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

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

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



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

Your interpretation makes Paul a fool by authorizing marriage - DW


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Agreed! Never said anything contrary to that!

Agreed! Never said anything contrary to that!

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

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

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


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


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


1 Tim. 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry,

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

 

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

(1) Forbidding to marry
(2) Dietary laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

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

 

Hey Steady Freddy,

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

 

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


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

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