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

[BobRyan]

My last post above

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1651854&postcount=140

brings us back to this comment

Originally Posted by SpiritualMadMan
I just now went through all my commentaries on this passage of scripture and all of them made the "point" of Peter's Vision the forth-coming visit to Cornelius' House not whether it was lawful to eat certain foods or not.

Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

And, Peter's own conclusion to the matter is as follows:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed that people I have had the utmost confidence in as regards to scriptural integrity would take a passage so completely out of context to prove a point.

 

[DHK]

In Matt 16 yeast represents the teaching of the pharisees.

In 1Cor 5 yeast represents sin in the church.

Bob, have you cut out yeast out of your diet. No bread?

In John 6 eating Christ's flesh represents accepting His teaching.

Have you become a vegetarian then?

in Acts 10 the command to eat rats - is stated by PETER to mean "Call no MAN unclean" -- THREE times!

That was Peter's application of the command. It was not the command that God gave him.

No biting Jesus in John 6 and no eating rats in Acts 10

Thus you are a vegetarian--no meats for Bob, according to your own allegorical interpretation.

It does not get any easier than this for the actual objective unbiased Bible student.
in Christ,

Bob

No, it doesn't. You can make the Bible say anything you want when you interpret it the way you do. See my example. You interpret it the same way.

 

[nate]

1. Those churches that command celibacy. That is an example of a doctrine of demons or devils (otherwise translated). It is a devilish doctrine. It comes from Satan and not from God. Even the qualifications of both bishop and deacon speak of having a wife and their children in submission, their household in order. It infers that they are married. Celibacy was not God's plan in the leadership of the church. It is a doctrine of demons, and is so declared here.

2. Those churches that teach or command to abstain from eating certain foods (which was a problem then, and is now). This is not speaking of those who do this for preference sake, dietary reasons, etc. It is speaking of those who do it because the church commands them to, and dictates that it is wrong. For example, if the church commands that the eating of pork is wrong, or the drinking of coffee is wrong, then that is a doctrine of demons.

I'm not sure which group you may be thinking/speaking of, I know when I read it, I instantly thought of the Roman Catholic Church, I would just like to clarify their position a little better if I may,
Celibacy is not a "doctrine" as defined by Rome, it is simply "discipline" for instance in the Eastern Catholic Churches Priest can marry, also in the Orthodox Churches but it's the reason we will see more pressure by the Priest in the Roman Church to allow marriage as "disciplines" are easier to change. ( I guess the correct term their is *are changeable* compared to doctrines which are not allowed to be changed). Sorry not trying to get off OP just wanted to make an interesting observation!

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not sure which group you may be thinking/speaking of, I know when I read it, I instantly thought of the Roman Catholic Church, I would just like to clarify their position a little better if I may,
Celibacy is not a "doctrine" as defined by Rome, it is simply "discipline" for instance in the Eastern Catholic Churches Priest can marry, also in the Orthodox Churches but it's the reason we will see more pressure by the Priest in the Roman Church to allow marriage as "disciplines" are easier to change. ( I guess the correct term their is *are changeable* compared to doctrines which are not allowed to be changed). Sorry not trying to get off OP just wanted to make an interesting observation!

What the Catholic Church calls a "discipline" the Bible calls "your tradition" and "commandment of men." The Bible denies the Catholic distinction between "discipline" and "doctrine":

Mt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mt. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Moreover, the Greek term translated "doctrine" does not mean "dogma" but rather "teaching" [Gr. didaskontes] Hence, 1 Timothy 4:1-4 applies directly to Rome's "tradition" or "discipline" and thus Rome cannot escape Paul's condemnation by its semantics.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Then you haven't looked far. You are badly misinformed. snip....

Perhaps. However, it is just a likely that you are letting your own personal bias of the Catholic Church skew you own personal interpretation of scripture. Hmmm....

The requirement of celibacy, is as the Scripture says, a doctrine of demons.

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).

Second, your are in the minority with the "doctrine of demons" application DHK. Perhaps not within the limited domain here, but most certainly within all of Christendom. That fact alone should tell you something.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Perhaps. However, it is just a likely that you are letting your own personal bias of the Catholic Church skew you own personal interpretation of scripture. Hmmm....

First, DHK was a former Roman Catholic and knows fully well what they teach. He based his arguments on what the text explicitly states - "forbidding to marry."

Second, The text defines the source of this doctrine not with Gnostics or with Roman Catholics but with demons (v. 1). Therefore, regardless of what cult or denomination may adopt that teaching does not change its contextual source of identity.

Third, truth has always been with the minority. Look at Israel compared to the rest of the world in the Old Testament. Look at Christ's own words in Matthew 7:13-14 in regard to the religious world ("many" versus "few"). Look at Christ's own words in Matthew 13:10-11 in regard to professed kingdom of God. Look at Paul's description of Israel and the 7,000 in Romans 11:3-4. Truth is not determined by MAJORITY VOTE but by Biblical context!

Fourth, Roman Catholic scholars violate the scriptures when they attempt to distinguish between "discipline" and "doctrine as the former is interpreted by Christ to be "tradition" at variance with God's Word which "tradition" he defines as "doctrine" or "teaching"!

Mt. 15:3....Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mt. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Semantics does not avoid the condemnation of Roman Catholics by this text.

 

[DHK]

Second, your are in the minority with the "doctrine of demons" application DHK. Perhaps not within the limited domain here, but most certainly within all of Christendom. That fact alone should tell you something.

WM

I don't base my beliefs on what the rest of "Christendom" believes.
If you compared your doctrine with the rest of Baptists (if you believe in the doctrine of the church that you attend) then you are in the minority of what most Baptists believe, let alone what most of Christendom has believed throughout the ages. That fact alone should tell you something. I know a bit about Landmark Baptists and their beliefs. Compared to the rest of Baptists, they aren't exactly orthodox. What I am saying here is "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." My beliefs are based on the Bible, the context in which the passage is written, and how that Scripture in that context should be applied.

Forbidding to marry, that is when a church forbids their members to marry or invokes celibacy, is a doctrine of demons. Paul gives that as one example of a doctrine of demons.

Another example is when a church imposes a certain diet on its members since God has created all things good and nothing to be refused. The SDA does this. It is practicing a doctrine of demons. I didn't write the Bible. The Holy Spirit by the had of the apostles did. When you argue with that which is written here, your argument is with God.

 

[WestminsterMan]

First, DHK was a former Roman Catholic and knows fully well what they teach. He based his arguments on what the text explicitly states - "forbidding to marry."

That is precisely my point.

Second, The text defines the source of this doctrine not with Gnostics or with Roman Catholics but with demons (v. 1). Therefore, regardless of what cult or denomination may adopt that teaching does not change its contextual source of identity.

Opinion...

Third, truth has always been with the minority. Look at Israel compared to the rest of the world in the Old Testament. Look at Christ's own words in Matthew 7:13-14 in regard to the religious world ("many" versus "few"). Look at Christ's own words in Matthew 13:10-11 in regard to professed kingdom of God. Look at Paul's description of Israel and the 7,000 in Romans 11:3-4. Truth is not determined by MAJORITY VOTE but by Biblical context!

Well doc, there are probably multitudinous people out there who disagree with your "context" on the text. So what?

Fourth, Roman Catholic scholars violate the scriptures when they attempt to distinguish between "discipline" and "doctrine as the former is interpreted by Christ to be "tradition" at variance with God's Word which "tradition" he defines as "doctrine" or "teaching"!

Horse poop! Paul never condemed all traditions did he? I'll bet that you have "traditions of men" in your church Dr. Walter. How about Wednesday night prayer meetings? Or revivals? Or alter calls (oops - sorry... the reformed don't do that do they?)? How about the structure of your particular worship service... Do you open with a prayer? When does the preaching begin? Who set that up? When do you take up the collections? How many times do you offer the Lord's supper? You better give all of it up there doc as we just can't abide traditions of men in any form can we? If it's not in scripture then it must be "...at variance with God's Word..." and hence, a doctrine of demons.

Mt. 15:3....Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mt. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Semantics does not avoid the condemnation of Roman Catholics by this text.

Nor does proof texting prove that condemnation is in order; it only shows your obvious hatered and disdain for our Catholic brothers and sisters. Ultimately, this is YOUR belief and nothing more. Personally, I'll leave the judgement of Catholics to God - which is as it should be. You know doc, the job of God is already filled and you aren't any good at it anyway.

WM

 

[DHK]

it only shows your obvious hatered and disdain for our Catholic brothers and sisters. Ultimately, this is YOUR belief and nothing more. Personally, I'll leave the judgement of Catholics to God - which is as it should be. You know doc, the job of God is already filled and you aren't any good at it anyway.

WM

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I believe the author of "The Trail of Blood," B.H. Carroll, was a Landmarkist. Have you read his pamphlet. It is an excellent little book. He speaks out against the Catholics using far greater vehemence and shows the ugliness and horridness of their actions more than most people would even dare. His description of the RCC in the light of Dr. Walter would make anything Dr. Walter says look like praise. But like you, he was a Landmarkist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is precisely my point.

Context is not the discisive point for interpretation?

Opinion...

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,

Verse one identifies the source of false doctrine to be demons! That is not "opinion" unless you deny Paul spoke by inspiration! Forbidding to marry is given as one example of such demonic doctrines.

Well doc, there are probably multitudinous people out there who disagree with your "context" on the text. So What?

Your response shows your complete ignorance! Instead, provide substance! Provide contextual and grammatical evidence! Any fool can deny anything no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary!

Horse poop! Paul never condemed all traditions did he? I'll bet that you have "traditions of men" in your church Dr. Walter. How about Wednesday night prayer meetings? Or revivals? Or alter calls (oops - sorry... the reformed don't do that do they?)? How about the structure of your particular worship service... Do you open with a prayer? When does the preaching begin? Who set that up? When do you take up the collections? How many times do you offer the Lord's supper? You better give all of it up there doc as we just can't abide traditions of men in any form can we? If it's not in scripture then it must be "...at variance with God's Word..." and hence, a doctrine of demons.

First, your assuming what I never said! I never said that all traditions were wrong. I never quoted from a context that said all traditions are wrong. I quoted from a context (Mt. 15) where Christ explicitly dealt with traditions that contradicted God's Word and applied it directly to the false semantical idea that "discipline" does not make it "doctrine." What Rome calls "discipline" in regard to forbidding to marry within the ministry is expressly contradictive to what the New Testament PERMITS and NEVER forbids but does condemn all who forbid it as demonic in origin. Thus Roman Catholic "discipline" is equal to that type of "tradition" which contradicts the Word of God and such "tradition" is defined by Christ as "doctrines of men" which Paul defines their root source with demons (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

Nor does proof texting prove that condemnation is in order; it only shows your obvious hatered and disdain for our Catholic brothers and sisters.

Since when does opposition to false doctrine mean one hates the person embracing that doctrine - especially when the true enemy is "demons" according to Paul (1 Tim. 4:1).

Furthermore, there was no "proof texting"! I dare you to demonstrate that I used Matthew 15 or 1 Timothy out of context!

Ultimately, this is YOUR belief and nothing more. Personally, I'll leave the judgement of Catholics to God - which is as it should be. You know doc, the job of God is already filled and you aren't any good at it anyway.

I defy you to demonstrate by context that I have said anything contrary to what God's word teaches in the context it is found (Mt. 15; 1 Tim. 4:1-4)!

You are good at expressing meaningless unsubstantiated hot air but not a very good theologian or Bible expositor! Put up or shut up!

 

[WestminsterMan]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I believe the author of "The Trail of Blood," B.H. Carroll, was a Landmarkist. Have you read his pamphlet. It is an excellent little book. He speaks out against the Catholics using far greater vehemence and shows the ugliness and horridness of their actions more than most people would even dare. His description of the RCC in the light of Dr. Walter would make anything Dr. Walter says look like praise. But like you, he was a Landmarkist.

I have read it... entertaining, but historically fallacious.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have read it... entertaining, but historically fallacious.

WM

Your public profile says you are located in Dothan Alabama and your home church is "Landmark" Baptist Church. However, from your responses it does not appear you are a "Landmark" Baptist in ecclesiology. I realize that many Baptist churches have the name "Landmark" but bear no theological identity with "Landmarkism." Is that the case with your church or are you simply a member of a Landmark type church but do not share their ecclessiology?

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

I defy you to demonstrate by context that I have said anything contrary to what God's word teaches in the context it is found (Mt. 15; 1 Tim. 4:1-4)!

You are good at expressing meaningless unsubstantiated hot air but not a very good theologian or Bible expositor! Put up or shut up!

ZZzzz...

Defy away there, doc. To use your puerile phrase, I've already "put up". See posts #58, #61, and #66. You may not agree with my positions, but accusing me of offering "...meaningless unsubstantiated hot air..." is disingenuous. I’ve already offered biblical support for my positions here, and unlike you, I don't see the need to rehash it.

Look...I know your approach doc as I’ve seen it here on many occasions. When cornered, you respond with extreme verbosity attempting to overwhelm the reader with sheer poundage, all-the-while making pronouncements of personal certitude in your own positions.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

ZZzzz...

Defy away there, doc. To use your puerile phrase, I've already "put up". See posts #58, #61, and #66. You may not agree with my positions, but accusing me of offering "...meaningless unsubstantiated hot air..." is disingenuous. I’ve already offered biblical support for my positions here, and unlike you, I don't see the need to rehash it. WM

I re-read posts #58, #61 and #66 which were thoroughly repudiated. If that is all you have to offer then why continue the discussion? The only reason to continue a discussion is if you can validate the position you have taken! You have not been able to respond to the posts that repudiated your arguments with any substance! You have certainly not provided anything to demonstrate that my contextual based arguments are wrong! You simply make empty unsubstantiated accusations (thus guilty of the very thing you are accusing me).

Again, Contextually the source of both examples of false teaching in verses 4-5 is clearly and explicitly stated in verse 1 to be derived from spiritual sources (demons).

Again, There is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that PROHIBITS legal marriage for ANYONE or DEMANDS that anyone in the ministry remain unmarried.

Again, Scripture PERMITS ministers to marry and identifies any doctrine that PROHIBITS marriage as deomonic in origin.

Again, "traditions" (disciplines) that contradict the Word of God (Mt. 15) are identified by Christ as "commandments of men" and "doctrines" in spite of Rome's denial that "disciplines" are "doctrine."

Again, such commandments of men (disciplines, doctrines) that contradict the Word of God have their original source with demons (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 1 Jn. 4:1,6).

You have not provided ANYTHING to demonstrate any of the above positions are Biblical incorrect and I don't think you will even try to because you know you cannot offer any Biblical evidence. Hence, you will continue to spout of hot air, ridicule, and bloviate.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I re-read posts #58, #61 and #66 which were thoroughly repudiated. If that is all you have to offer then why continue the discussion? The only reason to continue a discussion is if you can validate the position you have taken! You have not been able to respond to the posts that repudiated your arguments with any substance! You have certainly not provided anything to demonstrate that my contextual based arguments are wrong! You simply make empty unsubstantiated accusations (thus guilty of the very thing you are accusing me).

Again, Contextually the source of both examples of false teaching in verses 4-5 is clearly and explicitly stated in verse 1 to be derived from spiritual sources (demons).

Again, There is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that PROHIBITS marriage for ANYONE or DEMANDS that anyone in the ministry remain unmarried.

Again, Scripture PERMITS ministers to marry and identifies any doctrine that PROHIBITS marriage as deomonic in origin.

Again, "traditions" (disciplines) that contradict the Word of God (Mt. 15) are identified by Christ as "commandments of men" and "doctrines" in spite of Rome's denial that "disciplines" are "doctrine."

Again, such commandments of men (disciplines, doctrines) that contradict the Word of God have their original source with demons (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 1 Jn. 4:1,6).

You have not provided ANYTHING to demonstrate any of the above positions are Biblical incorrect and I don't think you will even try to because you know you cannot offer any Biblical evidence. Hence, you will continue to spout of hot air, ridicule, and bloviate.

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, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Can anyone provide any capable Biblical exegete that argues that verse 3 is not a continuation of those described by the pronoun "their" in verse 2?

Can anyone provide any capable Biblical exegete that argues that "their" in verse 2 does not have as its antecedent "some" in verse 1?

By "capable Biblical exegete" I mean at the very least anyone with Greek grammar proficiency.

1. "Forbidding" in verse 3 represents a Greek participle that agrees in gender and case with "speaking lies" in verse 2 indicating it is the same subject doing both.

2. The term "demons" in verse 1 agrees in gender and case with "speaking lies" in verse 2 and "forbidding" marriage in verse 3 indicating grammatically that the source is "demons."

3. The grammatical implication is that it is demons who use "some" as the instrument through which they speak lies and one such lie is "forbidding to marry."

Hence, the source of these errors are grammatically identified with "demons" and not with gnostics, Roman Catholics, etc. Therefore, it does not matter who the INSTRUMENT may be that take up these "lies" as the source is explicitly identified as "demons."

Therefore, if in the first century the instrument of demons are Gnostics, the source is still demons. If in the fourth century the instrument is Catholics, the source is still demons. If in the 19th century the instrument is SDA (forbidding to eat) the source is still demons.

The Apostle John traces truth and error to only two alternative spiritual sources:

1 Jn. 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world....6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Notice again, that the "prophet" is simply the instrument but the source is spiritual! We are to "try" or "put to the test" such spirits as they manifest themselves in the teaching/doctrine of men.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

Steady Freddy,

Don't let them side track the issue on the word "must." At the very minium that term PROMOTES marraige in the ministry. The issue is that within the qualifications for a Bishop, marriage is PERMITTED and it is not PROHIBITED by any qualification set forth. If qualifications for the ministry had any prohibition against marriage this would be the place to clearly state that prohibition. No such prohibitation is stated but marriage is clearly stated and not merely PERMITTED but PROMOTED!

It is telling that this PROMOTION of marriage is given in chapter three while the condemnation of all who PROHIBIT marriage is given in chapter four. Rome does not PROMOTE marriage among its ministry but PROHIBITS it and has had a very long history of prohibiting it.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Steady Freddy,

Don't let them side track the issue on the word "must." At the very minium that term PROMOTES marraige in the ministry. The issue is that within the qualifications for a Bishop, marriage is PERMITTED and it is not PROHIBITED by any qualification set forth. If qualifications for the ministry had any prohibition against marriage this would be the place to clearly state that prohibition. No such prohibitation is stated but marriage is clearly stated and not merely PERMITTED but PROMOTED!

It is telling that this PROMOTION of marriage is given in chapter three while the condemnation of all who PROHIBIT marriage is given in chapter four. Rome does not PROMOTE marriage among its ministry but PROHIBITS it and has had a very long history of prohibiting it.

Agreed.

As to your previous post, it is clear that verse 3 is indeed connected to verse 1.

There is no period after verse 1, nor after verse 2. Verse 3 is connected to them both. Paul is continuing the thought, revealing in verse 1 that doctrines of devils/demons will be promoted. He then lets young Timothy know what many of those demonic doctrines will be.

The forbidding of marriage is indeed a doctrine of devils/demons.

Keep up the good work!

 

[DHK]

I have read it... entertaining, but historically fallacious.

WM

And you don't see the irony here. Both Carroll and you are Landmarkists. Dr. Walter isn't. You are the one that ought to be agreeing with Carroll and his stand against the RCC, not castigating Dr. Walter for his.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I re-read posts #58, #61 and #66 which were thoroughly repudiated. If that is all you have to offer then why continue the discussion?

So YOU say doc...

The only reason to continue a discussion is if you can validate the position you have taken! You have not been able to respond to the posts that repudiated your arguments with any substance! You have certainly not provided anything to demonstrate that my contextual based arguments are wrong! You simply make empty unsubstantiated accusations (thus guilty of the very thing you are accusing me).

I'll let my posts speak for themselves.

Again, Contextually the source of both examples of false teaching in verses 4-5 is clearly and explicitly stated in verse 1 to be derived from spiritual sources (demons).

Again, There is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that PROHIBITS legal marriage for ANYONE or DEMANDS that anyone in the ministry remain unmarried.

An argument from silence? Hmmm...

Again, Scripture PERMITS ministers to marry and identifies any doctrine that PROHIBITS marriage as deomonic in origin.

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!

Again, "traditions" (disciplines) that contradict the Word of God (Mt. 15) are identified by Christ as "commandments of men" and "doctrines" in spite of Rome's denial that "disciplines" are "doctrine."

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. 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.

Again, such commandments of men (disciplines, doctrines) that contradict the Word of God have their original source with demons (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 1 Jn. 4:1,6).

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

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

You have not provided ANYTHING to demonstrate any of the above positions are Biblical incorrect and I don't think you will even try to because you know you cannot offer any Biblical evidence.

More of the same argumentum ad ignorantium.

Hence, you will continue to spout of hot air, ridicule, and bloviate.

Ridicule? Nahh...just pointing out the facts. As to the other point, I think it is patently obvious who the bloviator is here doc....

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

WM