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

[WestminsterMan]

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

snip...

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."

Notice that there was no punctuation when the original texts were written...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

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.

Not at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your broad sweeping application of those passages. I just don't think that you have made a convincing argument for any of your positions - especially the "end times" idea.

WM

 

[DHK]

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

True. And my reply to that is: non sequitor.
It has nothing to do with this discussion since Christ did not come to marry, would not marry, and could not marry. For you to choose that as your apologetic is useless.

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.

If it is non sequitor, why did you use it? It has nothing to do with the discussion. You cannot use Christ as a defense of a married man when you know he cannot marry. Case closed.

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

You are off topic. Choosing to become a priest is not the topic.
Here is the topic. Look up at the top of the page. Doctrines of Demons - 1 Tim. 4:1-2



There I have provided the name of the topic for you and the link to this thread which discusses it. It is called "Doctrines of Demons" as discussed in 1Tim.4:1,2. Choosing to become a priest is not the topic of this thread. Those who mandate that one should be celibate is a doctrine of a demon. That is the topic, for that is one of the doctrines of demons mentioned in that passage--not becoming a priest. The fact that the RCC practices this makes the RCC an organization that practices demonic activity or at least doctrines of demons. Keep on topic.

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.

It is a fair comparison. When the church mandates anything that is against Scripture it becomes a devilish doctrine. Can you not agree with that. That is why the other doctrine "abstaining from foods" is also mentioned. The Lord had already declared previous to this that all foods were clean and nothing to be refused. He had declared this same principle to Peter in Acts 10. To refuse God's food is wrong. For a church to do so, to require to abstain from certain foods is a doctrine of demons. And yet certain religions practice this.

Both of these practices can be by personal choice. You can choose to have any diet you want. If you want to be a vegetarian that is your choice. But if it is mandated by your church then it is a doctrine of demons. If you desire to remain single the rest of your life, that is your choice. But if it is mandated by your church, then it is a doctrine of demons. It is that simple. Even if the church puts forth a mandate for just a few or even just one person to be single or celibate then it is wrong. There doesn't have to be exceptions. If they say that some of them have to remain single then it is wrong. If they say that some of them have to abstain from certain foods, then it is wrong.

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

Modern research has shown that prolonged abstinence from s*x can lead to deviant behavior. This is what has happened in a good percentage of the RCC clergy.

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

I only exclude your red herrings. But as I have explained, if the RCC mandates celibacy even for a small group of people then it is a doctrine of demons, even if they mandated it for one person, then it would be a doctrine of demons. The Scripture doesn't give numbers does it. It simply gives a command.

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

It is totally irrelevant. The command still stands.

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

Whatever you say. I was replying to your post. If you think what I say is irrelevant, then don't post irrelevant things. However, note that salvation ought not never to be irrelevant.

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.

You quoted Mat.19:11,12. You said those are Jesus words, and Jesus is celibate using those words of Jesus to back up your position. Can't you see how absurd that is? Jesus said that some are single because they are eunuchs. Are you suggesting that Jesus is then single because He also is a eunuch. That is the Scripture you are using.
Christ did not come to marry. He came to die. You don't seem to understand even the basics of Christology or soteriology.

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.

Every time you use Christ as an example or an argument for a "celibate 'priest'" as you have been doing, you imply that he could have been married. Using Christ as an example is totally irrelevant for He never came to marry and could not have married. You are attacking your own arguments.

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

The corollary of your arguments (which you don't consider important) are quite blasphemous. When you present one side of an argument, you must consider the implication of the other side. What on earth are you implying?
If x is this, then what is y? Y is what is blasphemous. And that is what you haven't thought through.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Interesting....



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

WM

You are simply amazing! All the evidences placed in your face and you find the one thing you can divert the whole issue over and run with it! You simply avoid all the evidences that expose your position as outright heresy and run to any little thing to divert or distract from the substance of the argument.

Steadfast Fred certainly did say that and perhaps that is what he believes. I will give you credit for that and perhaps I should have just said, that has never been my argument and you are dealing with my posts and yet all you can do is find something in my posts to avoid the evidences I have placed in your face that you cannot answer.

1. The words "latter times" (1 Tim. 4:1) destroys your argument that "forbidding to marry" was restricted to Gnosticism in the first century.

2. The source of "forbidding to marry" as a teaching/disicpline/doctrine/tradition/commandment is "demons" while the instrument that has been seduced by demons are those who teach it.

3. The gender case agreement between "demons" and "lying" and "forbidding" provide grammatical evidence that "demons" are the source of the doctrine/tradition/discipline/teaching "forbidding to marry."

4. The Biblical qualifications not merely PERMIT but APPROVES as well as PROMOTES married ministry - 1 Tim. 3; 1 Cor. 9:5; etc.

5. Celebacy is never ever commanded in Scripture or set forth as a qualfication to be a minister but is purely a matter of individual liberty.

6. 1 Tim. 4:1-4 condemns anyone who embraces a doctrine/discipline/command that prohibits marriage and demands celebacy.

7. Roman Catholicism does not allow marriage among its preists or nuns and therefore adopts the very position that is explicitly condemned by 1 Tim. 4:1-4 which has its source with demons.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your broad sweeping application of those passages. I just don't think that you have made a convincing argument for any of your positions - especially the "end times" idea.

WM

1. In 1 Tim. 4:1 the future indicative "shall" joined with the phrase "in the latter times" repudiates the idea that Paul is restricting this to his present time.

2. The gender and case agreement between the noun "demons" and the participles "lying" and "forbidding" provide grammaticaly evidence that the "demons" are the source of these actions while "some" in verse 1 are the objects of seduction by demons and instruments through whom they operate. This same truth is explicitly taught by John in 1 John 4:1,6.

3. There is no rational way in light of the grammar and context that anyone can argue this is restricted to Gnosticism. Gnosticism may fall within the perimeter's of "some" but does not exhaust it.

4. The very wording of 1 Timothy 4:1 demonstrates that no specified designated subject is in view ["some"] but rather it is designed to be applied to anyone who identifies with the descriptive participles ("lying" "forbidding to marry" and "commanding to abstain from meats."

Let the reader take note that Westminister Man has given broad general denials without providing one iota of specific evidence to support his denials and yet makes the unfounded and rediculous charge that it is I that presented a "broad general sweeping application" and that it is I that failed to make a "convincing argument." My argument has been sufficiently convincing or else he could have responded with specifics to demonstrate why my detailed specific evidences are wrong!! No specifics, just unsubstantiated generalties characterize his responses.

I have given four specifics above drawn from context and grammar. No one can be convinced of anything if they intentionally reject all evidence that is placed before them. Indeed, such a characteristic responses fit the descriptive in 1 Timothy 4:2 of a "seared conscience" that is incapable of receiving truth.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You are simply amazing! All the evidences placed in your face and you find the one thing you can divert the whole issue over and run with it! You simply avoid all the evidences that expose your position as outright heresy and run to any little thing to divert or distract from the substance of the argument.

Steadfast Fred certainly did say that and perhaps that is what he believes. I will give you credit for that and perhaps I should have just said, that has never been my argument and you are dealing with my posts and yet all you can do is find something in my posts to avoid the evidences I have placed in your face that you cannot answer.

1. The words "latter times" (1 Tim. 4:1) destroys your argument that "forbidding to marry" was restricted to Gnosticism in the first century.

That would be true except for one little fact... my argument wasn't that "forbidding to marry" was restricted to the first century. It was that Paul was addressing those beliefs in the first century. AND, since Gnoticism still exists, that goes right along with his admonition into the furture. Elvis has left the building!

2. The source of "forbidding to marry" as a teaching/disicpline/doctrine/tradition/commandment is "demons" while the instrument that has been seduced by demons are those who teach it.

I don't think you have come remotely close to making that case here.

3. The gender case agreement between "demons" and "lying" and "forbidding" provide grammatical evidence that "demons" are the source of the doctrine/tradition/discipline/teaching "forbidding to marry."

Yes... but your predicate this upon the fallacy that Paul was talking about the Cataholic Church.

4. The Biblical qualifications not merely PERMIT but APPROVES as well as PROMOTES married ministry - 1 Tim. 3; 1 Cor. 9:5; etc.

Yet it doesn't specifically require it either.

5. Celebacy is never ever commanded in Scripture or set forth as a qualfication to be a minister but is purely a matter of individual liberty.

Niether Jesus nor Paul ever said that did they? Jesus said it was a gift that only a few should accept accept. You're putting things into the text that simply do not exist.

6. 1 Tim. 4:1-4 condemns anyone who embraces a doctrine/discipline/command that prohibits marriage and demands celebacy.

Again... your premise is based upon error. Paul states explicitely that "...some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits..." he just doesn't say who. It is YOU who are doing that.

7. Roman Catholicism does not allow marriage among its preists or nuns and therefore adopts the very position that is explicitly condemned by 1 Tim. 4:1-4 which has its source with demons.

That position is invalidated by Aglican converts. They become RCC Priests AND they are usually married often with children. I know you want to exclude this as a technicallity, but that doesn't change the facts. Either you must admit that your position is flawed or you must concede that doctrines and disciplines are different. Your position is, as you like to put it, "destroyed" either way.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

That would be true except for one little fact... my argument wasn't that "forbidding to marry" was restricted to the first century. It was that Paul was addressing those beliefs in the first century. AND, since Gnoticism still exists, that goes right along with his admonition into the furture. Elvis has left the building!

You are arguing simply to argue.

1. The text identifies the subject as "some" - not Gnositicism - You are reading into the text what it does not say. If it had said "Gnostics" instead of "some" you would have a case - however, it does not.

2. This some is defined by examples of doctrine not denominational identity and therefore is inclusive of all who embrace the examples.

3. You agree with me in this post as you say "he just doesn't say who"

Yes... but your predicate this upon the fallacy that Paul was talking about the Cataholic Church.

Straw man argument - Absolutely false and you know it!! How many times must I repeat this warning fits ANYONE at ANYTIME present or future that embraces those examples of false doctrine!

Yet it doesn't specifically require it either.

Straw man argument and you know it! You know I have NEVER argued that celebacy is required. Why repeat this straw man argument!

Niether Jesus nor Paul ever said that did they? Jesus said it was a gift that only a few should accept accept. You're putting things into the text that simply do not exist.

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever REQUIRED celibacy for the ministry and you know it! Another stupid and straw man argument! 1 Timothy 3 demonstrates celibacy is not required by Paul or Jesus for the ministry. 1 Tim. 4:4 demonstrates that neither Jesus or Paul would require celibacy for the ministry!

Again... your premise is based upon error. Paul states explicitely that "...some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits..." he just doesn't say who. It is YOU who are doing that.

You make my point exactly! It does not say who the "some" are but it does identify them by the examples of false doctrine! They are ANYONE who adopts these kind's of teaching - Gnostics, Catholics, YOU!

That position is invalidated by Aglican converts. They become RCC Priests AND they are usually married often with children. I know you want to exclude this as a technicallity, but that doesn't change the facts. Either you must admit that your position is flawed or you must concede that doctrines and disciplines are different. Your position is, as you like to put it, "destroyed" either way.

Do you really believe that Rome escapes this condemnation because it allows special designated cases to be married but as a general rule denies marriage to all others desiring the ministry??????? Where do they get the Biblical authority to deny anyone marriage? Where do they get the Biblical authority to make celibacy a qualification for the ministry?? This passage condemns ANYONE who forbids marriage! Would a denomination escape this condemnation if they fobid eating of certain foods but allowed such eating to certain designated cases?

Do you have any common sense at all??

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't think you have come remotely close to making that case here.

Let us go to the root of this issue. You apparently believe that the gospel preached by Rome and the salvation taught by Rome is not "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9) but is the Biblical gospel and therefore Catholics can be saved by receiving the gospel preached by Rome. Remember, you recognized them without qualification as your "brothers and sisters."

Do you believe that justification before God is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works? Rom. 4:5-6; John 5:24; Eph. 2:8-10

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know

Do you realize that Rome anathamized anyone believing that justification before God is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works?

Do you realize that Rome anathamized anyone who said you can know you have eternal life now and you can know you are going to heaven?

Do you believe the confession of faith posted by your own church on the website concerning salvation?

 

[Dr. Walter]

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,

WestministerMan admits that Paul "just doesn't say who" he is talking about in verse 1! Hence, Paul is just flapping his lips about no one at all or he is purposely not specifying a particular subject like "Gnostics" or "Jews" or "Sadducees" because what he is saying is about EVERYONE who fits the characteristics being given in verses 1-5!

So which is it? Paul is not talking about anyone at all or he is talking about everyone that fits the characteristics he provides in this passage??? If Gnostics teach this it fits them. If Jews teach this it fits them. If the "Shakers" teach this it fits them. If Rome teaches this it fits them. If YOU teach this it fits YOU! Common sense and the ability to read English tells you that this is so!

The Greek grammar demands that "devils" are the source for "speaking lies" and "forbidding to marry" and "commanding to abstain from meats." There is gender and case agreement between the noun "devils" and all these actions.

Therefore, even though Paul does not specify who "some" are except by characteristics he does specifically identify the root source for these false doctrines - "devils."

Furthermore, he identifies that this "some" have been seduced by such demons and their conscience has been "seared" by such demonic influence upon them. In other words, he is saying nothing different than John in 1 John 4:1,6 - that humans are instruments of spiritual sources and that spiritual source is recognized by what such humans teach!

Finally, it is impossible to argue that celibacy is required for the ministry by either Christ or Paul when 1 Timothy 3 approves, permits and promotes marriage in the ministry and 1 Timothy 4 condemns everyone who forbids marriage.

It is a foolish and irrational argument to say that because the Bible does not condemn celibacy but promotes it for those to whom it is given by God that this provides a Biblical basis to demand celibacy as a qualification for the ministry. This would invalidate Peter and many others that Jesus appointed to the ministry (1 Cor. 9:5; Mt. 8:15) and bring Christ under condemnation for selecting those to whom such a "gift" was not given!

 

[WestminsterMan]

You are arguing simply to argue.

And you are not? Pluuessse...

1. The text identifies the subject as "some" - not Gnositicism - You are reading into the text what it does not say. If it had said "Gnostics" instead of "some" you would have a case - however, it does not.

And how do you know that Paul wasn't referencing early gnositicism? You don't - it's like saying that because the word Trinity isn't explicitly used in scripture, that the concept isn't scriptural.

2. This some is defined by examples of doctrine not denominational identity and therefore is inclusive of all who embrace the examples.

Now that would be your application of it and one, I will repeat, that you have yet to prove.

Straw man argument - Absolutely false and you know it!! How many times must I repeat this warning fits ANYONE at ANYTIME present or future that embraces those examples of false doctrine!

And how many times must I repeat that your position is an interpretation of what Paul means. Please - do us all a favor and look up the proper definition of a straw man argument. I think you throw that around so much as to not recognize when you mis-apply it.

Straw man argument and you know it! You know I have NEVER argued that celebacy is required. Why repeat this straw man argument!

Nor did I accuse you of that or try to impose that concept onto your actual position. I simply stated my take on it as a means of refutation. Again - ease up on the straw man accusation. It makes you appear ignorant.

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever REQUIRED celibacy for the ministry and you know it! Another stupid and straw man argument!

Ok - enough! What you apparently mean to say is that my argument is a red herring. Please educate yourself before you blast away and again and make yourself look foolishly under-educated.

You make my point exactly! It does not say who the "some" are but it does identify them by the examples of false doctrine! They are ANYONE who adopts these kind's of teaching - Gnostics, Catholics, YOU!

You obviously lack an understanding of basic logic and grammar. Let's examine 1 Tim 4:3 again.

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

Please note the word "AND" in the above passage..
The "AND" operates thusly:

(cond1) AND (cond2) must both be TRUE, for the entire conditional statement to be TRUE.

Broadly applying the passage as you do, we have:

cond1 = They [the RCC or anyone] forbid people to marry
cond2 = [the RCC or anyone] order them to abstain from certain foods

Thus:
cond1 = TRUE (according to your logically convoluted interpretation)
AND
cond2 = FALSE (the RCC does not order them to abstain from certain foods)

Therefore, the entire statement is FALSE and so is your application of it. (I.e. the admonistion cannot logically apply to the RCC because only one of the two conditions are true). Ohhhh Yeeeaaahhhh!

Do you really believe that Rome escapes this condemnation because it allows special designated cases to be married but as a general rule denies marriage to all others desiring the ministry???????

I do - because it is no longer a requirement for ALL PRIESTS - it becomes as you say a free choice. What I mean here is... if a man wants to become a priest but doesn't want to be celibate, there are other avenues available for that person. Ultimately, no one forces anyone into the priesthood in the first place, so this whole discussion is rediculous. You speak of the absence of common sense...

Where do they get the Biblical authority to deny anyone marriage?

They don't deny anyone marriage - the person freely takes a vow of celibacy.

Where do they get the Biblical authority to make celibacy a qualification for the ministry??

Well, I can't speak on behalf of Catholics regarding this one, but I'll bet they would bring up apostolic sucession and Peter or something.

This passage condemns ANYONE who forbids marriage! Would a denomination escape this condemnation if they fobid eating of certain foods but allowed such eating to certain designated cases?

No it does not and I just proved it conclusively. It condems anyone who both forbids people to marry AND orders them to abstain from certain foods.

Do you have any common sense at all??

I've got enough to turn you inside out on occasion there ol' doc.

WM

 

[DHK]

You obviously lack an understanding of basic logic and grammar. Let's examine 1 Tim 4:3 again.

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

Please note the word "AND" in the above passage..
The "AND" operates thusly:

(cond1) AND (cond2) must both be TRUE, for the entire conditional statement to be TRUE.

Broadly applying the passage as you do, we have:

cond1 = They [the RCC or anyone] forbid people to marry
cond2 = [the RCC or anyone] order them to abstain from certain foods

Thus:
cond1 = TRUE (according to your logically convoluted interpretation)
AND
cond2 = FALSE (the RCC does not order them to abstain from certain foods)

Therefore, the entire statement is FALSE and so is your application of it. (I.e. the admonistion cannot logically apply to the RCC because only one of the two conditions are true). Ohhhh Yeeeaaahhhh!

WM

I don't agree with your interpretation of this passage. But for the sake of argument I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say even if that position were true, then this is what it would look like.

1. We know that there is a requirement at least for a good portion for those entering the priesthood to be celibate (abstain from marriage). It doesn't have to be all. If it is required for some, then it meets the conditions put forth in 1Tim.4:1-4 as a doctrine of demons.

2. Furthermore, if you say both conditions must be fulfilled then have you considered Lent:

Other mitigations of an even more substantial character have been introduced into lenten observance in the course of the last few centuries. To begin with, the custom has been tolerated of taking a cup of liquid (e.g., tea or coffee, or even chocolate) with a fragment of bread or toast in the early morning. But, what more particularly regards Lent, successive indults have been granted by the Holy See allowing meat at the principal meal, first on Sundays, and then on two, three, four, and five weekdays, throughout nearly the whole of Lent. Quite recently, Maundy Thursday, upon which meat was hitherto always forbidden, has come to share in the same indulgence. In the United States, the Holy See grants faculties whereby working men and their families may use flesh meat once a day throughout the year, except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. The only compensation imposed for all these mitigations is the prohibition during Lent against partaking of both fish and flesh at the same repast.

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

You obviously lack an understanding of basic logic and grammar. Let's examine 1 Tim 4:3 again.

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

The Greek text provides no conjunction "and" nor provides any conditional clauses - so much for your logic and understanding of grammar!

The masculine gentive participle translated "forbidding" governs both present infinitives - thus "forbidding to marry, forbidding to receive meats." One is not conditioned upon the other but merely a listing of examples that characterize the demonic instrument that has been seduced to embrace and teach such things.

You simply do not know what you are talking about!

 

[Dr. Walter]

And how do you know that Paul wasn't referencing early gnositicism? You don't - it's like saying that because the word Trinity isn't explicitly used in scripture, that the concept isn't scriptural.

Gnosticism may be what they were seduced into believing but it is not what they departed from - they departed "from the faith." The text provides a point of departure and a point of termination. The means from one point to the other point is the seductive influence of demons and their doctrines.

I have never denied Gnosticism was included but I have denied that this text is restricted to Gnosticism. No such restriction to Gnosticism is stated or implied. What is explicitly stated is that the false doctrines are of such a nature that it constitutes departure from "the faith." Roman Catholocism by the very nature of Catholic soteriology is a departure from the faith. You cannot embrace what the Catholic Church defines as essential for salvation and be saved! You cannot embrace what the Catholic Church defines as essential for salvation without departing from justification before God by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT works! You cannot confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and reject justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone without works!

WestministerMan - do YOU confess Salvation based upon "the faith" which is inseparable from justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works??????

Birds of a feather flock together! Which gospel do you embrace WestministerMAN? The gospel of Rome or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

1 Timothy 4:1 is talking about ALL DOCTRINES OF DEMONS that constitute a departure from "the faith." "Forbidding to marry" and/or "abstaining from meats" characterize an ascetic works based soteriology and thus a departure from a grace based gospel. Ordination to the ministry is one of seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome's definition of a sacrament is a means through which justifying grace is imparted and received and thus ordination is part and parcel with a works based soteriology.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The Greek text provides no conjunction "and" nor provides any conditional clauses - so much for your logic and understanding of grammar!

The masculine gentive participle translated "forbidding" governs both present infinitives - thus "forbidding to marry, forbidding to receive meats." One is not conditioned upon the other but merely a listing of examples that characterize the demonic instrument that has been seduced to embrace and teach such things.

You simply do not know what you are talking about!

Yet that is how the it is translated into English. Are you stating that average people who read the text as translated into the venacular cannot get to the actual meaning without knowing the greek? If the passage had meant it as as an OR statement it would have been translated that way. That dog won't hunt there, doc. Try again!

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if its OK to abstain from certain foods temporarily, then it must also be acceptable to be celibate temporarily. This is a rediculous position - abstenance isn't the same as celibacy. Try again - that's actually pretty weak DHK. Being an educator, I would have expected a more rigorous retort from a logical standpoint.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Gnosticism may be what they were seduced into believing but it is not what they departed from - they departed "from the faith." The text provides a point of departure and a point of termination. The means from one point to the other point is the seductive influence of demons and their doctrines.

I have never denied Gnosticism was included but I have denied that this text is restricted to Gnosticism. No such restriction to Gnosticism is stated or implied. What is explicitly stated is that the false doctrines are of such a nature that it constitutes departure from "the faith." Roman Catholocism by the very nature of Catholic soteriology is a departure from the faith. You cannot embrace what the Catholic Church defines as essential for salvation and be saved! You cannot embrace what the Catholic Church defines as essential for salvation without departing from justification before God by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT works! You cannot confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and reject justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone without works!

WestministerMan - do YOU confess Salvation based upon "the faith" which is inseparable from justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works??????

Birds of a feather flock together! Which gospel do you embrace WestministerMAN? The gospel of Rome or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

1 Timothy 4:1 is talking about ALL DOCTRINES OF DEMONS that constitute a departure from "the faith." "Forbidding to marry" and/or "abstaining from meats" characterize an ascetic works based soteriology and thus a departure from a grace based gospel. Ordination to the ministry is one of seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome's definition of a sacrament is a means through which justifying grace is imparted and received and thus ordination is part and parcel with a works based soteriology.

Oh... are you ready to bail on the topic at hand? Are you ready to leave the OP? Hmmm...

 

[WestminsterMan]

Let us go to the root of this issue. You apparently believe that the gospel preached by Rome and the salvation taught by Rome is not "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9) but is the Biblical gospel and therefore Catholics can be saved by receiving the gospel preached by Rome. Remember, you recognized them without qualification as your "brothers and sisters."

Do you believe that justification before God is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works? Rom. 4:5-6; John 5:24; Eph. 2:8-10

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know

Do you realize that Rome anathamized anyone believing that justification before God is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works?

Do you realize that Rome anathamized anyone who said you can know you have eternal life now and you can know you are going to heaven?

Do you believe the confession of faith posted by your own church on the website concerning salvation?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

WM

 

[BobRyan]

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!

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

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

The post above brings us to the subject of the Magesterium and the infallible nature of laws/decisions made during ecumenical councils.

While you are right to focus on the issue of marriage - the issue of Lateran IV and "extermination" of heretics and Jews - also comes to mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yet that is how the it is translated into English. Are you stating that average people who read the text as translated into the venacular cannot get to the actual meaning without knowing the greek? If the passage had meant it as as an OR statement it would have been translated that way. That dog won't hunt there, doc. Try again!

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

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh... are you ready to bail on the topic at hand? Are you ready to leave the OP? Hmmm...

There is no end of just plain intellectual stupidity in sight and to continue to wallow in it is a foolish enterprise. So yes, I am bailing