.











Stumble It!