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

[Steadfast Fred]

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

Thank you, DHK.

 

[DHK]

Here is what I said:
Again you are confusing abstainance with celebacy. A common mistake, yet one you continue to make even after you've been corrected.

You continue to play little word games instead of entering into honest debate. If you were honest you would admit you don't have a leg to stand on. Your arguments have one by one been devastated by both Dr. Walters and myself. But you go on with your semantics and rabbit trails regardless. This really is pitiful.

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

More antics; more evidence of a lost debate--resorting to ad hominems; typical. However I will have to keep repeating the verse until you understand its meaning. You know I am a teacher. A lesson has to be repeated an average of 13 times before it is learned. If you are acting as one below the average intelligence you may hear this verse more than 13 times. Be prepared or learn quickly.

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--The RCC forbids to marry. You can put those in any other words you want. You can call it abstinence from marriage or remain in a state of celibacy or forbidding to marriage. In the end it comes to the same thing. The KJV puts in the clearest and strongest possible language so that for people like yourself there can be no confusion, no misunderstanding, no word games, no semantics--the meaning is clear.
Thus this foolish statement:

Again you are confusing abstainance with celebacy. A common mistake, yet one you continue to make even after you've been corrected.
of yours makes no sense in the light of Scripture. It is not I that needs to be corrected. It is you. You need to understand this. Here it is again:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Please learn it; memorize it.

Not what but Whom - God.

Who is your authority? God you say?
Which one? Allah? The gnostic god? The J.W. god? Buddha perhaps?
Which God is your authority?
It is not the God of the Bible, for if it was, you would use the Bible as your authority (i.e., God's Word), but you don't. In truth you have been using your own self as your authority. You claim to be your own authority, which means that you have set yourself up as your own god. Is this true?

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

Let's go through this again. Listen (or look) carefully.
Here is what I said:

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

Now here is what the Bible says:
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Notice it doesn't say anything about Anglicans.
It simply says "forbidding to marry."
The RCC forbids to marry. It doesn't say who, how many, what percentage, etc. It forbids a certain portion of those entering into the priesthood to be married. That is a known fact. You may say not this one, or not that one. That is totally irrelevant. The verse doesn't say all. The RCC forbids priests (whether some or all--it is irrelevant); it forbids to marry. And that is a doctrine of demons. The RCC forbids to marry. Understand now?

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

Whether the gun is a fully automatic owned by Jim Jones, or a fully automatic decree owned by a Pope, it has the same effect.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You continue to play little word games instead of entering into honest debate. If you were honest you would admit you don't have a leg to stand on. Your arguments have one by one been devastated by both Dr. Walters and myself.

Why should I admit to something that isn't even remotely true? To do so would in fact be dishonest.

But you go on with your semantics and rabbit trails regardless. This really is pitiful.

So you say DHK...

More antics; more evidence of a lost debate--resorting to ad hominems; typical.

And you should certainly know, shouln't you? (P.s. It's ad hominem attacks - please use it correctly.)

However I will have to keep repeating the verse until you understand its meaning. You know I am a teacher. A lesson has to be repeated an average of 13 times before it is learned.

Hmmmm...That probably has many mitigating factors such as age group, culture, population, average income, geographical location, etc. However, most academicians that I know don't need to repeat a topic 13 times in order to inculcate it into the brains of their students. Ultimately, one must first know the topic well enough to simplify it, before being able to teach it to others.

If you are acting as one below the average intelligence you may hear this verse more than 13 times. Be prepared or learn quickly.

"...More antics; more evidence of a lost debate--resorting to ad hominem [attacks]; typical."

Back atcha there DHK!

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--The RCC forbids to marry. You can put those in any other words you want.

How about these words:
1. No one is forced to become a priest, nun, or religious
2. If one decides on a calling to the preisthood, it is a personal choice.
3. Not all priests take a vow of celibacy (Othodox and Anglican)
3. Both Paul and Jesus lauded celbacy.
4. A religious vow of celibacy is a gift from God

Thus, religious celibacy is not a doctrine of demons.

Did you ever consider that perhaps you have a very shallow understanding of Christianity there DHK?

You can call it abstinence from marriage or remain in a state of celibacy or forbidding to marriage. In the end it comes to the same thing. The KJV puts in the clearest and strongest possible language so that for people like yourself there can be no confusion, no misunderstanding, no word games, no semantics--the meaning is clear.
Thus this foolish statement:
Again you are confusing abstainance with celebacy. A common mistake, yet one you continue to make even after you've been corrected.
of yours makes no sense in the light of Scripture. It is not I that needs to be corrected. It is you.

Oh really? One can be abstinent from marriage and not be chased. However, one cannot be celibate and engage in sex.

Look...I simply proved that you do not understand the difference between abstinence and celibacy. That's what has you all torqued up...and that's also why you keep repeating the same old fallacy. Unfotunately for you, I will not be repeating it thirteen times. If you can't understand basic logic by now, you may need to drop this course.

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Please learn it; memorize it.

I quoted it and explaned it in scriptural context way back younder in this thread DHK.

Who is your authority? God you say ?
Which one? Allah?
The gnostic god? The J.W. god? Buddha perhaps?
Which God is your authority?
It is not the God of the Bible, for if it was, you would use the Bible as your authority (i.e., God's Word), but you don't.

Let me introduce you to something called "making an inference." For example, I am a member of a predominately Baptist board. Hence, one should be able to infer from that membership, that I worship the God of the bible, else I wouln't be a member of this board. But that is beyond you isn't it DHK? So let me make this clear so you'll stop with these sophomoric tactics: I worship the God of the bible. He is my authority.

In truth you have been using your own self as your authority. You claim to be your own authority, which means that you have set yourself up as your own god. Is this true?

No it is not.

Let's go through this again. Listen (or look) carefully.
Here is what I said:

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

Now here is what the Bible says:
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Notice it doesn't say anything about Anglicans.
It simply says "forbidding to marry."
The RCC forbids to marry. It doesn't say who, how many, what percentage, etc. It forbids a certain portion of those entering into the priesthood to be married. That is a known fact. You may say not this one, or not that one. That is totally irrelevant. The verse doesn't say all. The RCC forbids priests (whether some or all--it is irrelevant); it forbids to marry. And that is a doctrine of demons. The RCC forbids to marry. Understand now?

I understand perfectly. I understand that you believe that repeating something over and over again makes a thing true irregardless of how many times it has been proven to the contrary.

Soooo...Let me try it again (after all, its the christian thing to do):

The Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. In the Catholic world, marriage is a blessing; it is a sacrement; it is simply not for everyone. Some may renounce marriage for purposes of religion. Christ himself indicated this when he said that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). Some people, for the sake of the kingdom, refuse to marry and raise a family. Some people become Catholic preists, nuns, and religious.

Old testament:
God told the prophet Jeremiah not to take a wife and have children (Jer. 16:1-4) since doing so would be inconsistent with the turbulent ministry to which God was calling him. In Jeremiah we find a parallel to a modern priest, a man who refrains from marrying and having a family in order to free himself to fulfill the demands of ministry.

New Testament:
Paul counsels people to refrain from marrying. He says, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

The New Testament tells of a vow of celibacy--a formal commitment to lead the single life--and Paul incorporates it into his regulations for the order of proto-nuns he discusses in 1 Timothy 5. Ironically, this is mentioned in 1 Timothy 5, just a chapter after the "doctrines of demons" passage in 1 Timothy 4!

Clearly, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 4 is wrong and conveniently extricated from biblical context. If it's not, then both Jesus and Paul are both espousing something which turns out to wrong. A doctrine of demons indeed!

Understand now? Good - an it didn't take 13 repitions did it?

Whether the gun is a fully automatic owned by Jim Jones, or a fully automatic decree owned by a Pope, it has the same effect.

Let's look at that statement:
1. Jim Jones forced many people to drink poison kool-aid at gun point.
2. The RCC requires a vow of celibacy for some of its canditates to the peirsthood or religious orders.
3. DHK finds these two scenarious synonymous

Utter scatalogical twaddle!

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is hard to sit on the sideline and see someone pass irrational and illogical nonsense as reasonable and logical. For example consider this line of supposed logic:

1. No one is forced to become a priest, nun, or religious
2. If one decides on a calling to the preisthood, it is a personal choice.
3. Not all priests take a vow of celibacy (Othodox and Anglican)
3. Both Paul and Jesus lauded celbacy.
4. A religious vow of celibacy is a gift from God


Of course we can agree with 1 and 2. However, when we come to #3 it is entirely based on the complete ommission of Roman Catholic practice in regard to non-priestly but married members already within the RCC. The only exceptions to the rule of celibacy required by the RCC and enforced upon EVERY SINGLE ONE of its own MARRIED members are those who are already Married Preists coming within the RCC from the "orthodox and Anglican" ministry. Rome requires celibacy and rejects ALL MARRIED non-priestly MEMBERS already with its membership as well as rejects ALL MARRIED non-priestly persons of Anglican and Orthodox coming into the RCC.

Therefore, the ONLY exceptions to the rule of celibacy required by the RCC is for those who are already married preists of Anglican and Orthodox denominations coming into the RCC as candidates for Preists. Ordinary non-priestly MARRIED members within the RCC as well as in the Orthodox and Anglican denominations would be rejected as candidates for preisthood.

Hence, celibacy is the RULE that is REQUIRED by the RCC for its own membership and for those non-priestly Orthodox and Anglican proselytes becoming members in the RCC.

Rome is simply between a rock and a hard place with Anglican and Othodox Ministry as to deny their ministry is to deny their ordinances and thus deny their salvation. Hence, Rome compromises where it is forced to compromise in order to acheive the greater end - reunification. This is a smart move because when the MARRIED Priesthood die there is no replacement and so eventually ALL the priesthood eventually conform to the REQUIREMENT for celibacy. Hence, in the end the RULE of celibacy wins out and it is just a matter of time that MARRIED preisthood vanishes and dies out.

However, the bottom line here is that WM admits it is "required" and thus he has to provide a Biblical basis that God authorizes it to be "required" rather than merely a preferred option. Secondly, how will he explain that Christ selected from within his own body of disciples non-priestly married persons for the ministry but the RCC rejects all non-priestly married already within its own body of disciples for the Preisthood. Let me make this clear. Christ called and brought into his body of disciples non-priestly but married persons and from those married but non-priestly persons he personally selected married men into the ministry. In contrast Rome repudiates this example of Christ and refuses to select non-preistly but married persons that they have discipled and brought into their body as non-priestly but married persons.

 

[DHK]

Soooo...Let me try it again (after all, its the christian thing to do):

The Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. In the Catholic world, marriage is a blessing; it is a sacrement; it is simply not for everyone. Some may renounce marriage for purposes of religion. Christ himself indicated this when he said that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). Some people, for the sake of the kingdom, refuse to marry and raise a family. Some people become Catholic preists, nuns, and religious.

1. Marriage is not a sacrament (means of grace), but we will count that point as irrelevant.
2. We also believe that marriage is a blessing.
3. We also believe that marriage is not for everyone (though for most).
4. Christ said what he said in Mat.19:12.
5. What you said in the rest of your quote apples to Catholics.

Old testament:
God told the prophet Jeremiah not to take a wife and have children (Jer. 16:1-4) since doing so would be inconsistent with the turbulent ministry to which God was calling him. In Jeremiah we find a parallel to a modern priest, a man who refrains from marrying and having a family in order to free himself to fulfill the demands of ministry.

Jeremiah did not take a wife. That is true. But there is no parallel to the NT. The only conclusion to make here is: God commands some of his prophets to do some things that he would never command others to do.

For example in Hosea, he commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute. Should this also become the norm.

In Isaiah 20:2,3, God commanded Isaiah to take off his clothes and shoes and walk through the land naked. There is a verse in the Bible that says: "Go and do thou likewise." Will you obey its command?

God calls some people to do some things he does not call others to do. You are making an application where none is warranted.

New Testament:
He says, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. .

He states the norm. This is the norm for all men.

. . I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

Note the caveat. by concession and not of command. He says that because it is not the norm. It was under special circumstances. It is not a command of the Lord, it was his wish not a command of the Lord. It is written right into the text. It is written that way because the special circumstance was intense persecution under a wicked ruler by the name of Nero. Their husbands to be would soon die. It would be better, in such a case, that they remain single. Think carefully about the context.

I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. (1 Corinthians 7:26)
--The present distress was a great persecution that had come upon all Christianity.

The New Testament tells of a vow of celibacy--a formal commitment to lead the single life--and Paul incorporates it into his regulations for the order of proto-nuns he discusses in 1 Timothy 5. Ironically, this is mentioned in 1 Timothy 5, just a chapter after the "doctrines of demons" passage in 1 Timothy 4!

The vow of celibacy is not a personal choice. It is a forced one. And that is what makes it a doctrine of demons. Paul had been previously married. He then made a personal choice to remain single. No one forced him: no church authority, no living apostle such as Peter, no one. It was his personal choice. The RCC does not do that. It is forced upon those entering the priesthood (at least a good percentage of them).

The NT does not tell of a vow of celibacy. That is myth. That entire chapter is what Paul desires, not commands. There is no command there. It must be a personal choice. Paul does not force anyone into celibacy. In fact at the beginning of the chapter he sets out the norm--marriage.

In 1Tim5, he sets out guidelines for the church that is to take care of widows. If the widow is to be married then her husband will take care of her. The church only need to take care of unmarried widows. Duh, that one is a no-brainer! Nothing is forced upon anyone.

Clearly, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 4 is wrong and conveniently extricated from biblical context. If it's not, then both Jesus and Paul are both espousing something which turns out to wrong. A doctrine of demons indeed!

The RCC forces the command not to marry upon those that enter the priesthood. That is a doctrine of demons. I have explained your every objection.

 

[Dr. Walter]

3. Both Paul and Jesus lauded celbacy. - WM

This is the second "3" in the list considered above. HM simply made a typo and I do the same often - so no fault there.

No one denies that Paul and Jesus lauded celbacy but the issue is whether or not they REQUIRED it? Remember HM has admitted that the RCC "required" it among their own non-preistly married members and only allowed preistly persons coming from Orthodox and Anglican denominations to retain their preistly status within the RCC and for good political reasons.

Can HM prove that God authorizes it as a REQUIREMENT in His Word? Since Christ selected non-preistly but married persons within his own body of disciples, HM cannot provide any Bibical authority, and therefore no God ordained authority, for the RCC to refuse to select non-preistly but married members already within its own body! However, this is exactly the practice of the RCC thus repudiating the example set by Christ.

The only way that HM can logically suggest that God authorizes anyone to make celbacy a requirement as the RCC does is to repudiate the example of Jesus Christ in selecting non-preistly but married members among his own body of disciples (1 Cor. 9:4; Mt. 8:14). Since Christ did select a FISHERMAN by trade (non-preistly) and ordained him as a married man to the ministry, therefore no follower of Jesus Christ can make celbacy a requirement and refuse to allow non-priestly but married persons within their own body of disciples into the ministry without repudiating the example of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, no one can logically argue that Jesus Christ required exactly the opposite of what He himself actually practiced.

 

[Dr. Walter]

4. A religious vow of celibacy is a gift from God [/COLOR.] - HM

This is certainly true and no one can deny it IF the Bible is their final authority.

However, to suggest that such a gift is "required" to be considered as fit for the ministry as a non-preistly person is something that cannot be proven from God's Word. Indeed, it violates the very example of Jesus Christ as previously noted in my last two posts. Jesus selected a married FISHERMAN within his own body of followers, and therefore a "non-preistly" but MARRIED follower to be ordained into the ministry. In order for HM's argument above to be true, he would have to also prove that Christ required something he personally violated.

 

[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.

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)

- HM

1. This is not a conditional sentence. There is a differnence between "conditions" and "characteristics." This verse is setting forth characteristics not conditions. The two characteristics set forth do not exhaust ALL the "doctrines of devils" as many other characteristics could be set forth.

2. The word "and" can mean "in addition to" as used in a list of characteristics and/or conditions.

3. The Greek text denies this interpretation as the Greek equivilent "kai" is completely omitted. Instead we have one main participle translated "forbidding" that is modified by two infinitives and thus the true meaning according to the Greek text is "and/or" as in the listing of characteristics and an incompleted list.

4. The Greek text omits any terms that are normal to setting forth conditions (e.g. ean, hoti, etc).

5. This is not a conditional clause in the Greek text.

6. The charge is "depart from the faith" through seduction by demons in regard to "doctrines of demons" and there is no way that such doctrines of devils can be restricted to only two conditions as John lists others in 1 John 4:1-6 in addition to these, thus proving these are only characteristics among many others that could be listed which characteristics are wholly unrelated to either Gnosticism or RCC. However, the point being, that whether it is Gnosticism, Seventh Day Adventisim, Judaism, or Roman Catholicism, if some of these characteristics are embraced by such that are doctrines of demons regardless of which characteristic is embraced. Those who preach "another gospel" have departed from "the faith" equally as much as those who forbid marriage and/or forbid eating certain foods and/or who deny the deity of Christ (1 Jn. 4:1-6) or denied the nature of God, etc.

Thus Arianism would be a departure from the faith and embracing doctrines of demons even though they may not forbid marriage or forbid eating certain foods. This text simply lists some but not all doctrines of demons and most likely these are examples of those that Timothy was expressly dealing with at Ephesus.

My point is that doctrines of demons and departure from the faith and being seduced by demons is not restricted to these two, nor are both of these required to qualify as being seduced by demons or are both qualfied to be regarded as "doctrines of demons" as one is as much as a demonic doctrine as the other and any group embracing them separately would still be embracing a doctrine of demons just as the Arians who may not forbid marriage and may not forbid eating certain foods would still be embracing doctrines of demons in regard to denying the deity of Christ. Hence, your argument does not stand up at all at any point.

 

[nate]

You guys are forgetting about the Eastern Roman Catholics! Their Priest's can be married. To say the Pope and the Vatican require all Priest's to remain celibate is just not true! Only in the Latin Rite are Priest's required to remain celibate. In the Ordinariate Roman Catholics and Eastern Roman Catholics all get married with the approval of Rome and the Pope!

 

[Dr. Walter]

You guys are forgetting about the Eastern Roman Catholics! Their Priest's can be married. To say the Pope and the Vatican require all Priest's to remain celibate is just not true! Only in the Latin Rite are Priest's required to remain celibate. In the Ordinariate Roman Catholics and Eastern Roman Catholics all get married with the approval of Rome and the Pope!

Nate we have acknowledged that point! We are not discussing Eastern or Anglican priests but RCC preists and RCC practice.

We have also acknowledged that the RCC allows married Priests who defect from the Orthodox and Anglican traditions into the RCC to retain their preisthood.

I have pointed out that the RCC does not permit married non-preists within their own membership or in the membership of the Anglican or Orthodox traditions into the priesthood.

We are debating whether the RCC has any Biblical authority to REQUIRE any non-priests within their own body to be celbate in order to qualify for their preisthood. Indeed, we are debating whether anyone has Biblical authority to require celbacy for the ministry.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Catholic Answers

"Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried." - http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Notice that even among the Eastern churches there are restrictions against marriage within the priesthood. No bishop may be married.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1580 "In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, p. 395 (emphasis mine).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Roman Catholic Encyclodpedia - Celibacy

Present position

With regard to the law of celibacy and its canonical effects in the Western Church at the present day, only one or two points can be briefly touched upon. For the details the reader must be referred to such a work as that of Wernz "Jus Decretalium", II, 295-321. Clerk in minor orders, as already stated, as free to marry, and by such marriages they forfeit the privilegia canonis and the privilegia fori only in part, provided they observe the required conditions (cf. Decreta Conc. Trid., Sess XIII, cap. vi); though in our day such observance is practically impossible; but they are incapable of being promoted to sacred orders unless they separate from their wives, and make a vow of perpetual continence. Further, if as clerks they held any benefice or ecclesiastical pension, these are at once forfeited by marriage, and the become incapable of acquiring any new benefice......
- Catholic Encyclopedia - Celibacy of the clergy

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Paul makes it clear that a married may and can "desire" the office of Bishop and he approves of that desire by a married man. This is for the "office of bishop."

The Roman Catholic church will not allow any married man into the office of Bishop. They deny Anglican Bishops acceptance as Catholic Bishops.

Moreover, when they define the Biblical desire for the priesthood, much less the office of Bishop, they do not define it separately from celibacy as they define and demand that celibacy is a necessary "gift" for the preisthood and all who desire the priesthood have this desire for celibacy. If you do not have the gift of celibacy you do not truely desire the priesthood, much less, the office of Bishop.

Paul directly contradicts this Roman Catholic definition of desire for the priesthood that inseparably incudes the gift of celibacy. Paul goes further and approves of MARRIED MEN desiring the office of "Bishop."

 

[WestminsterMan]

1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Paul makes it clear that a married may and can "desire" the office of Bishop and he approves of that desire by a married man. This is for the "office of bishop."

The Roman Catholic church will not allow any married man into the office of Bishop. They deny Anglican Bishops acceptance as Catholic Bishops.

Moreover, when they define the Biblical desire for the priesthood, much less the office of Bishop, they do not define it separately from celibacy as they define and demand that celibacy is a necessary "gift" for the preisthood and all who desire the priesthood have this desire for celibacy. If you do not have the gift of celibacy you do not truely desire the priesthood, much less, the office of Bishop.

Paul directly contradicts this Roman Catholic definition of desire for the priesthood that inseparably incudes the gift of celibacy. Paul goes further and approves of MARRIED MEN desiring the office of "Bishop."

The text size, boldness, and color have more import on this board than the rationale behind said responses.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

The text size, boldness, and color have more import on this board than the rationale behind said responses.

WM

ridicule is the weapon of first defense for those who have no other defense.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The Word of God has more import than the logic of man.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"...we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained....". -New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Here is admission that there is nothing in the New Testament that gives "any indication of celibacy being made complusory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained."

However, the New Advent goes on to demand that celibacy must be "the condition" for all who would be set apart for the ministry due to "inference."

we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry.

However, it is obvous that Christ did not understand his own words about celibacy as a necessary inference to be "the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry" since He chose those among his own disciples who were already married (1 Cor. 9:4; Mt. 8:14).


If such an "inference" is the "condition" that we are to draw from Christ's words then why did not Christ draw that inference himself and act upon it as "the condition" for appointing the twelve to the ministry?

Rome is at odds with the very practice of Jesus Christ and pit Christ's own words against Christ's own practice! Surely Christ is bright enough to see such an "inference" in his own words if it were really there? Surely, if Christ's own words necessarily inferred that celibacy was "the condition" for such a calling then He would have practiced it? However, he did not! Therefore either the Roman Catholic Church has perverted the words of Christ and drawn a false inference or Christ has taught one thing and practiced another!

Mt. 8:14 ¶ And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

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

1 Tim. 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

The same is true for Paul's words about celibacy! Rome demands that Paul's words about celibacy infer the same "condition" for those being set apart! If that were his inference then why did Paul explicitly include, permit and identify married men within the qualifications for those who were not yet Bishops but desired to become bishops????

To anyone who does not have a "seared conscience" it is plain and evident that Rome has misinterpreted and thus perverted the words of Christ and Paul because if Rome's inference was correct then both Christ and Paul violated by their practice and their teaching what they inferred was "the condition" befitting those set apart for the ministry.

Hence, Paul's words in 1 Timothy 4:4 condemns all who embrace any doctrine that prohibits marriage in keeping with the confession of the Catholic Advent Encyclopedia that says:

....we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained..... -New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[BobRyan]

You are confused Bob. The word of God talks about the doctrines of demons. And it points to the doctrines of demons right in the word of God.

Well that is a point upon which we can all agree.

But what the Bible does NOT do is call itself -- the doctrine of demons.

That was an extreme to which I had hoped Christians on this thread would not have gone.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

Now see -- there is a well reasoned response.

My point is not that DHK differs with my understanding of this text or that text, this doctrine or that doctrine. My point is that DHK argues that to accept Lev 11 as valid is to follow doctrines of demons.

Let me get the posts for you...

Here is DHK's post where I first note a tendancy on this thread to refer to acceptance of Lev 11 - as acceptance of "doctrines of demons"

=============================== DHK posts

Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am always amazed at the proclivity of some to turn a Gospel teaching into nothing more than a complaint about why they are not allowed rat, cat, dog and bat sandwiches that God says are "not food" in Lev 11.

Oh well - to each his own. God has sovereignly chosen to allow each of us the priviledge, responsibility and consequences of free will decisions - no matter how those decisions reach for the cat-sandwich over the word of God.

This is exactly what is meant by doctrines of demons.
Your preference over another nations staple is not what drives you.
It is your church's command. That is the doctrine of demons. You can have the preference. That is up to you. Most in our society do have the preference you mentioned. But others, on other parts of the world do not share the same preference, and there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits them from enjoying those things that you have mentioned.

God himself declared: Every creature is good and nothing to be refused.
You deny the basic and clear teaching of the Word of God, a doctrine of demons.

========================================= End post

After that post above - spend 3 posts detailing why we should not call Lev 11 "Doctrines of demons".j

Then DHK again repeats his claim that to follow Lev 11 as if it is a valid command of God for us today is a doctrine of demons...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1645751&postcount=54

And then again - DHK does it for all to see.

All food has been cleansed.
There is no such thing as unclean food.
No food is to be refused.
All food has been sanctified by God.
There is no reason not to give thanks for the food that the Lord has provided for us (whether pork or dog).

...All kinds of food are clean, and nothing to be refused. Don't call any of it unclean. ...The only thing the text refers to, is the doctrine of demons referring to those that teach that abstaining from certain foods, such as pork is wrong. That is a doctrine of demons.

Several people have also commented on this thread - opposed to my acceptance of Lev 11 - but have not gone to the extreme of claiming that acceptance of Lev 11 as the inspired word of God - applicable for us today is to accept the doctrines of demons.

in Christ,

Bob