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.
Interesting how people take the bible as Literal word for word...God created the world in 7 days...” he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life”. ..that one? Well...thats not literal....ok
Mary was a perpetual virgin. Even these men say so!
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary so important to Catholics? [Ecumenical Vanity]
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
No, that’s what Yeshua said, but the religionists need the confusion.
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Who then, is the ignorant one here.
As is too often the case, this Catholic author is full of deception...Paul DID NOT forbid the eating of certain foods...
ct 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Paul forbade the eating of all foods, which were offered as a sacrifice to idols and gods...And Paul forbade the eating of blood...That is it...To claim that Paul forbade certain foods for the Christian believer is deception...
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.
That is exactly true...But those Gnostics are still with us in the 2nd Millennium after the Crucifixion...And how do we identify those Gnostics???
Just as Paul warned; those who refuse to let their clergy get married, those who have rules against eating certain foods, and those who serve BLOOD to eat...
Can we identify that religion??? Anyone???
No, of course not only an _______ would think that.
Of course it's literal...But it's spiritual, not physical...
It was a question to you.
There is no Gospel of Mary although, in the second century, She was referred to as Theotokos.
By her own admission, She is “the handmaid of the Lord”. She never asked for any earthly honors.
And on the note of blood, I suppose you've never had blood pudding, blood cake, blood sausage, goose blood soup...
Next.
A born again believer in Jesus Christ does not need one!
The true believer is attacked much more by the devil than the luke warm or nonbeliever, for the simple reason that he pretty much already has the weak and no believers.
The devil pretty much threw everything he had a Jesus.
Matthew 4:1-11
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Mark 1:12-13
12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
Luke 4:1-13
1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. 3The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone."
5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."
8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; 11they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
13When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.
The stronger the faith the stronger the attack.
Why do you guys always go for the wisdom of men instead of the Wisdom of God???
You are mistaken as far as the Bible goes. The references to brothers and sisters are there because there was no word for cousins. Please study a little more.
And get as biblically smart as you are??? No thanks...
Luke 1:36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
The bible ofcourse says you are wrong, again...
Funny that his followers took it literally...”how can we accept this...it is a hard teaching”. So they left...Jesus let them leave, and did not “clarify” his teaching...he merely turned to his apostles and asked...”will you leave me too?”
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
Yes I have read all of the genuflecting of religionists trying to justify what they do. God said not to and also said not to add to what He commanded we do and not do.
Oh, and I do have and study the scriptures and have for all of my 65 years on this earth at least from the time I was old enough to hear my dad read scripture and pray at the table. From my experience it’s the Catholics who are lacking in the knowledge of what scripture actually teaches.
Only by those Gnostics referred to in post #45...
Was Jesus also a literal door? How about a literal lamb?
I, for one, never have and never will. Scripture teaches not to.
No meat on Friday...Who do you think you're fooling???
Depending on what Catholic rite you attend, clergy may be married.
Catholic priests are not allowed to get married...Again, who do you think you're fooling???
Catholics consume the blood of Christ as ordered by Christ Himself.
Jesus was speaking spiritually, not physically...
And on the note of blood, I suppose you've never had blood pudding, blood cake, blood sausage, goose blood soup...
You are exactly right...Goose blood soup??? Why???
Next...
Why do you always resort to personal attacks?
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.