Posted on 07/22/2013 2:45:09 PM PDT by NYer
Two days ago, we had a couple of converts to the Catholic Faith come by the office here at Catholic Answers to get a tour of our facility and to meet the apologists who had been instrumental in their conversions. One of the two gave me a letter she received from her Pentecostal pastor. He had written to her upon his discovery that she was on her way into full communion with the Catholic Church. She asked for advice concerning either how to respond or whether she should respond at all to the letter.
As I read through the multiple points her former pastor made, one brought back particular memories for me, because it was one of my favorites to use in evangelizing Catholics back in my Protestant days. The Catholic Church, he warned, teaches “doctrines of demons” according to the plain words of I Timothy 4:1-3:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
What is consecrated celibacy if not “forbid[ding] marriage?” And what is mandatory abstinence from meat during the Fridays of Lent if not “enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving?” So says this Pentecostal pastor. How do we respond?
Innocent on Both Charges
Despite appearances, there are at least two central reasons these claims fail when held up to deeper scrutiny:
1. St. Paul was obviously not condemning consecrated celibacy in I Timothy 4, because in the very next chapter of this same letter, he instructed Timothy pastorally concerning the proper implementation of consecrated celibacy with regard to “enrolled” widows:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband . . . well attested for her good deeds. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-11).
There is nothing ordinarily wrong with a widow remarrying. St. Paul himself made clear in Romans 7:2-3:
[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she remarries another man she is not an adulterous.
Yet, the “widow” of I Timothy 5 is condemned if she remarries? In the words of Ricky Ricardo, St. Paul has some “splainin’ to do.”
The answer lies in the fact that the widow in question had been “enrolled,” which was a first-century equivalent to being “consecrated.” Thus, according to St. Paul, these “enrolled” widows were not only celibate but consecrated as such.
2. St. Paul was obviously not condemning the Church making abstinence from certain foods mandatory, because the Council of Jerusalem, of which St. Paul was a key participant in A.D. 49, did just that in declaring concerning Gentile converts:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity (Acts 15:28).
This sounds just like "enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving." So there is obviously something more to I Timothy 4 than what one gets at first glance.
What Was St. Paul Actually Calling “Doctrines of Demons?”
In A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, the 1953 classic for Scripture study, Fr. R.J. Foster gives us crucial insight into what St. Paul was writing about in I Timothy 4:
[B]ehind these prohibitions there may lie the dualistic principles which were already apparent in Asia Minor when this epistle was written and which were part of the Gnostic heresy.
Evidently, St. Paul was writing against what might be termed the founding fathers of the Gnostic movement that split away from the Church in the first century and would last over 1,000 years, forming many different sects and taking many different forms.
Generally speaking, Gnostics taught that spirit was good and matter was pure evil. We know some of them even taught there were two gods, or two “eternal principles,” that are the sources of all that is. There was a good principle, or god, who created all spirit, while an evil principle created the material world.
Moreover, we humans had a pre-human existence, according to the Gnostics, and were in perfect bliss as pure spirits dwelling in light and in the fullness of the “gnosis” or “knowledge.” Perfect bliss, that is, until our parents did something evil: They got married. Through the conjugal act perfectly pure spirits are snatched out of that perfect bliss and trapped in evil bodies, causing the darkening of the intellect and the loss of the fullness of the "gnosis." Thus, salvation would only come through the gaining, or regaining, of the “gnosis” that the Gnostics alone possessed.
Eating meat was also forbidden because its consumption would bring more evil matter into the body, having the effect of both keeping a person bound to his evil body and further darkening the intellect.
Thus, these early Gnostics forbade “marriage and enjoin[ed] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving.”
If there are any remaining doubts as to whom St. Paul was referring as teaching "doctrines of demons," he tips his hand in his final exhortation in I Timothy 6:20-21:
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith. Grace be with you.
The Greek word translated above as “knowledge” is gnoseos. Sound familiar? The bottom line is this: St. Paul was not condemning the Catholic Church in I Timothy 4; he was warning against early Gnostics who were leading Christians astray via their “gnosis,” which was no true gnosis at all.
Wrong. HE knew what was in them and they had NO KNOWLEDGE of who HE was for they were worldly and they had NO DESIRE to learn either. They were UNTEACHABLE! Jesus didn't force anyone to stay as HIS teachings were sufficient and those who were drawn to Him/TRUTH stayed. Those who were drawn to evil, left HIM.
Anyone who defends the indefensible is not seeking after JESUS! No one can't serve two masters.
God's WORD is the FINAL AUTHORITY and He will turn away from those on judgement day, also, who don't understand that because they 'chose' not to KNOW HIM. God made HIMSELF KNOWABLE through HIS Holy Spirit inspired WORD ALONE. They 'chose' to listen and obey 'another' - the 'deceiver' so they have no one to blame but themselves.
JESUS is The Way, The Truth, The LIFE eternal. Jesus is THE WORD and those who do NOT have HIS WORD as their FINAL authority have No TRUTH and NO ETERNAL LIFE. The price of listening to 'another' is for eternity - the deceiver who takes his LIE and wraps it in a bit of truth is 'food' for the children of the dark. They ate it on their own accord as they REMAINED unteachable to the things of God but bowed to 'man and it's deceptive teachings.
Who would the parents of these “cousins” be?
They sim,ply [sic] do not exist. Mary was a very productive and proper Jewish wife, and bore many children as the Gospels accurately speak.
277 posted on 7/23/2013 8:11:27 PM by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
Your argument is, as usual, with Yehova’s word.
>> “God’s WORD is the FINAL AUTHORITY” <<
.
Not to catholics. They believe that a sinner was the mother of God, and so they just go to his mommy if they don’t like what his word says.
It's more of do you believe GOD will go against WHO HE IS and His Own WORD to suite demonic teachings and all it's falsehoods and trickery?
Get to know what is of God and what is of satan. Man made teachings are from satan and it shouldn't be a shock to anyone as they OPPOSE God's Word. The only ones who believe 'man made teachings' are those who have no problem OPPOSING GOD and HIS WORD.
Your theory which holds that if pagans also do some action, it cannot possibly be a good and valuable thing for real Christians to do, is, quite frankly, pretty strange too.
Christians FOLLOW JESUS THE WORD, ALONE. Anyone else claiming the description as 'christian' are 'counterfeit ones' - who serve the 'counterfeit, the deceiver.'
But do you subtract from what the Scripture teaches?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"You will find the answer to that in scripture."
Well, the following text is certainly in the Bible, referring to those who, like yourself, just could not bring themselves to believe in the plain teaching of Jesus about the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, no matter WHAT the Bible says about it (in John 6, as well as the "Last Supper" accounts in the Gospels, and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11).
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. -- John 6:66
The following warning from Paul tells all of us the dangers of not discerning (but, rather, profaning) the Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.(Signing off for the night now. Goodnight to all.)Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself." -- 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
As I have come to expect from failed Protestants such as Staples, there is a twisting of Scripture - as if Scripture matters that much to what Catholicism defines as dogma. This being "enrolled" part is a case in point. There WAS no enrollment of celibate "consecrated" widows in the church. All one needs to do is read that verse in context. Here's what it REALLY says:
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (I Tim. 5:3-16)
This "enrollment" had to do with those women who had no outside means of support and the churches made sure they were taken care of. Young women who had been widowed were NOT put on this list because Paul encouraged them to remarry.
Another point this author misses is the threat the Christians during that time were living under by those who persecuted them. It wasn't a good time for a man to take on a wife and have a family to care for while under such dire times. This did NOT mean that such conditions were going to always be the case. Being married does not prevent a man nor a woman from serving the Lord and it is far more important to be in HIS will no matter what marital condition we are in.
The "doctrines of demons" have more to do with an accursed gospel because that is what will REALLY affect a person's eternal destiny. A gospel of faith AND works is the false Gospel Paul warned us about and the enemy of men's souls is far more interested in that than if widowed women get remarried or not.
I always wondered why Jesus was never called the “only begotten†son of Mary instead of the “first-born†son. If He was her only child, and since the gospels were written decades after Mary had died, the verses should have said he was her “only†begotten son if he was the only child she bore, but they don’t. First born means the first child she bore and that others would be born after this first child, since only the first child is called the first-born and Scripture references Jesus’ other brothers and sisters. It’s certainly not enough of an issue to merit an entire thread(s) to hash it out, but it is curious why no Catholic seems to want to talk about that point.
They can’t understand His Word because they are worldly and only seek out what is worldly and defend it to their own detriment and destruction.
God’s Kingdom is not worldly so the children of the dark have use for it - ‘their choice’. They feel at home in satan’s kingdom which is worldly and where they honor and worship man and ‘it’s teachings’ along with praying to/for the dead them and even dig up their dead to ‘honor’ them.
Their father the devil LIES to them and says ‘it’s not worship’ but it’s the right thing to do ‘in his worldly kingdom’. And being children of the dark, no light bulb goes off because they submitted themselves unto the dark and defend it gladly.
Thanks for the ping. I don’t know if there’s any use arguing with these idiots. Christ will watch out for His Church. All you can do is point out their mistaken readings of the Bible. If they close their ears to God’s word, you can keep hoping that at some point they will see the errors of their ways. But without God’s intervention, it’s kind of like arguing with liberals. Facts don’t seem to have any effect on them.
So glad you have found the truth about they and their.....obvious not the Catholic Church or else you would have said so.
Christ founded the Catholic Church on the apostles, the first Bishops. Catholics know that the truth comes straight from God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit — not from some break-off branch denomination.
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
I don't see any "oops" there. The Reformers argued for the "virgin birth" of Jesus because it was a critical sign of the Messiah and was how Jesus could be God and be born as a man without a sin nature. This doctrine was totally defended by Scripture. That Mary remained a virgin, however, is not anywhere mentioned in Scripture. Luther did not make a big deal out of the "perpetual" virginity of Mary and had this to say about people who used this a reason for glorifying her:
Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.
The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory.[48]
Even in Luther’s acceptance of perpetual virginity, it was not to be worshipped as the attribute of a goddess. Luther points out that Mary fades from the biblical account after the birth, because the emphasis of the Scriptures are on her child: “For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring.”[49] That Luther did not spend entire treatises defending perpetual virginity serves to show that what was important to him was not Mary’s lack of children, but rather the child she did give birth to. Throughout his career, he would minimize the emphasis on this Marian doctrine. http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary1.htm#V
Unworthy manner like those who believe 'man which is evil' and their teachings of transubstantiation which is not biblical but a WORLDLY teaching taught straight from the Vatican where the 'angel of light' sits.
They are profaning His Body which JESUS says He is sitting at the right Hand of The Father, now, and profaning His Blood which HE said He shed ALL of it. They are saying 'no you didn't shed it all Jesus because I'm drinking it now and I am eating your body so you are not sitting at the right Hand of The Father. So they have no Savior and are demonstrating it by believing transubstantiation which is a demonic teaching straight from the Vatican where satan makes his throne for 'his kingdom'.
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself." -
Those who are without the Spirit are UNABLE to discern the things of God and have brought judgement on themselves by believing 'man' before God and not believing JESUS who IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY. I repeat, They are saying they have no Savior because JESUS the SAVIOR said HE shed ALL His Blood and JESUS the SAVIOR is sitting at the right Hand of The Father.
Jesus shed ALL His blood, yet, the heathen says he is drinking His blood now. He's sitting at the right Hand of The Father, yet, the heathen says I'm eating His body now. So by their actions on their beliefs they are children of the dark and saying Jesus is lying.
They 'do' whatever 'evil' tells them and they have NO DISCERNMENT of what REMEMBRANCE means - because their actions/beliefs are saying Jesus didn't die for them so they can't have 'remembrance' of it.
So they can't receive HIM in 'remembrance' because Jesus didn't die for them and that is THE LIE catholics have submitted themselves to by believing the lie of transubstantiation. AGAIN, all of THEIR OWN doing.
Catholics only know what 'man which is evil' teaches them with their 'man made teachings' which voids God's Word. No one can serve two masters - so catholics made their 'choice' by believing 'man's words'. Christians made their choice in BELIEVING GOD'S WORDS ALONE. There is ONLY ONE TRUTH - JESUS THE WORD. What catholics have is not truth but a lie from 'man which is evil' - the deceiver.
Aren't you making it personal by asking if I'm making it personal???
If I thought for a second that your question was anything other than a personal and snotty insult, I’d tell you. Should you ever really care about discussing anything, let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.