What are the Demonic Doctrines warned of in Timothy ?

This is what has puzzled me....some die at very young ages. Ever since I was young...say 16 yrs old. I had friends die in car wrecks...etc. etc all through the years at all ages. I've often pondered why some don't evidently get as many opportunities to convert as others?

Most likely what the epistle was actually refering to were the doctrines of the early Gnostics, notably Simon Magus, who attempted and failed to buy his way into being an apostle in Acts, and his various disciples. In the second century AD, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote Against Heresies, which portrays a geneology of he Gnostic movement from Simon Magus through Valentinus, and then the fourth century heresiologist Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion picks up on that and documents the later Gnostic sects such as the Manichaean religion. The Nicolaitan sect mentioned in Revelations had become a component of Gnosticism by the way; its main feature according to Irenaeus and Epiphanius was a focus on, essentially, wife swapping, so it is unsurprising that our Lord chose to denounce it specifically.

Now whereas Mormonism is not specifically related to the early heresies mentioned in the New Testament, it is nonetheless a heresy. So one can regard Timothy as typologically referring to it, although it was specifically addressing the heresies of the first century.

CarlNH said:

Calvinism is a great deception for the ages. A bad tree (John Calvin) cannot produce good fruit.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, I think the epistle can only be regarded as addressing heresies like Calvinism typologically.

Blades said:

As readers and believers in Gods Word, should we not seek to identify the Demonic Doctrines warned of in Timothy
1 Timothy 4

1But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,2 through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
I invite all members of CF to have input here in helping to identify them.

Example..
I believe, that the Doctrine of man having Free Will, as in making a Free will descision to accept or reject Christ Jesus as your Personal Saviour, is a Demonic Lie....why ?

This is why...
John 6 .44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day

As you can see the Doctrine of Free Will contradicts the Word of God, especially when we look at the meaning of the Word Draw...to Drag, that does not sound very free or willing does it....and we know for sure that God is not the Liar here, does anybody else want to show examples ?

Click to expand...

The demonic doctrines are specified in the passage, forbidding people to eat certain kinds of foods and forbidding people to marry.

Michael Collum said:

The demonic doctrines are specified in the passage, forbidding people to eat certain kinds of foods and forbidding people to marry.

Click to expand...

Actually these were characteristic positions of Gnosticism; several Gnostic sects prohibited mateimony, while engaging in promiscuity, and several limited themselves to a vegetarian diet, lastly, the Manichaeans, although they were formed quite a bit after St. Paul wrote the pastoral epistles.

Wgw said:

Actually these were characteristic positions of Gnosticism; several Gnostic sects prohibited mateimony, while engaging in promiscuity, and several limited themselves to a vegetarian diet, lastly, the Manichaeans, although they were formed quite a bit after St. Paul wrote the pastoral epistles.

Click to expand...

Still very relevant today, militant vegans can be pretty wicked with their use of language. there's something similar going on with marriage also but that's a discussion for another forum with a different URL.

Well I think we can discuss it here. Some of the Gnostics were fantastically perverse, such as the Borborites, and in that case it is best simply to refer to St. Epiphanius of Salamis who documented in horrifying detail the nature of their actions. But events like the gruesome, blasphemous "plague mass" at the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City in 1990 smack of crypto-Borboritism.

My own choice of denomination was driven by a desire to join the most change-resistant church, where such dogmatic degeneration would be inconceivable due to the culture of the ethnic parishioners as well as the nature of the church itself.

I tend to be a christian seeker, because I look for the church of God and the church of the Bible, and there is no such thing. Though i do my best to edify those I come across from the different traditions. I can always see something in the tradition that is precious and divine, and I add it to my discipline as the Holy Spirit leads.

If there is no such thing than the Bible is not to be believed, because the Lord promises the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

However it must be remebered that the Church is composed of human beings who are sinful, and we have to understand this sin aspect and act in humility; this is why I am turned off by the lack of humility in the growing non-denominational churches.

It is also deeply helpful to develop an appreciation for liturgical beauty.

Wgw said:

If there is no such thing than the Bible is not to be believed, because the Lord promises the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

Click to expand...

I think the bible translating ekklesia into 'church' was unfortunate. I think the word 'congregation' would have been better. As it is, people today associate denominationalism as 'the church' when IMO denominations are more representative of a 'religious spirit' than 'the one many membered body of Christ'.

However it must be remebered that the Church is composed of human beings who are sinful, and we have to understand this sin aspect and act in humility; this is why I am turned off by the lack of humility in the growing non-denominational churches.

Click to expand...

This may sound offensive, but is not meant to be given in 'that spirit', but I had to smile when reading your above quote. My thought was how un-humble of you to point such a judgmental finger at others without including your 'denomination' also. If I mistook your intent then I apologize.

It is also deeply helpful to develop an appreciation for liturgical beauty.

Click to expand...

I born, baptized, confirmed and raised up liturgically....but was never saved in those 18 years, so liturgical appreciation was a mute point to me. The second church I attended after being born again and subsequently Charismatic experientially was again a liturgical one. The symbolism didn't impress me, but it was interesting.

Alas no you did not mistake my point; Orthodoxy does regard itself as posessing the fullness of the truth which is why we require conversion before granting access to the sacraments. This does not mean we regard non-Orthodox as inherently damned,mor relish in the prospect of their destruction; indeed it would be unfair to say we categorically regard the non-Orthodox as heretical. However I have yet to see a self-identified non denominational church that was not built upon some category of beliefs that were anathematized at some point in the history of the Orthodox Church; iconoclasm is pandemic, for example, as is some variation on Nestorianism, Monergism, et cetera.

Wgw said:

Alas no you did not mistake my point; Orthodoxy does regard itself as posessing the fullness of the truth

Click to expand...

Since you've capitalized it, do you therefore define 'Orthodoxy' as the 'Oriental Orthodox' denominational position? Or are other 'Orthodox' denominations also OK, in your opinion?

which is why we require conversion before granting access to the sacraments.

Click to expand...

Define 'conversion' in your opinion. And which 'rites' qualify as 'sacraments' in 'your' denominations POV?

This does not mean we regard non-Orthodox as inherently damned,mor relish in the prospect of their destruction; indeed it would be unfair to say we categorically regard the non-Orthodox as heretical.

Click to expand...

Indeed I hold the same 'regard' and attitude for those of the Orthodox theological view point.

However I have yet to see a self-identified non denominational church that was not built upon some category of beliefs that were anathematized at some point in the history of the Orthodox Church; iconoclasm is pandemic, for example, as is some variation on Nestorianism, Monergism, et cetera.

Click to expand...

I suppose I do fall into your iconclast category. But I personally have felt no leading of the Sspirit to return to that denominational position....since first feeling lead of God to leave it behind. As for 'Nestorianism/Monergism' I suppose I'm of the attitude that one can receive salvation without understanding either theological doctrine. Therefore I pretty much treat those professing a faith, accompanied by a testimony, as 'brethren' worthy of my acceptance as part of 'The Church' of the bible.

Hillsage said:

Since you've capitalized it, do you therefore define 'Orthodoxy' as the 'Oriental Orthodox' denominational position? Or are other 'Orthodox' denominations also OK, in your opinion?


Define 'conversion' in your opinion. And which 'rites' qualify as 'sacraments' in 'your' denominations POV?

Indeed I hold the same 'regard' and attitude for those of the Orthodox theological view point.

I suppose I do fall into your iconclast category. But I personally have felt no leading of the Sspirit to return to that denominational position....since first feeling lead of God to leave it behind. As for 'Nestorianism/Monergism' I suppose I'm of the attitude that one can receive salvation without understanding either theological doctrine. Therefore I pretty much treat those professing a faith, accompanied by a testimony, as 'brethren' worthy of my acceptance as part of 'The Church' of the bible.

Click to expand...

On your first point, I do regard both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as being fully Orthodox; there are those who do not.

The Orthodox enumerate seven sacraments, like the Roman Catholics; this list is uncontroversial, and includes baptism, chrismation (confirmation), communion, reconciliation (confession/absolution), the unction of the sick, ordination and matrimony. There are also several other rites which are not sacred mysteries but which are conducted with solemnity and reserved for the faithful, for example, funerals. (there is a servicehowever that can be offered to provide Christian burial for the non-Orthodox; also to have a full Orthodox funeral one must not voluntarily permit oneself to be cremated, but creation is not viewed as damnatory, in that if ones body is burned by a health authority for example or if one dies in a country like Japan where cremation is required by law, this does not preclude a full Orthodox funeral; there is a fast growing Orthodox Church of Japan).

Conversion into Orthodoxy can be via baptism, Chrismation or confession of faith depending on which denomination one was previously a member of. We would always baptize a Unitarian or Oneness Pentecostal, for example, and intermarriage with such persons is not allowed (however as per St. Paul, if one spouse who is married to a Unitarian wishes to convert this is not a problem).

Wgw said:

On your first point, I do regard both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as being fully Orthodox; there are those who do not.

Click to expand...

Everybody is somebody's heretic it seems.

The Orthodox enumerate seven sacraments, like the Roman Catholics; this list is uncontroversial, and includes baptism,

Click to expand...

But scripture itself enumerates multiple baptisms for as one of the basic or fundamental doctrines of the faith;

HEB 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms,...

So, just to get back 'on topic' I wonder if only one baptism might be some of Timothy's doctrinal warning? After all Hebrews is listing just a few essential doctrines in its list. All of which are needed before maturity can even be achieved. I assume that maturity/perfection would be an important point...doctrinally speaking.

No, because St. Paul is plainly talking about the emerging Gnostics. If you want to see "demonic doctrines," Google Gnosticism; you might start with the Borborites, whose practices were so repulsive that other persons regardless of religion would refuse to eat in proximity to them. The Nicolaitans also come to mind as exceedingly perverse. Gnosticism in general frequently contains a theme of devil worship, with the serpent in the Garden of Eden viewed not as Safan in disguise but rather as beinf some sort of Christophany communicating vital information about the evil nature of matter and the dangers posed by the demiurge (the Gnostics regard the God of the Old Testament as an incompetent creator-deity inferior to the primordial first principle, known as the Monad, which is purely spiritual). These were the demonic doctrines that confronted the early Church almost immediately (the first Gnostic was Simon Magus).

Wgw said:

No, because St. Paul is plainly talking about the emerging Gnostics.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd say "plainly talking" about them at all. He kind of lists sins in the context and one that is particularly obvious IMO is the one concerning "forbiding to marry"

1TI 4:1 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, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

As a born/raised Roman Catholic that one seemed so glaring when I actually became a Christian and was looking back at what I'd been raised as. So does your denomination allow the priests to marry? Along these lines I thought it a bit inconsistent when the pope came and apologized for priests taking liberties with the 'boys' because it was "sexual abuse" and then he turns right around and says he has no right to judge homosexuals. Isn't homosexuality 'sexual abuse' according to the bible?

These were the demonic doctrines that confronted the early Church almost immediately (the first Gnostic was Simon Magus).

Click to expand...

Personally I used to agree with the 'churches' painting of poor old Simon Magnus. But then, one day as I was reading that particular passage again I felt like the Spirit shed some, surprising to me, new light on it.
Firstly, I believe scripture itself confirms that Simon had a bonafide born again or Christian experience...not sure of your 'born again' feelings doctrinally.

Acts 8:13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

It seems that Simon's big error was the same as most today who believe that 'buying' a seminary degree of man confirms spiritual authority from God.

ACT 8:18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

Simon wasn't some old heathen deceiver, he was simply an immature Christian still thinking like a 'religious spirit' would lead one to think in regard to advancement in the religious world of then...and today IMO.

Acts 8:21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter/LOGOS/word, for your heart is not right before God.

The speaking in tongues (scriptural context of this) was a LOGOS/word issue though, and Peter rebuked Simon for thinking he could minister in the power of the Spirit with store bought authority (seminary degree???). Indeed, one of my former pastors tells of the story where his roommate in seminary actually came to true salvation after being in seminary for a year.

Simon was convicted by Peter, but also with the Spirit IMO and did "repent" and asked for Peter to pray for him.

ACT 8:24 And Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me."

I could have seen me doing the same thing when I was a young believer. So anyway, that's my take on Simon today based upon what I walk in, and that is 'the light of revelation' from the Spirit IMO IMO IMHO. Even though it is in contradiction to the teachings of orthodox thinking.

Blades said:

As readers and believers in Gods Word, should we not seek to identify the Demonic Doctrines warned of in Timothy
1 Timothy 4

1But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,2 through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
I invite all members of CF to have input here in helping to identify them.

Example..
I believe, that the Doctrine of man having Free Will, as in making a Free will descision to accept or reject Christ Jesus as your Personal Saviour, is a Demonic Lie....why ?

This is why...
John 6 .44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day

As you can see the Doctrine of Free Will contradicts the Word of God, especially when we look at the meaning of the Word Draw...to Drag, that does not sound very free or willing does it....and we know for sure that God is not the Liar here, does anybody else want to show examples ?

Click to expand...

I agree with Wgw on this, the passage is speaking against following/holding to heresy and that this is destructive to Christian faith (which is not the same as saying someone is damned for that).

The Gnostic sects either tended to forbid marriage, forbid monogamy within marriage, or forbid reproduction, or in the case of the Borborites, enforced abortion. The Borborites practiced a form of cannibalism to that end, so if you want to see demonic doctrines, voila.

Note also that the status of Simon Magus as a Gnostic is a known fact from the writings on him by the early church. St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John (the beloved disciple), makes this identification in Against Heresies.

Finally, your remark regarding seminaries is laughable. Most seminarians at Orthodox seminaries are there under the auspices of financial aid; no one goes to seminary expecting to make money. Seminary education does not guarantee ordination. Ordination in turn does not guarantee preferment. Simony is the crime of paying for an ecclesiastical office, and was a major problem when tithes were enforced, but has now become a laughable concept.

You were doubtless thinking of non denominational preachers, who frequently earn six figure salaries and are not as a rule seminary trained.

Wgw said:

The Gnostic sects either tended to forbid marriage,

Click to expand...

Still doesn't exonerate the Orthodox practice IMO. You'd probably best try to defend that than to judge the errors of Gnosticism IMO. I do miss the input of Soulgazer at times like this, I must admit.

And you also skipped defending the fact you only have one baptism in your sacramental bag which, as I pointed out, is also short of scripture. I do wish you'd have defended that point. Since I'm not orthodox you're going to have to convince me that your side isn't the side Timothy warned of. Not trying to be adversarial mind you. Just being a Berean, hopefully.

Note also that the status of Simon Magus as a Gnostic is a known fact from the writings on him by the early church. St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John (the beloved disciple), makes this identification in Against Heresies.

Click to expand...

The 'early church' you say. Hmmm was the church even still one unified body at the time of Irenaeus? Or were the cracks of doctrinal division already forming concerning even 'mainline Orthodoxy'? I don't think it took very long for error to begin creeping into even the 'early church'. I suspicion it grew proportionately, even as the Spirit was deemed experientially unnecessary. IOW I'm still going to go with the bible's rendition of Simon. If more was needed concerning Simon inclusion in scripture, then I suspect scripture would have made note of just how bad a boy he was when it was written...and not a 100+ years later. As it is, I suspect we'll never know all truth for sure on this side of glory.

Finally, your remark regarding seminaries is laughable.

Click to expand...

Well then, at least we're on the same emotional page concerning them. Sure isn't any biblical support for seminaries. Maybe you'd like to defend 'that' point scripturally also. I ask for a defense because you did mention the doctrine of the Nicolaitans earlier. And IMO their doctrine fits perfectly with the orthodox seminary system. Not sure how you guys define the 'Nicolaitan doctrine' though. So maybe you could share your definition of that first.

You were doubtless thinking of non denominational preachers, who frequently earn six figure salaries and are not as a rule seminary trained.

Click to expand...

And you are 'doubtlessly' wrong. People making such statements concerning what 'I was thinking' often make me realize I need to speak more clearly to where they are at. I don't really know what anyone is making money wise. Don't even know what the pastor is making where we've been fellow-shipping for the last couple years.

Regarding the Orthodox practice, there is nothing to exnoerate as all Orthodox Christians can be married, and married persons can serve as priests. Persons can also in accordance with the example set by St. Paul decline marriage and become monastics; all bishops are monastics; there are no secular unmarried priests like in the Roman church although there are widowers, as priests do not remarry following the death of their spouse (non-monastic priests marry before being ordained to the subdiaconate). We do not however remarry persons indefinitely; I believe the limit is two or three remarriages, and divorces must be for a valid reason; adulterers are disqualified from the priesthood.

Now regarding baptism, it is a principle of the ancient church that Christians are baptized once for the remission of sins as permthe example of our Lord who was baptized once. The belief that multiple baptisms were efficacious is related to the Jewish ritual bath or mikvah and the Jewish sect known as the haemerobaptists, which doubtless influenced the Mandaean Gnostics, who venerate John the Baptist and regard Jesus as a false prophet. To my knowledge the idea that there is only one baptism has been uncontroversial in Christianity until very recently.

St. Irenaeus lived in the second century; the oldest lasting schism that could be said to possibly represent a division in the Church occurred in the fifth century in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus. However even today, strictly speaking, Orthodoxy is the undivided apostolic, Catholic church. The great schism between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox occurred in 1054.

The Nicolaitan doctrine was essentially that of organized wife-swapping, which explains why our Lord condemned it by name in Revelations. Nicolas was a deacon ordained in Acts, who later fell into grave heresy, unlike St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr.