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

Which churches, leaders, denominations or sects are you referring to? I fully agree with your definition; I am simply curious as to who you would apply this to based on your own experiences.

 

I believe the context of 1Timothy 4 gives two good examples of doctrines of demons:

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: (1 Timothy 4:3-4)

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

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

The Lord clarifies that in very clear language:
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. (1 Timothy 4:4-5)

Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused.
How can any statement be more clear than that one.

 

Do you believe the "doctrine of demons" ends at works for justification or that it extends to works-based sanctification? What of those churches who preach a grace alone salvation, but teach that God's blessings & our spiritual growth are founded in church attendance & holding to the right standard of conduct? Imho, the doctrine of demons can be taught by believers who have been deceived. We have the deceived leading the deceived. It is a destructive cycle that is perpetuated by a church/pastor-centered mindset.

 

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; (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

Note three things:
1. They have departed from the faith.
2. They have given heed to seducing spirits.
3. Their conscience is seared just like a hot iron.

This is speaking of false teachers not the saved.
Have you ever encountered a person whose conscience is so shut to the truth that nothing cannot penetrate it--not the Word, not the Holy Spirit, nothing. It is seared. It is completely sealed, like a hot iron seals a bag airtight.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but speaking of 1Tim.4:3, "celibacy", this news headline just popped up today:

You can read about it here:
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=i90616.xml

 

Amen! Preach it! I was thinking the same thing myself.

At last we have some common ground of agreement!

in Christ,

Bob

 

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.

For the rest of us - there is the food that actually IS approved by the Word of God. The idea that it is a demonic thing for God to declare it to be wrong to eat a kitty-cat sandwich AS IF rat sandwiches and the like are "Gospel approved" no matter what the Word of God says to the contrary - goes to such a great extreme - it defies logic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

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.

 

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.

Your wild "solution" appears to be that "my church" wrote the Word of God in Lev 11. Well I suppose that in a sense - as the Children of God - we can go there... the Word of God given to men. But your argument is still a bit bizarre even by that measure.

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

My preference is the "Word of God" and not calling it "doctrines of demons".

As you point out - most Christians do agree on that point.

Is that because you cut out Lev 11 and assign it to "doctrines of demons".

The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture you are attempting is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

Hint: "4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

The Word of God is not as favorable to rat sandwiches as your wild ideas would have the reader believe.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is NOT ONE text in the list you give that says that the Word of God approves of the rat, dog, bat, cat sandwich so clearly condemned in Lev 11. Lev 11 forgids NOT ONLY the eating of rats cats dogs and bats but also of eating diseased flesh - thus even clean animals that die of their own sickness or disease are pronounced in Lev 11 as "unclean" etc.

Those who are truly anxious to pronounce the Word of God "doctrines of demons" will struggle with that point.

Furthermore the Acts 15 command against eating meat strangled, meat with blood IS IN FACT a Levitical dietary law.

And finally in Acts 10 Peter states THREE times that he will not eat the cat and dog and bat sandwiches being offerred. Then THREE times this story is repeated for Christians and NOT ONCE do we see Christian grabbing up rats for some rat-roast in honor of the "gospel" about rats.

Rather in ALL cases -- there is NO rat eating and there MUCH focus on Gentiles being given the Gospel. How HIGH the standard for those who see the lesson for what it teaches. Yet how quickly the entire lesson melts down to "oh good we can finaly have our rat sandwiches if we should so choose", should so prefer - for those who would rather turn a blind eye to scripture no matter how glaringly obvious the problem in doing so.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The clean and unclean animal division in Lev 11 is also affirmed in Genesis 6 and 7 BEFORE the flodd!.

Lev 10:9-10 talks about not drinking alcohol. I am good with not living in violation of that part of the Word of God as well - are you saying this is a part you would like to cut out of the Bible along with Lev 11??.

The ceremonial law based on animal sacrifices - ends when the sacrifices end as we are told in Heb 10 regarding "sacrifices and offerings" Heb 10:8 that Christ put an end to -(as predicted in Dan 9 at the cross).

So "at most" you can argue that when we all stop eating food - then the clean unclean animal distinction also ends.

Is that where you are taking us?

BTW - are you ready to join DHK on the "Christians are to eat rats and cats if they soooo choose" doctrine instead of sticking with the Word of God on that little point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is what 1Tim.4 is speaking about--the church. It is a pastoral epistle. It is not speaking of Israel, nor Israel's dietary law. Those laws were done away with at the cross. They have nothing to do with the diet of Gentile Christians.

You ignore context. That which was approved for Israel 1500 years before Christ, or 3,500 years ago does not apply for us today. It was done away with at the cross. Paul wrote very plainly: Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused. Your refusal of certain foods is akin to rebellion against God, particularly if done for religious reasons. That is why it is a doctrine of demons. It is rebellion against God.

That is not a Biblical preference as the Word of God teaches directly against that position.

Don't twist my words. I said most people in our nation, i.e., the U.S. and Canada do not prefer dogs and cats. The rest of the world is different. Note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

Perhaps you should pray that God doesn't call you as a missionary to one of those nations, for the Word of God also says "eat whatever is set before you asking no questions for conscience sake."

Tell me Bob, What tribe do you belong to?

Tell me how I have abused Scripture. You are the one trying to apply Scripture written specifically to Israel, never meant for Gentile Christians, to Gentile Christians. Applying it Gentile Christians is wresting the Scriptures as do others that are unlearned, to their own destruction, as Peter records in 2Pet.3.

Past tense. God has already sanctified it. When we pray we thank the Lord for that which the Lord has sanctified--set apart for our eating, for he has declared it already clean.

People starving in prisons have been known to eat them and have survived. I would rather do that and survive, then hang on to Levitical law meant for Israel and die.

BTW:

Might try some, sometime.

 

Bob you take Scripture out of context. You cannot apply Levitical law meant for Jews to Gentile Christians.
However, consider:

When I was young I went bear-hunting with some young men. We were successful, and feasted on bear meat. (against Levitical law)

When in a survival camp, we trapped rabbits (hares), and ate them (to survive). They were good--tasted like chicken. (against Levitical law)

Of course most of us here eat pork on a regular basis.

In an Islamic land I was in I was given some camel meat to try. It was a bit tough. (also against Levitical law)

And who knows the amount of shell fish almost all of us have consumed--shrimp, crab, lobster, and all others that don't have fins and scales, which is plenty.

Some of us have been "privileged" enough to have the delicacy of "escargot." (Lev.11:30)

Don't you see what you are missing in life? I would presume that you have had some of these without even knowing it Bob?

 

Three times in Acts 10 Peter is given the "eat cats and rats" command and THREE times Peter says "By NO MEANS LORD for I have NEVER eaten anything unholy or unclean". (Hint -- Jews were NOT chomping at the bit hoping one day to be able to eat rats!).

Peter is making his statement not in rebellion but in an appeal to the Word of God as if this is a test of faithfulness. Affirming his loyalty to the word of God.

Notice the CONTRAST between this case and the Matt 16 case where Peter is MISTAKEN in his affirmation of loyalty. I Matt 16 Peter says "NO Lord may it never be!" Not THREE times - but just ONCE!. And the immediate response is "Get thee behind Me satan". When Peter's actions are in the form of rebellion in the very presence of God - condemnation is immediate!

Peter then in Acts 10:17 is "perpexed" not knowing the MEANING of the vision. Hint this is not Peter - eating rats (as much as the gospel-diverting group that wants this whole thing to be about eating rats may be dissappointed by the details of this text!)

Then in vs 28 Peter "Explains" the vision saying that God showed me "not to call any RAT unclean" --oopS!! That is NOT what Peter said the lesson is - rather Peter said that the lesson was "do not call any MAN unclean". So instead of a rat-roast at Cornelius' house we see Gospel EVANGELISM and baptism! How shocking and said for the rat-agenda group.

Peter RETELLS this story AGAIN in Acts 21 and in 21:8 emphasizes again his point of LOYALTY to the Word of God "No Lord for nothing unholy or unclean has entered my mouth". (Hint: this is the SAME Peter told by Christ in John 6 that he would need to EAT Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood - and yet instead of BITING CHRIST as the rat-agenda would have it - Peter LISTENS to Christ saying "you have the WORDS of Life").

So true to form - Peter tells the true meaning of the vision AGAIN in Acts 21 "God has granted to the gentiles also the repentance that leads to life". vs 18.

Hmm - again the focus is on evangelism NOT - a rat roast.

And then in Acts 15:7 again Peter states that this was God's command that by Peter's own mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel.

Hmm - not one single time is the lesson -- a rat roast.

Rat roasts and cannibalism are indeed where one might go who is not accustomed to the symbols used in John 6 and Acts 10. But Peter will not join you in that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Well if you eat rats, cats, dogs, rabbits and bears - then hmm I guess we need not worry about what the Word of God says to the contrary - after all - DHK says they are "tasty" and isn't that what really matters? :laugh:

On the other hand -- there is that pesky sola-scriptura idea from Acts 17:11.

Let the reader choose their foundation carefully.

The word of man - or the word of God.

God has given each of us free will. We have the priviledge and the responsibility for consequences for our actions -- teachers bearing a stricter judgment in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob