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

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.

 

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.

 

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"

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!

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

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!

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!

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??

 

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?

 

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!

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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