Doctrines of Demons - 1 Tim. 4:1-2

[DHK]

I thought you might try this. Jesus fasted, but never gave up certain foods during any other time except during that of His fast. The passage states that the doctrine forbids them from taking certain foods... as in the Mosiac Law - not temporarily - but it forbids them permanently.

You still don't get it do you.
1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle. It is Paul writing to Timothy, pastor of the church in Ephesus, giving him advice on how to keep order in the church, among other things.

This has nothing to do with the practice of Jesus. This has nothing to do with personal choice. This is about the mandate of a church saying it is wrong for their people or any people to abstain from foods or to abstain from marriage. Using Christ as an example, therefore, is ridiculous. What church authority was Christ submitting to? He is the Creator and submits to none of his creatures.

When Jesus died on the cross the ceremonial law, including the dietary laws of the Jews as written in Leviticus 11, were all done away with. We are no longer under the Law. If you want to start a thread on that by all means do so, but don't derail this thread by switching to that topic.

They [deceiving spirits and things taught by demons] forbid people to marry AND order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

True. That is what the RCC does.

So if its OK to abstain from certain foods temporarily, then it must also be acceptable to be celibate temporarily.

Only if this is your personal decision. If this is mandated by a church or any other equivalent organization then it is a doctrine of demons.

This is a rediculous position - abstenance isn't the same as celibacy.

Abstinence from marriage is celibacy. The other doctrine of demons is abstinence from food. Both are doctrines of demons.

Try again - that's actually pretty weak DHK. Being an educator, I would have expected a more rigorous retort from a logical standpoint.

You ignore the entire passage.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1)
--It is the last times, in these days. People are departing from the faith. And they are giving heed to seducing spirits especially doctrines of demons.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4:2)
--They also speak lies in hypocrisy, and their consciences are seared just like a hot iron does a good job of searing (as in closing a plastic bag).

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--These are just two examples of doctrines of demons:
1. forbidding to marry, and,
2. commanding to abstain from meats (OE word for food in general),
which God BTW, has created to be received with thanksgiving.

If one forbids to marry they are commanding them to abstain from marriage or commanding them to remain celibate. Remember these are only two examples. There are other examples that could be added to this list, areas where the church has no business sticking their business.

Jim Jones mandated that all his members drink kool-aid. Do you agree with that? IT is not abstaining but requiring them to eat. It is the same sort of thing--an obvious doctrine of demons. The church cannot force these things on its members.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok this sorta gets to one of my Bible topics again -- so...

Originally Posted by DHK
Isnip...
2. Furthermore, if you say both conditions must be fulfilled then have you considered Lent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, itself.
Notice the phrase, Meat was hitherto always forbidden...it is the prohibition during Lent against partaking of both fish and flesh at the same repast

The RCC meets both of the above mentioned "doctrines of demons."
Even if your grammar were correct, the RCC would be teaching doctrines of demons.

I thought you might try this. Jesus fasted, but never gave up certain foods during any other time except during that of His fast. The passage states that the doctrine forbids them from taking certain foods... as in the Mosiac Law - not temporarily - but it forbids them permanently.

They [deceiving spirits and things taught by demons] forbid people to marry AND order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

So if its OK to abstain from certain foods temporarily, then it must also be acceptable to be celibate temporarily.

You may be fishing.

However some things to point out.

In a sane moment DHK suggest we actually look at man-made tradition to see if that fits the qualification for the 1Tim 4 "Doctrines of Demons".

A careful exploration of those specific man-made traditions would be needed to see if they fit or if they do not fit.

But in your post - you suggest that maybe the Word of God itself is a doctrine of demons (speaking perhaps of Lev 11).

To me that is atrocious -- but of course DHK joins you at times on that same point -- accusing God's Word of being "doctrines of demons"... so at least you are in good company with that suggestion.

But to your credit you admit to the detail of the doctrines of demons - being the teaching of demons. And few people are so confused as to point to the Bible itself and declare IT to be "the teaching of demons" though Apparently DHK is willing to do that in the case of Lev 11 - and perhaps you are too.

But the more readily you admit that 1Tim 4 is really talking about "The teaching of demons" I think the more you will hesitate to point to God's Word - as the teaching of demons.

Before seeing this thread I would have "liked" to hope that Christians would not be pointing at the Word of God an bending-wrenching 1Tim 4 so that it calls any part of God's Word the "Doctrine of demons".

But perhaps it is just a sign of the times we live in that such is no longer the case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

But the more readily you admit that 1Tim 4 is really talking about "The teaching of demons" I think the more you will hesitate to point to God's Word - as the teaching of demons.

Before seeing this thread I would have "liked" to hope that Christians would not be pointing at the Word of God an bending-wrenching 1Tim 4 so that it calls any part of God's Word the "Doctrine of demons".

Bob

You are confused Bob. The word of God talks about the doctrines of demons. And it points to the doctrines of demons right in the word of God. If you don't agree with that you are in a state of denial. You cannot take the truths set forth in 1Tim.4:1-5 out of the Bible.

 

[David Lamb]

[snip]

To me that is atrocious -- but of course DHK joins you at times on that same point -- accusing God's Word of being "doctrines of demons"... so at least you are in good company with that suggestion.

I strongly doubt that DHK accused God's Word of being "the doctrine of demons." Can you give some indication of where, in your opinion, he did?

 

[quantumfaith]

News flash - the KJV is not inspired! No translation is inspired. Yes, the English must properly represent the Greek text or it is an improper translation. Are you saying that the average person would attempt to make the grammatical point you attempted??? Hardly!

There is no point in going any further into this discussion as it is quite obvious you simply do not care about the truth at all - you simply want to debate for the sake of debating. No, I don't care to debate for the sake of debating.

:laugh::laugh:ROFL

 

[WestminsterMan]

News flash - the KJV is not inspired! No translation is inspired.

Really? Man am I distressed.

Yes, the English must properly represent the Greek text or it is an improper translation.

Oh I see... English scholars/translators over the centuries saw that the Greek renders the passage as an "OR" yet, in their ignorance, decided to use the word "AND". Good luck with that one there, doc.

Are you saying that the average person would attempt to make the grammatical point you attempted??? Hardly!

I am saying that if the average person understands English at even a rudimentary level, they could come to no conclusion other than the one that I provided you. You do understand the difference between the words "AND" and "OR" do you not?

There is no point in going any further into this discussion as it is quite obvious you simply do not care about the truth at all - you simply want to debate for the sake of debating. No, I don't care to debate for the sake of debating.

Hmmm...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

You still don't get it do you.
1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle. It is Paul writing to Timothy, pastor of the church in Ephesus, giving him advice on how to keep order in the church, among other things.

If that's what you think, then you haven't been reading this thread.

This has nothing to do with the practice of Jesus. This has nothing to do with personal choice. This is about the mandate of a church saying it is wrong for their people or any people to abstain from foods or to abstain from marriage. Using Christ as an example, therefore, is ridiculous. What church authority was Christ submitting to? He is the Creator and submits to none of his creatures.

So, in your skewed belief system, we are not to follow the practices of Jesus nor follow Him as our example, and to do so is rediculous?

When Jesus died on the cross the ceremonial law, including the dietary laws of the Jews as written in Leviticus 11, were all done away with. We are no longer under the Law. If you want to start a thread on that by all means do so, but don't derail this thread by switching to that topic.

I never mentioned whether or not we are still under the Law, pink dirigibles, or Easter bunnies for that matter. First YOU state something, attribute it to me, accuse me of switching the point, and then suggest that I start another thread. That looks very good DHK - especially coming from you.

Only if this [celebacy] is your personal decision. If this is mandated by a church or any other equivalent organization then it is a doctrine of demons.

Sooo... If I'm a candidate for the priesthood, then that's not my personal decision. Alrighty then.

Abstinence from marriage is celibacy. The other doctrine of demons is abstinence from food. Both are doctrines of demons.

Abstinence from marriage is celibacy only if it is ongoing abstinance from marriage. As I said - rediculous!

You ignore the entire passage.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1)
--It is the last times, in these days. People are departing from the faith. And they are giving heed to seducing spirits especially doctrines of demons.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4:2)
--They also speak lies in hypocrisy, and their consciences are seared just like a hot iron does a good job of searing (as in closing a plastic bag).

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--These are just two examples of doctrines of demons:
1. forbidding to marry, and,
2. commanding to abstain from meats (OE word for food in general),
which God BTW, has created to be received with thanksgiving.

If one forbids to marry they are commanding them to abstain from marriage or commanding them to remain celibate .

One can abstain from marriage but not be chaste. One cannot, however, be celibate and have sex. Man are you confused...

Remember these are only two examples. There are other examples that could be added to this list, areas where the church has no business sticking their business.

Oh so now it comes to light. Your problem with the RCC is actually one of authority... OK. That's your business; however, you shouldn't interject your "feelings" into what SHOULD be logical discourse. It really has no place.

Jim Jones mandated that all his members drink kool-aid. Do you agree with that?

The last time I checked, Jim Jones mandated that his members drink kool-aid at gun point. Such an analogy suggests that you believe the RCC does so as well and if they did, then your position would be correct. However, since they don't, you're not. :thumbs:

IT is not abstaining but requiring them to eat. It is the same sort of thing--an obvious doctrine of demons. The church cannot force these things on its members.

The Church doesn't force celibacy on anyone - it requires it of religious, but NOT its MEMBERS (laity). And you claim to have been a catholic for 20 years?

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Ok this sorta gets to one of my Bible topics again -- so...

snip...
In a sane moment DHK suggest we actually look at man-made tradition to see if that fits the qualification for the 1Tim 4 "Doctrines of Demons".

A careful exploration of those specific man-made traditions would be needed to see if they fit or if they do not fit.

But in your post - you suggest that maybe the Word of God itself is a doctrine of demons (speaking perhaps of Lev 11).

To me that is atrocious -- but of course DHK joins you at times on that same point -- accusing God's Word of being "doctrines of demons"... so at least you are in good company with that suggestion.

But to your credit you admit to the detail of the doctrines of demons - being the teaching of demons. And few people are so confused as to point to the Bible itself and declare IT to be "the teaching of demons" though Apparently DHK is willing to do that in the case of Lev 11 - and perhaps you are too.

But the more readily you admit that 1Tim 4 is really talking about "The teaching of demons" I think the more you will hesitate to point to God's Word - as the teaching of demons.

That was not my intent. What I was attempting to point out was the logical fallacy one must accept in order to get to the positions held by DHK and the doc. I didn't accuse (either implicitly or explicitly) "...God's Word of being 'doctrines of demons.'" I think a careful examination of what I wrote will point this out to you.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Ohh I see... all the way back on post 143 Nate takes the focus off of the Word of God in Lev 11 and places it on some other issues.

That means I have not been demonized on this thread for a zillion posts so far.

snip...

I've got your back there Bob!


WM

 

[DHK]

If that's what you think, then you haven't been reading this thread.

Yes, I have been reading this thread. You haven't been following this thread with your mind.
What did I say? I gave you background information on Paul's epistles to Timothy to help you understand the background. It is fact, not opinion:

"1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle. It is Paul writing to Timothy, pastor of the church in Ephesus, giving him advice on how to keep order in the church, among other things."
--If you don't believe me there are plenty of resource material that you can go to and look it up for yourself. This is factual data not open for debate. The fact that you are ignorant of it is pitiful.

So, in your skewed belief system, we are not to follow the practices of Jesus nor follow Him as our example, and to do so is rediculous?

The only thing Jesus said about marriage is that there is no marriage in heaven. If you want to follow the practices of Jesus to the extent that you are saying (things contrary to the word of God, then allow yourself to be crucified, buried in a tomb for three days, and on the third day rise again--and do it after you have undergone the most unimaginable torture that humans can inflict upon a man. That is literally following Jesus. Jesus did not marry. He came for the purpose of going to the cross. Go and do thou likewise. There is your answer.

I never mentioned whether or not we are still under the Law, pink dirigibles, or Easter bunnies for that matter. First YOU state something, attribute it to me, accuse me of switching the point, and then suggest that I start another thread. That looks very good DHK - especially coming from you.

First, your mention of Mosaic Law is here:
"The passage states that the doctrine forbids them from taking certain foods... as in the Mosiac Law -
--Yes, you did refer to the Mosaic Law. If you want to start a thread on it do so, but don't derail this one. My point stands.

Sooo... If I'm a candidate for the priesthood, then that's not my personal decision. Alrighty then.

Twisting words again are you? If you choose to be a member of certain IFB churches you will promise to abstain from illicit drugs. You will make that covenant. Drugs are not a food so that does not violate 1Tim.4:1-4. Would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to be a candidate for membership of that church based on that requirement?
--No one is speaking of the candidacy of the priesthood.
We are speaking of the requirement--the requirement of celibacy which the Bible says is a doctrine of demons, that is the requirement of celibacy, the requirement to abstain from marriage.

Abstinence from marriage is celibacy only if it is ongoing abstinance from marriage. As I said - rediculous!

Here is what the verse says lest you remain ignorant:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--The RCC forbids to marry. That is the exact phrase used. So do away with the word "abstinence" if it confuses you. They forbid to marry. It is a doctrine of demons. Your point is moot. It is a red herring.

One can abstain from marriage but not be chaste. One cannot, however, be celibate and have sex. Man are you confused...

I'll quote it again:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from food.
These are the two doctrines of demons, both of which the RCC practice.
You play a game of semantics instead of admitting truth. I am not the one confused, obviously.

Oh so now it comes to light. Your problem with the RCC is actually one of authority... OK. That's your business; however, you shouldn't interject your "feelings" into what SHOULD be logical discourse. It really has no place.

This is not a matter of feelings. I have no feelings on this matter. But you are right in that it is a matter of authority. I do not bow to the authority of Rome. My authority is the Word of God. The authority of the Word of God states that the practices of the RCC are doctrines of demons. Those are plain and simple facts. Feelings do not enter into it. It is wrong. The RCC leads people straight to hell with its message of works. What is your authority? Certainly not the Word of God, is it?

The last time I checked, Jim Jones mandated that his members drink kool-aid at gun point. Such an analogy suggests that you believe the RCC does so as well and if they did, then your position would be correct. However, since they don't, you're not.

And the last time I checked the RCC MANDATES that those desiring to be priests MUST not marry. The RCC commands them to remain single, as Jim Jones commanded his followers to drink Kool-aid. There is no difference.

The Church doesn't force celibacy on anyone - it requires it of religious, but NOT its MEMBERS (laity). And you claim to have been a catholic for 20 years?
WM

It forces a life of celibacy on all who desire to enter the priesthood, unless they come already married from another like-minded faith. Yes it is forced upon them. You really are deluded aren't you. Either that or you refuse to accept the truth, or are a closet Catholic, and have lied on your profile--another possibility. Is that the case?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

TruthGiver,

Are you truly giving the Truth? or are you here to sow discord among the brethren?

I have not seen one single thing wrong in Dr. Walter's posts in this thread.

So what if he posted 3000 posts over the last year? If the Lord laid it on his heart to post what he has, he is not at fault.

And I wonder who you are to publicly rebuke a long standing member of this forum when you only joined last month and only have 5 posts? ... and every one of your posts is the same copy and paste attack.

Your agenda is obvious.

 

[TruthGiver]

Fred,

These are just a couple of the reponses I have recieved privatly.

(1)Truthgiver,

Obviously you have had some experiences with Doc Wally. I for one, will rarely engage him due to his attitude and almost borderline hate with respect to anyone who disagrees with him. Where have you “had dealings” with him?

Thank You


(2)Thank YOU SO much for this information.


So I know that there are those on here that are sick of the way he talks to people, among other reasons others would want factual information such as this. 90% of the reason I posted this was for him to get off the internet and spend time with his family and Wife! The other 10% was because I felt you all should know. I hope he checks his priorities, Wife, Church, family then uses some free time for his private internet hobby.

Truly,

Truth Giver

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Well, since it is obvious that you joined this forum with only one agenda, I can tell your stay is not going to be long on here.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

TruthGiver,
The general rule of thumb is, when you feel someone is in err concerning the Gospel, attack the message, not the messenger.

Attacking the messenger will get you nowhere.

So, what has Dr Walter preached in this thread that is contrary to what the Word of God says?

 

[TruthGiver]

I am not here concerning what he believes in. If you all want to continue to be swayed into his desired agruments and ugly, pointless debates, so be it. I am here to just shed light on some truth about his desired path as a Pastor. I will allow you ALL to adjust to it accordingly.

This is my last post about this matter.

Truly,

TruthGiver.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Adjustments need to be made, that is certain. But as far as I can tell, they are not with Dr Walter.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I do not know of any Pastor in Oregon belonging to Faith Baptist Church, who is an accountant! How he can possibly speak about what I do in my own home or in my church or who is in my car when I drive to church or how long I preach or what I do when I come home is beyond me.

I have never ever been run out one city much less five cities. No church has ever asked me to leave as a Pastor. Every church that I have pastored, I have voluntarily resigned against the expressed desires of the members including the church in Ohio.

I have clearly stated on this forum that I do not hold a "doctorate." I hold a B.A. from Lexington Baptist College and two years toward a Master's degree in Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis Tennessee which I finished with a Master's of Theology Degree from Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary, Dallas/Fort Worth Tx. I am enrolled in the doctoral program at Landmark Baptist Theolgoical Seminary in Dallas Texas.

Concerning my wife's medical condition, I don't think you can stoop any lower than what this man has done. I don't know how in the world he can evaluate how I treat my wife, or what I do at home and how he can much such value judgements.

Obviously, "truthgiver" has one objective and that is to destroy me and my reputation publicly. I don't know this man but I do know one thing - he is wrong about most of what he has said and how he can make such personal value judgments about me, my wife, what goes on in my home, in my church, or past churches should give the readers a clue of his agenda.

However, if that is his agenda - then - it is an easy thing to destroy someone publicly but it is hardly the job that a professing Christian should be involved in. Obviously, this person does not like me and wants to destroy me. I wish I only knew for what reason?

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...First, your mention of Mosaic Law is here:
"The passage states that the doctrine forbids them from taking certain foods... as in the Mosiac Law -

--Yes, you did refer to the Mosaic Law. If you want to start a thread on it do so, but don't derail this one. My point stands.

Here is what I said:

Originally Posted by WestminsterMan
I thought you might try this. Jesus fasted, but never gave up certain foods during any other time except during that of His fast. The passage states that the doctrine forbids them from taking certain foods... as in the Mosiac Law - not temporarily - but it forbids them permanently.

...to which you responded:

When Jesus died on the cross the ceremonial law, including the dietary laws of the Jews as written in Leviticus 11, were all done away with. We are no longer under the Law. If you want to start a thread on that by all means do so, but don't derail this thread by switching to that topic.

As anyone can see in my actual post, I mentioned the Mosaic Law as a secondary or even tertiary point. You expounded on it and blamed me for changing the topic. Your point falls, as does your integrity!

Twisting words again are you? If you choose to be a member of certain IFB churches you will promise to abstain from illicit drugs. You will make that covenant. Drugs are not a food so that does not violate 1Tim.4:1-4. Would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to be a candidate for membership of that church based on that requirement?
--No one is speaking of the candidacy of the priesthood.
We are speaking of the requirement--the requirement of celibacy which the Bible says is a doctrine of demons, that is the requirement of celibacy, the requirement to abstain from marriage."

Again you are confusing abstainance with celebacy. A common mistake, yet one you continue to make even after you've been corrected.

Here is what the verse says lest you remain ignorant:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--The RCC forbids to marry. That is the exact phrase used. So do away with the word "abstinence" if it confuses you. They forbid to marry. It is a doctrine of demons. Your point is moot. It is a red herring.

I'll quote it again:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from food.
These are the two doctrines of demons, both of which the RCC practice.
You play a game of semantics instead of admitting truth. I am not the one confused, obviously.

Where did you learn your people skills - in a Mexican jail? Repeating something multiple times really doesn't make your case any stronger there DHK. Didn't you say something about your grandson copying and pasting earlier? Hmmm...

This is not a matter of feelings. I have no feelings on this matter.

You could have fooled me!

But you are right in that it is a matter of authority. I do not bow to the authority of Rome. My authority is the Word of God. The authority of the Word of God states that the practices of the RCC are doctrines of demons. Those are plain and simple facts. Feelings do not enter into it. It is wrong. The RCC leads people straight to hell with its message of works. What is your authority?

Not what but Whom - God.

And the last time I checked the RCC MANDATES that those desiring to be priests MUST not marry.

Then you haven't checked lately. Can you say ANGLICANS?

The RCC commands them to remain single, as Jim Jones commanded his followers to drink Kool-aid. There is no difference.

I would say 25 or so people armed with fully automatic weapons makes a huge difference. :thumbs:

It forces a life of celibacy on all who desire to enter the priesthood, unless they come already married from another like-minded faith.

Finally...

Yes it is forced upon them. You really are deluded aren't you. Either that or you refuse to accept the truth, or are a closet Catholic, and have lied on your profile--another possibility. Is that the case?

WM

 

[DHK]

I am not here concerning what he believes in. If you all want to continue to be swayed into his desired agruments and ugly, pointless debates, so be it. I am here to just shed light on some truth about his desired path as a Pastor. I will allow you ALL to adjust to it accordingly.

This is my last post about this matter.

Truly,

TruthGiver.

Then what are you here for?
If you are not here for honest debate and discussion you are not welcome. This is not a platform for gossip and sowing discord among the brethren.
Go somewhere else and air your grievances. Your entrance fee will be refunded as you exit the door.

 

[Dr. Walter]

But in your post - you suggest that maybe the Word of God itself is a doctrine of demons (speaking perhaps of Lev 11).

Since the New Testament Scriptures abolish the pratice of the Leviticual laws under the New Covenant, then, obviously if some are enforcing them in spite of their abolishment as soteriological requirements (part of good works for justification or commandments that must be obeyed) then yes, THAT KIND OF APPLICATION and INTERPRETATION of Leviticus becomes "doctrines of demons" as does all MISINTERPRETATIONS of scripture.

Indeed, most false doctrine includes misinterpretations of scripture. Of course the scripture is not demonic but what is demonic is the misinterpretation of that scripture.

Those who are in opposition to 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as applicable to ANY and ALL who FORBID marriage and/or abstain from certain foods simply are perverting the scriptures for their own belly.