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

[Thinkingstuff]

My daughter read it in college. I guess I will have to get her copy and read it.

I have a feeling there is much you might disagree with much in the book. Specifically the premise of the series which you can loose your salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."

Originally Posted by DHK
"God's words to Peter."

Please quote God's words to Peter. That is what I asked you.

I am more than happy to quote the inspired words of Peter on that point. You see taking the either-or-hatchet to scripture as you are so fond of doing - is not the fix-all solution you keep imagining.

You are afraid of the truth Bob, and will only quote application, such as "God has shown me."
Those are not the exact words that God gave to Peter.

It is my understanding that "Peter was there" and that "DHK was not".

I realize that others may differ with me on this point.

I am happy to leave it as a simple exercise for the reader.

In the same way in John 6 Christ said "you must eat my flesh".

I guess we can keep quoting Christ on that point in an effort to ignore the rest of that chapter as well -- I just don't find that "hatchet-to-the-text" solution you are using - as useful as you seem to find it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

What is absurd is your willful twisting of both my words and the words of Paul and Christ! That is what is absurd!

Can't adress my points? OK - just accuse me of twisting your words and bail out. Nice work there, doc. And you are supposedly in pursuit of a doctorate?

Peace!
WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

snip...

I am happy to leave it as a simple exercise for the reader.

In the same way in John 6 Christ said "you must eat my flesh".

I guess we can keep quoting Christ on that point in an effort to ignore the rest of that chapter as well -- I just don't find that "hatchet-to-the-text" solution you are using - as useful as you seem to find it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Can't adress my points? OK - just accuse me of twisting your words and bail out. Nice work there, doc. And you are supposedly in pursuit of a doctorate?

Peace!
WM

Obviously you either did not read my post or you do not understand what I said. I suggest you go back and read it carefully because I thoroughly addressed your points. All of your points are based upon your first argument which misrepresents my position. By exposing your false accusation in your first stated point, all the rest of your points are invalid because they depend upon the accuracy of your first point. Read it again, read it slow. Can you read English? Your quotations are in red and my responses are in blue. If you do not understand what I said then simply ask for clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestminsterMan
Look - your interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.



Either celebacy is totally the free choice of any and all believers and only a preference by some among the ministry - DW

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage - DW


Paul says that he as well as other apostles have "AUTHORITY" (exousia - 1 Cor. 9:5" to lead about a "WIFE" - DW


It leads to absurdities because you CHANGED my words to fit your heresy! I NEVER said the bishop "MUST be married" (those words are Paul's not mine and my intepretation of those words are exactly as yours). What I said is the qualifications "AUTHORIZE" the "PREFERENCE" of marriage in the ministry. Don't change my words to suit yourself! Every argument that you present below is based upon this twisting of my words to say something I never said. Your foundation is false therefore your conclusions are false.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WestminsterMan
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

That is correct! That has been my interpretation FOR OVER 30 years and I have not changed it. You have changed my words to suit your fancy. However, your admission here condemns your position as you admit that bishops are permitted to marry and therefore celibacy is not required OR inseparable from the desire to be a bishop OR assumed to be included with that office!

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestminsterMan
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about! First you admit that where the Bible speaks specifically about the QUALIFICATIONS for those who DESIRE the office of Bishop that MARRIAGE with CHILDREN is entirely permissible for those who hold that office! Then you interpret Christ to directly contradict Paul! Christ said nothing different than Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7 and both permit marriage within the office of Bishop. Both Christ and Paul agree that some are GIVEN the disposition to remain single and both agree that others ARE NOT but neverless are suitable for the ministry IN MARRIAGE and WITH CHILDREN!

What is absurd is your willful twisting of both my words and the words of Paul and Christ! That is what is absurd!

 

[DHK]

I guess we can keep quoting Christ on that point in an effort to ignore the rest of that chapter as well -- I just don't find that "hatchet-to-the-text" solution you are using - as useful as you seem to find it.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob is unable to find Scripture by himself.
He refuses to answer Scripture.
He must be spoonfed because essentially his avoidance of the truth is nothing short of a lie. Deception is equivalent to a lie. So let's take a look at the truth of the Word of God, and look at the exact words that God said to Peter. (Bob won't do it).

And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:13-15)

 

[WestminsterMan]

Obviously you either did not read my post or you do not understand what I said. I suggest you go back and read it carefully because I thoroughly addressed your points. All of your points are based upon your first argument which misrepresents my position. By exposing your false accusation in your first stated point, all the rest of your points are invalid because they depend upon the accuracy of your first point. Read it again, read it slow. Can you read English? Your quotations are in red and my responses are in blue. If you do not understand what I said then simply ask for clarification.

You cannot have it both ways! Either celebacy is totally the free choice of any and all believers and only a preference by some among the ministry (like Paul) or it is a qualification to fill the office of bishop and thus to freely choose the office is to freely choose the life of celibacy but it cannot be both.

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage.

I do understand both your arguments and your tactics – intellectually flimsy though they are. Your entire position is rooted in a false either/or dichotomy – “EITHER celibacy is a free choice for all believers, OR it is a qualification to fill the office of bishop and thus to freely choose the office is to freely choose the life of celibacy but it cannot be both.

It is you who are stating that “…it cannot be both”. Scripture doesn’t preclude both at all – only the word according to doc does.

The last time I looked, RCC priests FREELY choose to become priests thus, your premise is utterly nonsensical. Let’s take that "premise", apply it a basic christian tenent, and follow it out to its logical conclusion:

EITHER Jesus is God OR Jesus is man, but he cannot be both. Ever heard of the hypostatic union doc?

That is correct! That has been my interpretation FOR OVER 30 years and I have not changed it. You have changed my words to suit your fancy. However, your admission here condemns your position as you admit that bishops are permitted to marry and therefore celibacy is not required OR inseparable from the desire to be a bishop OR assumed to be included with that office!

Logical false dichotomy – who says it cannot be both – you? Jesus and Paul didn’t say that did they? Here’s how it goes with you doc. First you set up a position with two possible outcomes, claim them to be mutually exclusive, and then provide your opinion on the matter as infallibly correct – even in the face of contrary evidence. Argumentum ad ignorantium!

Then you interpret Christ to directly contradict Paul!

Now that’s just more of your opinion there, doc.

Christ said nothing different than Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7 and both permit marriage within the office of Bishop. Both Christ and Paul agree that some are GIVEN the disposition to remain single and both agree that others ARE NOT but neverless are suitable for the ministry IN MARRIAGE and WITH CHILDREN!

I think a little common sense is in order here, doc.
1) Some bishops can be married according to scripture – but if they are, they can only have one wife.
2) Some bishops can live celibate lives for the sake of the kingdom according to scripture.
3) The RCC currently requires that most priests remain celibate.
4) Some priests (such as Anglicans) converting to Catholicism CAN have a wife and children.

That last little fact completely destroys your fallacious argument as it fits perfectly within your own statement above. Oops… you didn't consider that did you there, doc?

What is absurd is your willful twisting of both my words and the words of Paul and Christ! That is what is absurd!

There he goes again folks. Back the good doc into a corner a he falls back on his old "twisting" accusation. Right….

Peace!
WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

I do understand both your arguments and your tactics – intellectually flimsy though they are. Your entire position is rooted in a false either/or dichotomy – “EITHER celibacy is a free choice for all believers, OR it is a qualification to fill the office of bishop and thus to freely choose the office is to freely choose the life of celibacy but it cannot be both.

It is you who are stating that “…it cannot be both”. Scripture doesn’t preclude both at all – only the word according to doc does.

You do not understand my argument at all! When I said that it "cannot be both" I am talking about taking a position that demands at one and the same time that the ministry requires celibacy AND the ministry does not require celibacy!

You do not understand my position at all! My position is that the ministry includes both men who are celibate as a gift not as a requirement for the ministry as well as men who are married with children. Not either one or the other but BOTH are permissible!

YOu do not understand my position at all! The RCC has no Biblical authority to demand celibacy for the ministry NOR does it have any Biblical authority to intepret the "desire" for the ministry to be restrictive to those gifted as celibate.

1 Tim. 4:1-3 speaks directly toward ALL who FORBID marriage as a doctrine (v. 1) for anyone but those who freely choose to be celibate.

I think a little common sense is in order here, doc.
1) Some bishops can be married according to scripture – but if they are, they can only have one wife.

Agreed! Never said anything contrary to that!

2) Some bishops can live celibate lives for the sake of the kingdom according to scripture.

Agreed! Never said anything contrary to that!

3) The RCC currently requires that most priests remain celibate.

They have no Biblical basis to require this and they fall under the condemnation of 1 Tim. 4:1-3a by forbidding anyone to be married!

4) Some priests (such as Anglicans) converting to Catholicism CAN have a wife and children.

They have no Biblical authority to "allow" or "forbid" as God's word only ALLOWS but NEVER FORBIDS married men in the ministry.

What you call "a little common sense" is disobedience to the clear and explicit teaching of the Scriptures in regard to the RCC position.


1 Cor. 9:5 Have we not power [Gr. exousia = AUTHORIZED] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?


1 Tim. 4:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ...4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;


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;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry,

Those who embrace a "doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:1) that forbids marriage to any Christian for any reason falls under 1 Tim. 4:1. Marriage is the norm and celibacy is the exception to the norm but neither is required and all who make it required have demons as their source of authority.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Getting back to 1 Tim. 4:1-5. The persons dominated by demonic "doctrines" such as the two doctrines listed in verses 3-5

(1) Forbidding to marry
(2) Dietary laws

have a "seared conscience." The role of conscience is to approve what is right and disapprove what is wrong. In other words the person set for the defense of these demonic doctrines has lost all ability to discern truth from error when it comes to these teachings.

The are "speaking lies in hypocrisy." The lies are these doctrines and the hypocrisy is the pretense to teach such as Bible doctrine.

The pratical evidences of a "seared conscience" governed by "doctrines of demons" is inability to be objective with even the obvious and clear evidences that condemn their interpretations as false and perverted.

For example, when the Bible clearly and explicitly states that marriage is authorized and condoned in the very context that defines the qualifications for a Bishop and yet such a person defiantly argues that it is permissible to forbid marriage to the ministry without being condemned by this text is the result of a pure "seared conscience."

For example, when the Bible clearly and explicitly states in the very context of the edible foods that are contrasted between Jews and Gentiles that "there is NOTHING unclean of itself" (Rom. 14) and this text of edible foods that "NOTHING is to be refused" (1 Tim. 4:5) but "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD" is good and yet definantly argue the very reverse that some edible foods should be regarded as "unclean" then this is the result of a pure "seared conscience."

It does not matter how much evidence, or how clear the evidence you present against such a person - they are incapable of objective consideration because they are incapable of discerning truth from error because they do not possess the indwelling Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have a feeling there is much you might disagree with much in the book. Specifically the premise of the series which you can loose your salvation.

C.S. Lewis embraced many fundemental errors. He did not believe in plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that Job, Esther and the early chapters of Genesis were all mythical.

“I have the deepest respect even for Pagan myths, still more for myths in Holy Scripture…. What exactly happened when Man fell, we do not know; but if it is legitimate to guess, I offer the following picture – a ‘myth’ in the Socratic sense, a not unlikely tale” - C.S. Lewis

"My present view… would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is… at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can ever say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David’s court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end" - C.S. Lewis


He believed in purgatory and praying to the dead. He questioned the duration of hell. He was a Darwinian when it comes to biology and thus a Theistic Evolutionist. He had no formal Theological training and approached nearly everything in Scripture from a purely philosophical viewpoint. He rejected the idea that faith in Christ is the only way to God or salvation:

"There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position" - C.S. Lewis

He rejected justification by faith and was sacramentarian in soteriology. He believed in baptismal regeneration and salvation through sacraments. He was a philosopher not a theologion and as far as I am concerned his own salvation is highly questionable.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

C.S. Lewis embraced many fundemental errors. He did not believe in plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that Job, Esther and the early chapters of Genesis were all mythical.

Huh it seems he and I have some agreements. Though I believe there was a Job but the literary style of the book is that of an ancient play which were given as a series of monlogues. And I believe there was an Esther. Othewize why Purim? Now I believe the extentions of Esther as recorded in the LXX to mythological. Just as I view the extentions of Daniel in the LXX to be mythological.

He was a philosopher not a theologion and as far as I am concerned his own salvation is highly questionable.

Its nice to sit in judgement of other mens salvation isn't it? I wonder how much theology the theif on the cross had to "get right" before entering paradise? All he had was that Jesus would do it. I am certain all of us have a misconstrued view of God in some respect but God being as gracious as he is will let us in because of our reliance on Christ. Thus a Calvinist may very well be aside a Armenian or a Baptist next to a CoC. I will say this. I don't judge mens salvation. I can judge the extent of what I believe the truth they espouced to be but judgment for salvation is the perogative of God alone.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Huh it seems he and I have some agreements. Though I believe there was a Job but the literary style of the book is that of an ancient play which were given as a series of monlogues. And I believe there was an Esther. Othewize why Purim? Now I believe the extentions of Esther as recorded in the LXX to mythological. Just as I view the extentions of Daniel in the LXX to be mythological.



Its nice to sit in judgement of other mens salvation isn't it? I wonder how much theology the theif on the cross had to "get right" before entering paradise? All he had was that Jesus would do it. I am certain all of us have a misconstrued view of God in some respect but God being as gracious as he is will let us in because of our reliance on Christ. Thus a Calvinist may very well be aside a Armenian or a Baptist next to a CoC. I will say this. I don't judge mens salvation. I can judge the extent of what I believe the truth they espouced to be but judgment for salvation is the perogative of God alone.

I said it was "highly questionable" not impossible! It is highly questionable since he believed in baptismal regeneration and taught that salvation was possible without ever knowing or confessing the gospel of Christ. It is highly questionable since he denied justification by faith. Your salvation as far as I am concerned is equally "highly questionable." Again, I did not say impossible only questionable and there are good reasons from my perspective to question his and yours whether you like it or not or agree with me or not.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I said it was "highly questionable" not impossible! It is highly questionable since he believed in baptismal regeneration and taught that salvation was possible without ever knowing or confessing the gospel of Christ. It is highly questionable since he denied justification by faith. Your salvation as far as I am concerned is equally "highly questionable." Again, I did not say impossible only questionable and there are good reasons from my perspective to question his and yours whether you like it or not or agree with me or not.

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Hey Steady Freddy,

I believe that doctrinal fruits are just as telling if not more so than character fruits as the character fruits can be imitated. There are lots of real nice folk, loving, caring, kind, patient, giving, self-controlled due to legalism that are as lost as they come. However, ones doctrinal fruits can be objectively examined by the scriptures (Isa. 8;20)

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Hey Steady Freddy,

I believe that doctrinal fruits are just as telling if not more so than character fruits as the character fruits can be imitated. There are lots of real nice folk, loving, caring, kind, patient, giving, self-controlled due to legalism that are as lost as they come. However, ones doctrinal fruits can be objectively examined by the scriptures (Isa. 8;20)

I agree 100%. That which they teach indeed is a fruit.

 

[DHK]

The last time I looked, RCC priests FREELY choose to become priests thus, your premise is utterly nonsensical. Let’s take that "premise", apply it a basic christian tenent, and follow it out to its logical conclusion:
WM

Then you haven't looked far. You are badly misinformed. What happens when a single man applies to the priesthood, such as I once thought of doing? I would have been required to live a life of celibacy. I know that for absolutely sure. It was and is a requirement. Why do you misinform people deliberately? Why do you lie here just to try and get across a point. The requirement of celibacy, is as the Scripture says, a doctrine of demons.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Second Laterin Council of 1139, states concerning priests and marriage:

6. We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity.

7. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.

From what I read, the Catholic church frowns on the marriage of priests and will basically blacklist them and anyone who attends Masses given by married priests.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am more than happy to quote the inspired words of Peter on that point. You see taking the either-or-hatchet to scripture as you are so fond of doing - is not the fix-all solution you keep imagining.

It is my understanding that "Peter was there" and that "DHK was not".

Peter, Paul, James and the whole congregation at Jerusalem decreed what was essential for Gentiles in regard to eating or not eating certain things and they restricted it to:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


Are you not a gentile Bob? Where is the dietary law of "clean" and "unclean" listed or stated in this for Gentiles? Does not Peter in this very chapter refer back to the house of Corneilus when they made this decree??? Obviously Peter interpreted the vision to include the ceremonial type as well as its antitype (gentiles) as no such dietary laws of clean verus unclean can be found in the Jerusalem decree!


Ro 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.


Bob, Paul is entering into the dispute between Jewish and Gentile members over what is proper to eat and drink as Christians. He specifically talks about eating and drinking but claims that "there is nothing unclean of itself"! How can he say this to Jewish and Gentile members IF the dietary law was still in effect?


1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.


Who does Paul present here as "WEAK"? The brother who believes he can eat "ALL THINGS" or the one who limits his diet?


What conclusion does Paul draw between the one who beleives he can "EAT ALL THINGS" versus the one who does not believe he can EAT ALL THINGS?


3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

If the dietary law was still in effect and had not been abolished, tell us Bob how Paul can draw the conclusion that the one who "believeth he can eat ALL THINGS" should not be judged? Isn't this text parallel with Paul's statement:


Col. 2:16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


Isn't the basis for repudiating those who judge others based upon "meat, or in drink" that the cross did away with Mosaic ceremonial laws written by the hand of Moses:


14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross....16 Let no man therefore judge you


The dietary law was not written by God but by Moses in his "handwriting."

Let the reader consider the WHOLE EVIDENCE presented above and ask these questions:


1. If Peter did not understand that God had made clean the animals in the vision in regard to eating them as God said kill and "EAT" then why didn't Peter object to excluding the dietary laws of clean and unclean from the decree to the Gentile chuches?

2. Why would Paul who was also present during that decree enforce it in Romans 14 when dealing with the Jewish and Gentile dispute whether it was permissible to "EAT ALL THINGS" or only a limited diet?

3. Why would Paul regard the brother (Jew) with the limited diet as "WEAK" and the one who believed in eating "ALL THINGS" as strong?

4. Why would Paul use the "clean" and "unclean" terms in a context about diet and days between Jews and Gentiles and say there is "NOTHING UNCLEAN" of itself if the dietary law was still in effect?


I will tell you why, because Paul rejected the dietary law as required for jews or gentiles and regarded those who made it required as only heretics whose conscience is seared:

¶ 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;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 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.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


Notice it is not that which is sanctified by the dietary law but by prayer. Those who command the dietary law are not "of them which believe and know the truth".

Paul is not considering foods that neither jew or Gentile would eat but "ALL THINGS" they believe they can eat (Rom. 14:2).

 

[BobRyan]

The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten. Your argument about Lev 11 is that Lev 11 - the Word of God - is "doctrines of demons"

...
The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture being attempted here (when vs 4 is quoted without vs 5) is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

1Tim 4:
"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;

5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
I include both vs 4 and 5 when I said above "The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten. "

Bob, Paul is entering into the dispute between Jewish and Gentile members over what is proper to eat and drink as Christians. He specifically talks about eating and drinking but claims that "there is nothing unclean of itself"! How can he say this to Jewish and Gentile members IF the dietary law was still in effect?

Hint: 1Tim 4:5 -- Paul specifically qualifies his statement approving "foods".

3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

1. The issue in 1Tim 4 is about “foods which God has Created to be gratefully shared” (eaten) by those who believe AND KNOW the truth.

2. NASB and others identify brwmatwn as “Food”. The KJV calls it “meat” in 1Tim 4:2 and in Gen 1:29.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

3. In Lev 11:29 God speaks about the “animals… which you have for FOOD”

4. In 1Tim 4:3 The food is “sanctified by the word” as food that is to be shared (eaten) by the saints. The food is identified and known by those who “believe and know the truth”.

5. The more general term for food instead of the specific term for flesh food – may indicate acetic practices that went well beyond animal meat offered to idols.

6. In Lev 11:2, 11:47 God defines what is "edible" and what is not to be eaten.


The point would be clear to both gentile and Jewish believers who had access to scripture - that there were in fact "Animals which you have for food" and that all of that food "approved of" - sanctified by the Word of God is good.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter said

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.


Who does Paul present here as "WEAK"? The brother who believes he can eat "ALL THINGS" or the one who limits his diet?


What conclusion does Paul draw between the one who beleives he can "EAT ALL THINGS" versus the one who does not believe he can EAT ALL THINGS?


3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

If the dietary law was still in effect and had not been abolished, tell us Bob how Paul can draw the conclusion that the one who "believeth he can eat ALL THINGS" should not be judged?

Hint: Your bias is clouding your vision.

There was NT restriction saying that people had to "eat vegetables only". Thus Romans 14 is NOT about Lev 11! This is so obvious - even Robertson "gets the point" when commenting on 1Tim 4:3 - as he points to Rom 14.

Robertson – on 1Tim 4:3
To abstain from meats (apexestai brwmatwn).
Infinitive dependent, not on kwluontwn, but on the positive idea keleuontwn (implied, not expressed). Ablative case of brwmatwn after apexestai (present direct middle, to hold oneself away from). See 1Co 8-10; Ro 14; 15 for disputes about "meats offered to idols" and 1:22 for the Gnostic asceticism.

The Romans 14 issue with "meat or vegetables only" was spelled out in detail in 1 Cor 8:5-13 - and it is specific to meat (food: most often animal) offerred to idols.

in Christ,

Bob