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

[DHK]

1) Both Jesus AND Paul were celibate.

Jesus came from heaven as God in the flesh, was born of a virgin, and yet remained fully God. To suggest that he was married would be blasphemous, and so the suggest that he could be married is just the same. He came for one purpose only--to be a sacrifice that he might atone for the penalty of our sins--not to marry. To use Christ for an example in this discussion is outrageous and disgusting.

There is good evidence that Paul was married, that his wife had died, and that he was a widower. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the requirements of the Sanhedrin was marriage. Thus it is on good grounds that we believe Paul that Paul was at one time married.

2) No one is forcing anyone to become a priest.

You are deceived here. The RCC does require celibacy. I have already told you my own testimony. Do you not believe me, or just insinuate that I lie. I was Roman Catholic for 20 years, and thought seriously of going into the priesthood. Had I gone into the priesthood at that time the RCC would have required me to remain celibate. I would have no choice in the matter. I would not be able to marry. I would be forced to remain single the rest of my life. This is what is being described as a doctrine of demons. It is a doctrine of the RCC that those entering the priesthood must remain celibate, as I would have been required to do. It was not an optional practice. It was not an optional discipline.
A discipline is like reading my Bible. I must discipline myself to set aside some time each day to do that. I have a choice to make. I have a choice in how much time to spend. The same holds true for prayer. That is another discipline. Remaining celibate is not a discipline it is an absolute requirement--a doctrine--of the RCC. Semantics doesn't change the meaning of the word or practice.

3) Orthodox Catholics can marry or remain celibate.

But I was not Orthodox. I was RCC, thinking of entering into the RCC priesthood. This is a red herring, as much as a red herring as saying Methodists can marry. So what! The discussion is on the RCC.

4) Anglicans converting to the RCC may remain married.

The RCC has become very ecumenical. Again, another red herring. This is not about provision for the Anglican priests. It is about the requirements that the RCC have for those entering into their own priesthood--that of celibacy. Why do you fail to look at facts.

Thus, your position is logically untenable. Good night Irene!

No, you don't want to look at the facts, refuse to look at them, and thus come to false conclusions.

It is apparent that you don't even understand what you are writing about. If the Church of Rome states that their disciplines (things that can change) are not doctrines (things that cannot change) then I take them at their word.

You take them at their word when you don't even know their doctrine. Discipline and doctrine and one and the same thing here. I have demonstrated that for you, and yet you do not believe. The RCC is very good at playing games with words. They have redefined many words, words such as: grace, born again, worship, idolatry, and many others. This they do so they can accommodate their own sinful practices of idolatry.

Your entire argument is predicated upon the clearly demonstrable false position that the two are synonymous. I suppose you know better what they believe than they do? You've got to do better than that doc.

I was a Catholic for 20 years and since then have studied the Catechism at great length. I have also read through Vatican II. I know what they teach. I do believe, by what you have posted that you are somewhat ignorant on this subject and are in no place to speak with any authority.

Celibacy for the religious does not "...contradict the Word of God" and you haven't proven that it does.

It does contradict the word of God, when mandated by another religion. That is what you fail to see. If one is called independently of that, that is another story. But when mandated by any religion or group of people then it is a doctrine of demons.

The simple and glaringly obvious fact is that the contrary is stated in scripture. Jesus is God and He lauded celibacy

Don't blaspheme the name of Christ. It is incredible that you should say such things against the Son of God.

- it is a gift. Jesus didn't say that this gift excluded the clergy did he?

Only if it is a personal choice. In the RCC it is not a personal choice.

When Paul speaks to Timothy about how Bishops are to behave in their affairs he NEVER excludes celibacy, he only sets forth guidelines for those who choose marriage. Your whole position puts Paul and Jesus in the position of requiring Bishops to behave in a way contrary to the way that they themselves lived. Preposterous!

Your ignorance of the Bible here is unwarranted. Do some more study. Paul was previously married, and the purpose of Christ coming to earth was not to marry! He came to die for the sins of the world.

Keep up the Catholic bashing; it makes you look oh so Christ like.

WM

You are the Landmarkist. You have B.H. Carroll on your side. Do you also agree with Alexander Hislop's Book, "The Two Babylons"?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I do not see Dr Walter bashing Catholics, I see him as revealing their false doctrines.

Paul did that in the Bibe, as did Peter, as did Christ; as will DHK, as will Dr Walter, as will Steadfast Fred.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1) Both Jesus AND Paul were celibate.
2) No one is forcing anyone to become a priest.
3) Orthodox Catholics can marry or remain celibate.
4) Anglicans converting to the RCC may remain married.

Thus, your position is logically untenable. Good night Irene!

Your arguments above simply beg the question! No one has denied that celibacy is a personal individual option. No one has argued that Catholics force anyone to be come preists. I have never mentioned "Orthodox" or "Anglicans" at all because it is Roman Catholics Catholics that have been the focus of my posts. Thus everything you have stated in 1-4 simply begs the issue.

It is apparent that you don't even understand what you are writing about. If the Church of Rome states that their disciplines (things that can change) are not doctrines (things that cannot change) then I take them at their word.

1. May I ask what is your final authority for truth? Is it the Catholic Church or the Bible?

2. Do you even recognize the Scriptures as final authority for faith and practice?

3. Do you believe the Roman Catholic Church is to be subjected to Scripture? What they call "discipline" is "tradition" and must be "tradition" because don't recognize it as "doctrine."

Therefore, their "discipline" is either tradition in keeping with God's Word or it is tradition that transgresses God's Word.

4. Do you accept Christ's definition of "tradition" that contradicts God's word to be "commandments of men" and "doctrine" REGARDLESS of what Rome or any other religion may or may not choose to call their "tradition" (discipline)?

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Christ explicitly calls what Rome defines as "discipline" to be "tradition" and "commandments of men" and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Christ says such "discipline" (tradition) is "doctrines" and Rome denies it is "doctrines"! Who do you side with?

Celibacy for the religious does not "...contradict the Word of God" and you haven't proven that it does.

I have never denied that VOLUNTARY celibacy contradicts God's Word. What I have denied is that those who are in charge of qualifying the ministers for the ministry are prohibited by Scripture to make celibacy a requirement for the ministry!

1. Because the Biblical qualifications do not only PERMIT marriage but PROMOTE it - 1 Tim. 3:1 - and neither you or Rome have any Biblical authority to overrule/change/repudiate this explicit stated Apostolic qualifications

2. Because the Bible condemns all who would forbid marriage - 1 Tim. 4:4

The simple and glaringly obvious fact is that the contrary is stated in scripture. Jesus is God and He lauded celibacy - it is a gift. Jesus didn't say that this gift excluded the clergy did he?

Again, you beg the issue! No one has argued that celibacy is excluded from the ministry as a VOLUNTARY INDIVIDUAL desire (1 Cor. 9:5; Mt. 8:14). What is being denied is that the Scriptures provide any basis to make it a qualification for ministry.

When Paul speaks to Timothy about how Bishops are to behave in their affairs he NEVER excludes celibacy,

Again you beg the issue! No one argues that Paul excludes celibacy from the ministry! That is a straw man argument that permeates your posts that you have built out of thin air.

he only sets forth guidelines for those who choose marriage.

Therefore you admit that the Scriptures permit the ordination of married men as you do say "for those who choose marriage."

Can you find anywhere there are qualifications that do not permit married men? No! You cannot! Hence, neither you, Rome or buggy-e-boo have any Biblical authority to make celibacy a "discipline" (enforcement) for the ministry as that "discipline" violates the clear PERMISSION given by God's Word for married men in the ministry - 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 9:5

Your whole position puts Paul and Jesus in the position of requiring Bishops to behave in a way contrary to the way that they themselves lived. Preposterous!

Again, you beg the issue! No one has taken "the position of requiring Bishops" to be married! No one! This is your straw man that you have built and that you attack all by your lonesome! The issue is that both Paul and Jesus NEVER required the "discipline" of celibacy upon anyone at all but PERMITTED marriage in the ministry as Jesus called Peter, a married man, into the ministry! (1 Cor. 9:5; Mt. 8:14). What is "preposterous" is your repeated straw man argument and your denial that the Scriptures condemn all who prohibit marriage regardless of what semnatical term they want to place that prohibition under "discipline." (1 Tim. 4:4).

Furthermore, I think you are forgetting the whole issue of Gnoticism there, doc.

Please point out where Paul uses the term "Gnosticism" in 1 Tim. 4:1-4? Please demonstrate that "demons" are not the source identified by Paul in 1 Tim. 4:1-4 for the "discipline" or "doctrine" or "teaching" or "belief" that substantiates "forbidding to marry"???? Notice the case and gender agreement below that grammatically indicates that "demons" are the source of "forbidding to marry" whereas "some" in verse 1 refers to their human instruments of which you are one.



1 Tim. 4:1 ¶ 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 [genitive masculine noun];2 Speaking lies [genitive masculine participle] in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding [genitive masculine participle] to marry,

Do you believe Christians should tell the truth? Did you tell the truth about your denomination and church in your public profile??? The following articles of faith were taken from your church website in Dothan AL. Do you believe them:

17. We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).

18. We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12, 38; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2, 17-20, 26).

 

[WestminsterMan]

Jesus came from heaven as God in the flesh, was born of a virgin, and yet remained fully God. To suggest that he was married would be blasphemous, and so the suggest that he could be married is just the same. He came for one purpose only--to be a sacrifice that he might atone for the penalty of our sins--not to marry. To use Christ for an example in this discussion is outrageous and disgusting.

Outrageous and disgusting? Perhaps it is to you. Yet Jesus said this:

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Hmmm...

snip...
You are deceived here. The RCC does require celibacy. I have already told you my own testimony. Do you not believe me, or just insinuate that I lie. I was Roman Catholic for 20 years, and thought seriously of going into the priesthood. Had I gone into the priesthood at that time the RCC would have required me to remain celibate. I would have no choice in the matter. I would not be able to marry. I would be forced to remain single the rest of my life. This is what is being described as a doctrine of demons. It is a doctrine of the RCC that those entering the priesthood must remain celibate, as I would have been required to do. It was not an optional practice. It was not an optional discipline.
A discipline is like reading my Bible. I must discipline myself to set aside some time each day to do that. I have a choice to make. I have a choice in how much time to spend. The same holds true for prayer. That is another discipline. Remaining celibate is not a discipline it is an absolute requirement--a doctrine--of the RCC. Semantics doesn't change the meaning of the word or practice.

Yet stating something as fact doesn't make the statement true either. No one forces a person to become a priest. THEY decide to accept it -- and if one doesn't wish to accept all that goes along with that (including celibacy) then DONT BECOME A PRIEST. It couldn't be clearer.

But I was not Orthodox. I was RCC, thinking of entering into the RCC priesthood. This is a red herring, as much as a red herring as saying Methodists can marry. So what! The discussion is on the RCC.

The RCC has become very ecumenical. Again, another red herring. This is not about provision for the Anglican priests. It is about the requirements that the RCC have for those entering into their own priesthood--that of celibacy. Why do you fail to look at facts.

I didn't offer you anything that wasn't considered by the RCC as acceptable.

1) Both Jesus AND Paul were celibate.
2) No one is forcing anyone to become a priest.
3) Orthodox Catholics can marry or remain celibate.
4) Anglicans converting to the RCC may remain married.

Since this little fact completely destroys this pathetic little argument, I can see why you would like to exclude it by portraying it as a "red herring." If what we are talking about here is the RCC, and these Anglicans become RCC priests, then they are in communion with the RCC. This has EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. Here we have Catholic priests who are married often with children. This kind of destroys the disciplines are doctrines position doesn't it?

You take them at their word when you don't even know their doctrine. Discipline and doctrine and one and the same thing here. I have demonstrated that for you, and yet you do not believe.

You have tried, but you do not convince.

The RCC is very good at playing games with words. They have redefined many words, words such as: grace, born again, worship, idolatry, and many others. This they do so they can accommodate their own sinful practices of idolatry.

Topic change? We are dicussing celibacy.

I was a Catholic for 20 years and since then have studied the Catechism at great length. I have also read through Vatican II. I know what they teach. I do believe, by what you have posted that you are somewhat ignorant on this subject and are in no place to speak with any authority.

Ok... since I am ignorant of Catholicism, and since YOU have 20 years as a Catholic under your belt and YOU know the Catechism inside and out, let me look at the relavent section for my own edification.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." 70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," 71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. 72

Notes:
70 Mt 19:12.

71 I Cor 7:32.

72 Cf. PO 16.

Wait! They are basing this on scripture. Hmmm...

It does contradict the word of God, when mandated by another religion. That is what you fail to see. If one is called independently of that, that is another story. But when mandated by any religion or group of people then it is a doctrine of demons.

As far as I can tell, Catholics are christians too, so by your own statement "...when mandated by another religion..." you have just precluded Catholics.

Originally Posted by WestminsterMan
The simple and glaringly obvious fact is that the contrary is stated in scripture. Jesus is God and He lauded celibacy

Don't blaspheme the name of Christ. It is incredible that you should say such things against the Son of God.

So, in the DHK universe quoting the words of Jesus is tantamount to blashemy? Again...

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Only if it is a personal choice. In the RCC it is not a personal choice.

Hmmm... So choosing to become a priest is not a choice? Right...

Your ignorance of the Bible here is unwarranted. Do some more study. Paul was previously married, and the purpose of Christ coming to earth was not to marry! He came to die for the sins of the world.

Yet He said what He said. With this you must deal.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...
Please point out where Paul uses the term "Gnosticism" in 1 Tim. 4:1-4?

Please point out where the term "Trinity" is used in scripture. You do see how lame this tactic is don't you?

The following articles of faith were taken from your church website in Dothan AL. Do you believe them:

17. We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).

18. We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12, 38; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2, 17-20, 26).

Hot dog! We finally got a website. Do you mind giving me the URL so that I can see it?

Thanks!
WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

I do not see Dr Walter bashing Catholics, I see him as revealing their false doctrines.

Well on this point we differ. There's clearly an agenda here and I don't see it as very Christ like behavior.

Paul did that in the Bibe, as did Peter, as did Christ; as will DHK, as will Dr Walter, as will Steadfast Fred.

Well then, launch into it SF. However, don't you think it would be prudent to present your points to an actual Catholic? I mean, DHK's infallible proclamation that I am "...ignorant on this subject and are in no place to speak with any authority... “ would seem to merit this. Are there any actual Catholics here? I haven't seen any - and with all this vitriolic rhetoric, I can understand their absence. Or is it that they are purposfully excluded? I wonder...

WM

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Well on this point we differ. There's clearly an agenda here and I don't see it as very Christ like behavior.



Well then, launch into it SF. However, don't you think it would be prudent to present your points to an actual Catholic? I mean, DHK's infallible proclamation that I am "...ignorant on this subject and are in no place to speak with any authority... “ would seem to merit this. Are there any actual Catholics here? I haven't seen any - and with all this vitriolic rhetoric, I can understand their absence. Or is it that they are purposfully excluded? I wonder...

WM

There may or may not be any Catholics in this thread, but there sure appears to be a defender of Catholic doctrine in the thread.

 

[WestminsterMan]

There may or may not be any Catholics in this thread, but there sure appears to be a defender of Catholic doctrine in the thread.

Why; because from scripture, I don't agree that a vow of celibacy by a religious constitutes a doctrine of demons? I see - so if anyone happens to disagree with a few people here regarding one Catholic practice (or whatever you want to call it), that makes that person a "...defender of Catholic doctrine." The last time I checked, Catholic doctrine consisted of more than one issue. And DHK calls me ignorant? Really...

WM

 

[DHK]

Outrageous and disgusting? Perhaps it is to you. Yet Jesus said this:

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Was Jesus referencing himself as you suggest? No. Never in all of Scripture does Christ, the incarnate Son of God suggest that He came for the purpose of getting married. What a blasphemous thing to suggest. Yet you use that as one of your arguments. That shows the weakness of the arguments you have. Really, resorting to border-line blasphemy. Your are making the same suggestive and provocative statements that the liberals are making--that Christ was married to Mary of Magdalene?? Close isn't it? Christ, married?? Come on? Can't you come up with a better argument than that?

What Christ said--that was permissible for others, He could not do himself--i.e., be married. That much is obvious.

Hmmm...

Choosing to become a priest IS a choice; but the RCC putting the REQUIREMENT of maintaining a celibate life is not a choice he has. That is the mandate of the RCC. Be celibate or don't enter the priesthood--a doctrine of demons. There is no choice concerning celibacy. Don't go off topic here.

Yet stating something as fact doesn't make the statement true either. No one forces a person to become a priest. THEY decide to accept it -- and if one doesn't wish to accept all that goes along with that (including celibacy) then DONT BECOME A PRIEST. It couldn't be clearer.

Your logic is like this:
If the requirement to be a nun would be to go naked the rest of her life, then it would be her choice to do so and it would be perfectly Biblical to do so. Being naked is not wrong, not immoral, not against Scripture, for the RCC allows it. After all the RCC allows it!
There is your logic in a nut shell.
But walking around naked is immoral and wrong.
But mandating celibacy is wrong Scripturally, and a doctrine of demons.
For the Catholic Church to mandate either one would be a doctrine of demons. They cannot require that which goes against Scripture.

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers. (Hebrews 13:4)
--Let history show God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers among the RCC that have come as a direct result from the policy of celibacy in the RCC.

I didn't offer you anything that wasn't considered by the RCC as acceptable.

1) Both Jesus AND Paul were celibate.

Paul was previously married, and God does not marry.

2) No one is forcing anyone to become a priest.

Irrelevant. The RCC is forcing the priests to be celibate--a doctrine of demons.

3) Orthodox Catholics can marry or remain celibate.

Irrelevant.

4) Anglicans converting to the RCC may remain married.

Irrelevant

Since this little fact completely destroys this pathetic little argument, I can see why you would like to exclude it by portraying it as a "red herring." If what we are talking about here is the RCC, and these Anglicans become RCC priests, then they are in communion with the RCC.

I was in communion with the RCC also. But it was not until I desired to enter into the priesthood as a single man that the requirement of celibacy would have been forced upon me. But you want to throw in a red herring in there about an exception to the rule for those already married in another but related faith. IT is irrelevant.

This has EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. Here we have Catholic priests who are married often with children. This kind of destroys the disciplines are doctrines position doesn't it?

No, you have proselytes to the RCC. It is different. And you are blind to that fact.

Ok... since I am ignorant of Catholicism, and since YOU have 20 years as a Catholic under your belt and YOU know the Catechism inside and out, let me look at the relavent section for my own edification.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

The RCC doesn't even know what the kingdom of heaven is.
They can't even define what born again is.
If they continue to preach a gospel of works, they will all end up in hell.

70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," 71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. 72

God doesn't reign now does he? They are deluded, and do not have any personal relationship with God. Their celibacy only leads them farther into sin, and farther away from God. The RCC is not a Christian religion, never was, and never will be.

Notes:
70 Mt 19:12.

71 I Cor 7:32.

72 Cf. PO 16.

Wait! They are basing this on scripture. Hmmm...

My four year old grand-son can copy and paste Scripture. That doesn't mean he knows what they mean.

As far as I can tell, Catholics are christians too, so by your own statement "...when mandated by another religion..." you have just precluded Catholics.

The RCC religion is as much Christian as the Hindu religion is. It has as much saving grace as the Hindu religion does. Its purpose is the same--it sends people to hell. Both religions believe that by works a man must get to heaven. Every man-made religion believes that. Biblical Christianity is the only faith that does not. Catholicism does not believe in the tenets of Biblical Christianity; if fact it opposes them, and always has.

So, in the DHK universe quoting the words of Jesus is tantamount to blashemy? Again...

Those words of Jesus in Matthew 19 were written to others. Jesus was not speaking to Himself, or didn't you know that? It is blasphemous to suggest that Christ either was or could have been married. Why do you use such an absurd argument?

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
And you are applying this to Christ! Amazing!
Do you not know that Christ was born of a virgin--God incarnate: perfect man and perfect deity: the God-Man.
But you are inferring that Christ was a eunuch! Blasphemous.

Hmmm... So choosing to become a priest is not a choice?

Choosing to become celibate is not a choice in the RCC.

Yet He said what He said. With this you must deal.

WM

Yes he said what he said, and he said it to others, not himself, and somehow you would make Christ out to be a eunuch. How blasphemous can one be!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Please point out where the term "Trinity" is used in scripture. You do see how lame this tactic is don't you?

May I remind you that it was YOU and not I, that asserted "Gnosticism" into this text (1 Tim. 4:1-5) and therefore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your own assertion. However, instead of providing any intelligent response you come back with this diversion.

I provided evidence that you consistently beg the issue by your straw man arguments and you cannot provide an intelligent response!

I placed grammatical evidence before you and you cannot offer an intelligent response!

When asked directly do you believe what your own professed church has posted publicly in their statement of faith you could not offer an intelligent response! Why? Because you are not a Baptist theologically and certainly not a "Landmark" Baptist. You are either completely ignorant that Roman Catholic soteriology is contradictive to not merely the Scriptures but to the very profession of faith your own church ascribes publicly, OR you are just using that particular church as a front to get on this forum.

You are a living legend in your own mind but outside of that very small space you have nothing to offer to this discussion but open and obvious ignorance.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Was Jesus referencing himself as you suggest? No. Never in all of Scripture does Christ, the incarnate Son of God suggest that He came for the purpose of getting married. What a blasphemous thing to suggest. Yet you use that as one of your arguments. That shows the weakness of the arguments you have. Really, resorting to border-line blasphemy. Your are making the same suggestive and provocative statements that the liberals are making--that Christ was married to Mary of Magdalene?? Close isn't it? Christ, married?? Come on? Can't you come up with a better argument than that?

What Christ said--that was permissible for others, He could not do himself--i.e., be married. That much is obvious.

I never suggested that Jesus was refering to himself - either explicitly or implicitly. I said that Christ was celibate.

Let's define terms here. In most instances being celibate refers to a state of not being married, or a state of abstention from sexual intercourse or vow of marriage. Christ fits that definition perfectly. I am not arguing that He COULD have been married - that's a nonsequitor and should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read what I post. Apparently you have not. Perhaps you need a short break.

Choosing to become a priest IS a choice; but the RCC putting the REQUIREMENT of maintaining a celibate life is not a choice he has. That is the mandate of the RCC. Be celibate or don't enter the priesthood--a doctrine of demons. There is no choice concerning celibacy. Don't go off topic here.

Don't worry about me going off topic as you are about to take care of that yourself as all will see.

Your logic is like this:
If the requirement to be a nun would be to go naked the rest of her life, then it would be her choice to do so and it would be perfectly Biblical to do so.

Being naked is not wrong, not immoral, not against Scripture, for the RCC allows it. After all the RCC allows it!
There is your logic in a nut shell.
But walking around naked is immoral and wrong.
But mandating celibacy is wrong Scripturally, and a doctrine of demons.
For the Catholic Church to mandate either one would be a doctrine of demons. They cannot require that which goes against Scripture.

No sir - that is what you wish for my logic to be. I never said it or implied it. That is an absurd comparison and is further evidence of your apparent mental fatigue.

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers. (Hebrews 13:4)
--Let history show God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers among the RCC that have come as a direct result from the policy of celibacy in the RCC.

And deviant sexual behavior has NOTHING what-so-ever to do with celibacy.

I was in communion with the RCC also. But it was not until I desired to enter into the priesthood as a single man that the requirement of celibacy would have been forced upon me. But you want to throw in a red herring in there about an exception to the rule for those already married in another but related faith. IT is irrelevant.

And you conveniently wish to exclude it. Hmmm...

No, you have proselytes to the RCC. It is different. And you are blind to that fact.

They are BOTH RCC preists. You didn't see that one comming did you?

The RCC doesn't even know what the kingdom of heaven is.
They can't even define what born again is.
If they continue to preach a gospel of works, they will all end up in hell.

God doesn't reign now does he? They are deluded, and do not have any personal relationship with God. Their celibacy only leads them farther into sin, and farther away from God. The RCC is not a Christian religion, never was, and never will be.

My four year old grand-son can copy and paste Scripture. That doesn't mean he knows what they mean.

The RCC religion is as much Christian as the Hindu religion is. It has as much saving grace as the Hindu religion does. Its purpose is the same--it sends people to hell. Both religions believe that by works a man must get to heaven. Every man-made religion believes that. Biblical Christianity is the only faith that does not. Catholicism does not believe in the tenets of Biblical Christianity; if fact it opposes them, and always has.

And 95% of what you just wrote is not even relavent to the discussion of celibacy. See - I told you so. ;0)

Those words of Jesus in Matthew 19 were written to others. Jesus was not speaking to Himself, or didn't you know that? It is blasphemous to suggest that Christ either was or could have been married. Why do you use such an absurd argument?

Well for one thing, that's not my position. Christ was never married and by definition, He was celibate. If you have a problem with the word "celibate" then perhaps you should do as you so often accuse the RCC of doing and change its meaning.

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

And you are applying this to Christ! Amazing!
Do you not know that Christ was born of a virgin--God incarnate: perfect man and perfect deity: the God-Man.
But you are inferring that Christ was a eunuch! Blasphemous.

Is this what you do when you exhaust all of your arguments? Stop with the infantile tactic of attributing to me things that I have not said or even implied. Straw man extraordinaire! Show me where I claimed that Christ was a eunuch. Show me where I claimed that God was not born of a virgin. Show me where I denied the hypostatic union. This is really very slapdash on your part, DHK.

Yes he said what he said, and he said it to others, not himself, and somehow you would make Christ out to be a eunuch. How blasphemous can one be!

Well, I don't know how blasphemous one can be, nor do I intend on finding out. Clearly, since that's not my position, I need not concern myself with it should I?

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

May I remind you that it was YOU and not I, that asserted "Gnosticism" into this text (1 Tim. 4:1-5) and therefore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your own assertion. However, instead of providing any intelligent response you come back with this diversion.

And perhaps you should pay more attention to the contents of the threads in which you participate before you open mouth and insert foot.

Go back and look at post #145 in response to DHK:

First, perhaps you might consider that it was the practices of early Gnosticism (1 Tim. 1:4) that Paul warned Timothy to reject. Paul seems to have been acquainted with some form of Gnosticism, since he admonishes his protégé to "avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [gnosis]" (1 Tim. 6:20).

Hmmm...gnosis... It looks like I did provide evidence of the existence of early Gnostic practices after all. Now - don't you wish you could take it back there, doc?

P.s. How about the Dothan Landmark Church website URL? I really want a look at it.

WM

 

[Steadfast Fred]

P.s. How about the Dothan Landmark Church website URL? I really want a look at it.

WM

http://lbcdothan.org/

 

[WestminsterMan]

http://lbcdothan.org/

SF... Thanks. They must have just put this up. Not much content yet, but it has a nice start.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

When looking at ministers and whether they have to be married or not, one only need to go to 1 Timothy 3.

There, Paul reveals that the bishop (this is the same office as a pastor or elder) MUST be married... the husband of one wife. The deacon MUST be married... the husband of one wife.

DHK and Dr Walter are right. For any to forbid another to marry is not of God. Paul clearly teaches it is a doctrine of devils.

1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.


Nowhere does the above text state that anyone MUST be married. It simply isn't there.

WM

 

[Steadfast Fred]

1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.


Nowhere does the above text state that anyone MUST be married. It simply isn't there.

WM

How blind does one have to be when reading 1 Timothy 3?

The KJV states the Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Your version states the husband must be faithful to his wife. Your version states he must be able to manage his own family.

Now, since the Word of God frowns on adultery and fornication, it is evident that in order for the bishop to have a wife and children, he must be married.

Even your version shows the bishop/overseer must be married.

Open your eyes. It's right in your own version.

Here is the KJV:

1 Timothy 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Notice there is a comma after the word blameless? That means the sentence is not finished. There are several "must's" that one desiring the office of Bishop need to meet in order to be qualified to be a Bishop. One of those "must's" is "husband of one wife."

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.


Nowhere does the above text state that anyone MUST be married. It simply isn't there.

WM

You are building a straw man and then burning it! No one on this forum has argued that any minister "must" be married! That is not the issue and never has been the issue but you keep fighting this imaginary enemy! Wake up and come out of your looney tune dream world!

The above passage PERMITS and APPROVES and PROMOTES married ministers and along with Titus chapter one provides the ONLY New Testament qualifications to judge the fitness of any man to fill that office!

However, you are trying to defend the indefensible position that Scripture provides the authority/basis for restriction of the ministry to celebate only!!!

You are blatantly ignoring that in the very same book that contains the qualifications for the ministry that PERMITS and APPROVES and PROMOTES married ministers, that the same author (Paul) in the same book condemns all who forbid marriage and yet YOU are defending the very thing Paul is condemning in no uncertain terms.

Your argument that this applies only to Gnosticism is blown apart by 1 Tim. 4:1 and the grammatical connection to verse 4 that identifies the source of such a doctrine/teaching/tradition/discipline/commandment with "devils" (demons) regardless of the human instrument that is seduced by them.

You have been fully exposed to the errors of your arguments and you are incapable of responding intelligently. You certainly have ignored all the evidence that I have placed before you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And perhaps you should pay more attention to the contents of the threads in which you participate before you open mouth and insert foot.

Go back and look at post #145 in response to DHK:

Hmmm...gnosis... It looks like I did provide evidence of the existence of early Gnostic practices after all. Now - don't you wish you could take it back there, doc?

This does not help your interpretation in the least. As I have clearly and repeatedly stated, it does not matter what human instrument then or now takes up this doctrine/discipline/commandment/teaching as the source of this teaching is explicitly and clearly defined in 1 Timothy 4:1 to be demons and you cannot provide any contextual based evidence to overthrow that fact.

1. The natural reading of verses 1-5 demonstrate this clearly.

2. The grammatical connection between "demons" and the actions described in verses 2-4 (gender and case agreement) demand this fact.

So it makes no difference if the human agency being seduced by demons was Gnostic teachers at one point, then some Christians in the church at Ephesus at the time of writing (Timothy is the Pastor of the Ephesian church) or Roman Catholics today! These Scriptures are not confined to the first century alone as 1 Timothy 4:1 explicitly says that in "THE LATTER DAYS" some will be seduced by demons and depart from the faith teaching such demonic originated disciplines of "forbidding to marry" and dietary restrictions.

Why not simply be honest and admit you have made a mistake? If not, then deal with the evidence instead of ignoring it and building straw men and evasive tactics????


The words "latter times" destroys your restriction to Gnosticism argument! Destroys it!

 

[WestminsterMan]

This does not help your interpretation in the least. As I have clearly and repeatedly stated, it does not matter what human instrument then or now takes up this doctrine/discipline/commandment/teaching as the source of this teaching is explicitly and clearly defined in 1 Timothy 4:1 to be demons and you cannot provide any contextual based evidence to overthrow that fact.

1. The natural reading of verses 1-5 demonstrate this clearly.

2. The grammatical connection between "demons" and the actions described in verses 2-4 (gender and case agreement) demand this fact.

So it makes no difference if the human agency being seduced by demons was Gnostic teachers at one point, then some Christians in the church at Ephesus at the time of writing (Timothy is the Pastor of the Ephesian church) or Roman Catholics today! These Scriptures are not confined to the first century alone as 1 Timothy 4:1 explicitly says that in "THE LATTER DAYS" some will be seduced by demons and depart from the faith teaching such demonic originated disciplines of "forbidding to marry" and dietary restrictions.

Why not simply be honest and admit you have made a mistake? If not, then deal with the evidence instead of ignoring it and building straw men and evasive tactics????


The words "latter times" destroys your restriction to Gnosticism argument! Destroys it!

Hardly. Do you not know that Christians believed they were already living in the last days? Destroys it indeed!

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

You are building a straw man and then burning it! No one on this forum has argued that any minister "must" be married!

Interesting....

Originally Posted by Steadfast Fred
When looking at ministers and whether they have to be married or not, one only need to go to 1 Timothy 3.

There, Paul reveals that the bishop (this is the same office as a pastor or elder) MUST be married... the husband of one wife. The deacon MUST be married... the husband of one wife.

You folks certainly have a hard time keeping up with your own positions.

WM