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.
Clearly Yeshua associates water with the flesh birth in that verse.
You twisted the meaning of the verse, was it deliberate?
Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split.
Was the curtain ripped again or from the top?
Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom.
Same question different gospel.
John 3:31 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).
Did Jesus come from above or did he come from the magical land called again?
http://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm
The Douay-Rheims Bible says.....
John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Not according to Strongs, Thayers, and NASEC. He used the word gennaó.
http://biblesuite.com/strongs/greek/1080.htm
Gennaó
Short Definition: I beget, bring forth, give birth to
Definition: I beget (of the male), (of the female) I bring forth, give birth to.
From a variation of genos; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate -- bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.
That would indeed indicate he thought Jesus meant by the word He use that he would need to be “born again”.
I certainly do and I am waiting for your apology to Iscool.
Nice try but we are talking about John3:3 and the word as defined by Strongs, Thayer, and NASEC and others which prove that your accusation was rather spurious and in error.
Well, it's no surprise, but considering the RCC claim to having produced the Scripture and its claims to be the only one to properly interpret it, They sure dropped the ball on that one.
If that's the best they can lay claim to, it certainly puts everything else they have to say under scrutiny.
I have no reason at all in that case, to think that ANYTHING they have to say can be taken with any more credibility.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
Interesting isn’t it? Yet there are those who will say even their own Douay-Rheims is wrong along with Strongs, Thayers, NASEC and others. God did say He would blind some.
Interesting is hardly the word.
Here we have Catholics who would never dare to say that the *Church* is wrong about anything, even when you can document it with historical facts or documents, and yet, when it comes to Scripture, their (what has become obvious) hatred of Scripture has pushed them into saying that the *Church* is wrong.
From people who would defend the Church in any other area, and yet when it comes to God’s word, the *Church* erred.
Almost unbelievable, but after what I’ve seen on enough of these threads, nothing would surprise me any more.
editor-surveyor, telling another Freeper on the Religion Forum that he is rejecting Yehova's word is mind reading. It is "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
So??? Your post says born anew...That’s born at least twice...That means born again...Anew does not mean from above...
posts_pics_mirrors_ here?
So you not only have to change born again, twice, but you have to completely change the response Nicodemus made to Jesus to justify changing your own Catholic Douay-Rheims bible to fit your private interpretation...Just to get rid of 'born again'...
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
HuH??? You gotta be kiddin' us...There are tons of words in the bible that are not translated the same way every time...Greek and Hebrew words do not have single meanings...
That really is what caused and continues to fuel, apparently, the disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians - that Rome asserts ONLY she is the One, True Church of Jesus Christ and she is infallible in ALL matters of faith and morals, creating doctrines at will with no longer any semblance of appeal to Holy Scripture. Those of us who honor the revelation of Almighty God and affirm its authority over any man-made doctrine, will continue to reject ANY religion's insistence of dominance.
One more thing, I have never said Catholics are "spawned by Satan and the Doctrines of Demons or that they are not Christian". My intent is not to be antagonistic nor abusive. I share in our Heavenly Father's desire that "all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.". I recognize that some people get upset when their beliefs are challenged. I try not to deliberately provoke but give an answer to everyone that asks me of the reason for the hope that is within my with gentleness and respect.
I think one of them is so that Evangelicals can be mocked for calling themselves "born again". That seems to be a favorite of some here.
As I asked earlier, where's the difference really between being born "again" or born "from above"? Don't they BOTH indicate the same thing, that a REBIRTH has happened? The "old" man is dead to sin - crucified with Christ, the "new" man is alive unto righteousness, in newness of life?
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.