What are the Demonic Doctrines warned of in Timothy ?

[Hillsage]

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;

I had actually been taught that Paul did have a wife, as it was required for him to be of the "strictest sect of pharisees" (Acts 26:5). But it is supposed that he either divorced her, or she may have died since no mention is made of her in scripture or historically. If that view be true then Paul wasn't truly monastic I suppose. Though it matters not as a thing of true importance IMO.

there are no secular unmarried priests like in the Roman church

So do you then consider the Roman church to not be Orthodox?

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.

I personally think the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, which is a change of mind, and that Jesus didn't have any sins needing remitting. But His baptism was one of a 'mind change' from 'fulfilling the law in obedience' so He could "fulfill righteousness", to having a mind of being 'led of the Spirit' in supernatural authority' ultimately "becoming perfect". And I don't think Jesus underwent 'one baptism' as you seem to believe. But indeed He fulfilled the Heb 6:2 mandate of multiple baptisms. After being water baptized He was baptized with the Spirit descending upon Him. And then several years later He prophesied of yet one more baptism which fulfilled His calling of "perfection".

Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

So multiple baptisms, though never apparently practiced by Orthodoxy is biblically still mandated in scripture and remains a scripturally based doctrine IMO.

Indeed the Great Commission does not mean one baptism in the three names of Father, Son, Holy Ghost being recited over one while the water is sprinkled/dunked. Indeed those are not names to begin with, they are titles representative of spiritual authority and the word "name" can be equally defined as 'character/authority' and not just as a 'proper name' like Jesus. So in the great commission we don't have scripture saying baptize them in the 'names' of Father Son Spirit, as is done contrary to scriptural examples of every instance of water baptism in scripture. But if indeed Matt28 is speaking of three separate baptisms then it is fulfilling the understanding of Hebrews 6:2 in contrast to Orthodoxy IMO. One baptism being in the authority/name of the Father, and one baptism being in the authority of the Son, and one baptism being in the name/authority of the Spirit. That is the number and order that my theology aligns with anyway.

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.

The teaching I've received has as its authority the very etymology of the Greek word nikaolaites which definitively breaks down as a compound word meaning 'to rule over the laity'. A fact which was most evident in Orthodoxy IMO. The people were robbed of the gift of being baptized and led of the Spirit to that of being ruled 'over' by the authoritarian iron fist of 'the church hierarchy'. A situation which became most mature in its spiritual manifestation in the 'dark ages' of church history. A time of historical ungodliness concerning the church, which became a political power.

 

[Wgw]

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Orthodox Church; in fact it is called Roman Catholic primarily as a courtesy, since technically the Orthodx Church is Catholic, and the Eastern Orthodox of the eastern Mediterranean self identify as Rum, eg Roman.

Secondly, the Orthodox insist on triple immersion during Baptism, although this is regarded as a single sacrament. The Oriental Orthodox in particular insist on three immersions.

 

[Hillsage]

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Orthodox Church; in fact it is called Roman Catholic primarily as a courtesy, since technically the Orthodx Church is Catholic, and the Eastern Orthodox of the eastern Mediterranean self identify as Rum, eg Roman.

Rum????
I guess it is just confusing to me as to who is 'unorthodox' here and who is 'orthodox' then. If capitalizing orthodox to Orthodox is a subtle delineation then there are reasons to wonder what you really saying. Just like your quote above saying 'the Orthodox church is Catholic'. Many might just miss the fact that you are still excluding Roman Catholics from your definition of orthodox. And I can hardly believe that your statement doesn't bring in the RC calvary to defend their 'orthodox' position against your 'orthodox' one. Oh well, religion is like that I supposed.

Secondly, the Orthodox insist on triple immersion during Baptism, although this is regarded as a single sacrament. The Oriental Orthodox in particular insist on three immersions.

Triple immersion still doesn't meet the biblical example of multiple baptisms IMO. Phillip knew how to 'water baptize' correctly I'm sure. And yet after getting the people of Samaria immersed/whelmed with repentance to receive the word, and then subsequently baptizing them with water, they still had to send Peter and John to get them Holy Spirit baptized.

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;

So is it your assumption that you guys know how to baptize correctly and Phillip didn't? I find that pretty difficult to swallow personally.

16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Again, I say there are multiple baptisms prior to and subsequent after 'water baptism'. In this verse we see it isn't something you are dunked in it is something that falls upon just like it did for Jesus. The timing in this scriptural account simply prooves that two baptism took place at the river Jordan IMO.

17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
No water, just laying on of hands.

Below is every account of NT baptism and in none of them is "Father Son Holy Spirit" ever mentioned.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,....

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. …:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

IOW they only had repentance baptism and water baptism IMO.

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord….


ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So I'm still of the biblical persuasion that Orthodoxy has formulated a bad doctrine of one baptism which has kept believers from attaining the spiritual maturity that scripture says can only be reached after meeting the requirements of some basic/principle/fundamental doctrines, one of which includes "baptisms". And it's usually at this point that Orthodoxy wants me to concede to the traditions and commandments of 'the Church', but scripture and the leading of the Spirit simply will not allow that. But I am more than willing to leave both of our positions in His capable hands WGN. May the Spirit of truth be allowed to convince us both of in this matter.

 

[Wgw]

Rum????
I guess it is just confusing to me as to who is 'unorthodox' here and who is 'orthodox' then. If capitalizing orthodox to Orthodox is a subtle delineation then there are reasons to wonder what you really saying. Just like your quote above saying 'the Orthodox church is Catholic'. Many might just miss the fact that you are still excluding Roman Catholics from your definition of orthodox. And I can hardly believe that your statement doesn't bring in the RC calvary to defend their 'orthodox' position against your 'orthodox' one. Oh well, religion is like that I supposed.

Triple immersion still doesn't meet the biblical example of multiple baptisms IMO. Phillip knew how to 'water baptize' correctly I'm sure. And yet after getting the people of Samaria immersed/whelmed with repentance to receive the word, and then subsequently baptizing them with water, they still had to send Peter and John to get them Holy Spirit baptized.

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;

So is it your assumption that you guys know how to baptize correctly and Phillip didn't? I find that pretty difficult to swallow personally.

16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Again, I say there are multiple baptisms prior to and subsequent after 'water baptism'. In this verse we see it isn't something you are dunked in it is something that falls upon just like it did for Jesus. The timing in this scriptural account simply prooves that two baptism took place at the river Jordan IMO.

17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
No water, just laying on of hands.

Below is every account of NT baptism and in none of them is "Father Son Holy Spirit" ever mentioned.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,....

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. …:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

IOW they only had repentance baptism and water baptism IMO.

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord….


ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So I'm still of the biblical persuasion that Orthodoxy has formulated a bad doctrine of one baptism which has kept believers from attaining the spiritual maturity that scripture says can only be reached after meeting the requirements of some basic/principle/fundamental doctrines, one of which includes "baptisms". And it's usually at this point that Orthodoxy wants me to concede to the traditions and commandments of 'the Church', but scripture and the leading of the Spirit simply will not allow that. But I am more than willing to leave both of our positions in His capable hands WGN. May the Spirit of truth be allowed to convince us both of in this matter.

Now in fact there is a major misconception in your post in that you are conflating baptism with chrismation. In Orthodoxy the seal of the Holy Spirit is conferred through chrismation immediately following baptism; we also chrismate most converts. This is followed by Communion.

On another note, the word Rum is a slur of Romaioi, meaning "Roman."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Now in fact there is a major misconception in your post in that you are conflating baptism with chrismation. In Orthodoxy the seal of the Holy Spirit is conferred through chrismation immediately following baptism; we also chrismate most converts. This is followed by Communion.

On another note, the word Rum is a slur of Romaioi, meaning "Roman."

I wondered about Rum myself. LOL.
Nice to see more folks in the wild west section of CF who actually have not only read but understand the history of Christianity as well as the means God has given of dispensing His Grace upon us, and also the sound reasoning behind the faith of all Christians combined with the ability to carefully and clearly articulate it in this format. Reading between the lines I detect a broader depth of knowledge too.

Breath of fresh air here in Controversial Theology as opposed to some who present themselves as knowing more than they do of that history as they attempt to defend/promote their particular collection of heresies. All would do well to pay attention to your posts.

 

[Wgw]

I wondered about Rum myself. LOL.
Nice to see more folks in the wild west section of CF who actually have not only read but understand the history of Christianity as well as the means God has given of dispensing His Grace upon us, and also the sound reasoning behind the faith of all Christians combined with the ability to carefully and clearly articulate it in this format. Reading between the lines I detect a broader depth of knowledge too.

Breath of fresh air here in Controversial Theology as opposed to some who present themselves as knowing more than they do of that history as they attempt to defend/promote their particular collection of heresies. All would do well to pay attention to your posts.

I am not in particular an enthusiast of the Carribean liquer, still less an enthusiast of grog, which I was introduced to at the age of 18 by a retired German shipping executive while on the farewell voyage of the QE2, which would be a pleasant memory were it not for the unpleasant recollection of an experience I suspect I shared with Crassus after his capture by the Pontics, in that pouring molten gold down my throat would have been only moderately more painful.

At any rate it can be somewhat frustrating in this particular forum in that it feels a bit like I am repeating the disputations of St. Irenaeus with diverse heretics. Actually there is a superb and very amusing painting I believe from the Baroque of a harried St. Augustine arguing with Donatists, theological papers floating about. It is easy enough to make a disdainful remark versus some gross and obvious error but it is rather harder to sustain a prolongued argument against some of the more disagreeable and verbose heretics, which is more of a problem in General Theology than on this forum.

My thought is that if people would simply immerse themselves in the literature of the early Church,mreading this material together with the Bible, they can acquire an understanding as to the theological basis of Christianity; it strikes me as entirely unreasonable when someone for example heavily criticizes the Christology of St. Athanasius while relying on the Athanasian canon.

On the point of this thread however it has been very enjoyable to actually refer people to the truly demonic doctrines confronted by the early Church. As unpleasant as modern heresies are, they tend to be fairly banal compared to the cannibalistic sexual decadence of the Gnostics, although I fear in light of the recent Planned Parenthood scandals that the mainline Protestant churches are on a collison course with the depraved doctrines of the Borborites.

 

[KWCrazy]

Demonic doctrines would include:
Islam,
Buddhism,
Scientology,
Wiccan,
Jehova's Witness,
Astrology,
Humanism, and every other doctrine which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God and the only forgiveness for the sins of man. Jesus was quite specific when He said I am THE way, THE truth and THE light. NO MAN comes to the Father but by me.

 

[Wgw]

Demonic doctrines would include:
Islam,
Buddhism,
Scientology,
Wiccan,
Jehova's Witness,
Astrology,
Humanism, and every other doctrine which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God and the only forgiveness for the sins of man. Jesus was quite specific when He said I am THE way, THE truth and THE light. NO MAN comes to the Father but by me.

This is entirely true, although I think ina specific and literal way St. Paul was warning of the dangers posed by the early Gnostics. If you combine astrology, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, and liberal Episcopalianism, with extreme sexual indulgence and a disdain for procreation, you might begin to get a picture of the true horror of these sects.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I am not in particular an enthusiast of the Carribean liquer, still less an enthusiast of grog, which I was introduced to at the age of 18 by a retired German shipping executive while on the farewell voyage of the QE2, which would be a pleasant memory were it not for the unpleasant recollection of an experience I suspect I shared with Crassus after his capture by the Pontics, in that pouring molten gold down my throat would have been only moderately more painful.

At any rate it can be somewhat frustrating in this particular forum in that it feels a bit like I am repeating the disputations of St. Irenaeus with diverse heretics. Actually there is a superb and very amusing painting I believe from the Baroque of a harried St. Augustine arguing with Donatists, theological papers floating about. It is easy enough to make a disdainful remark versus some gross and obvious error but it is rather harder to sustain a prolongued argument against some of the more disagreeable and verbose heretics, which is more of a problem in General Theology than on this forum.

My thought is that if people would simply immerse themselves in the literature of the early Church,mreading this material together with the Bible, they can acquire an understanding as to the theological basis of Christianity; it strikes me as entirely unreasonable when someone for example heavily criticizes the Christology of St. Athanasius while relying on the Athanasian canon.

On the point of this thread however it has been very enjoyable to actually refer people to the truly demonic doctrines confronted by the early Church. As unpleasant as modern heresies are, they tend to be fairly banal compared to the cannibalistic sexual decadence of the Gnostics, although I fear in light of the recent Planned Parenthood scandals that the mainline Protestant churches are on a collison course with the depraved doctrines of the Borborites.

Indeed. I find this helps me work on my patience and not writing the first thing that comes to mind. So it is therapeutic, but it does get repetitive. I agree that most here do not realize the wealth of information many neglect as "not Scriptural" or the advantage we have in being able to use it without corrupting what the ECFs wrote.

In my experience Baptist mostly claim to not drink, publically anyway, and my father was very strict in that regard at least after I became old enough to ask him why he did (he was a Navy Senior Chief). So my first Rum experience (as well as drinking) was in the Navy in Bermuda and it was Swizzle. I thought it was very good and that I was fine until we attempted to leave (via moped) and I could no longer feel my legs when I got off the bar stool.

 

[Wgw]

Well mind you that might well be due to cut off circulation. I myself tend to suffer this regardless of alcohol, although not on barstools but rather on another type of furniture which is even more universal and highly regarded even by the most fundamentlist baptists, and especially by manufactuers of porcelain.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1 Timothy 4
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

 

[Wgw]

1 Timothy 4
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Gnosticism tended to reject marriage and the consumption of meat; this reached an extreme in Manichaenism, which did not prevent St. Augustine in his Manichaean youth from having several lovers.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Gnosticism tended to reject marriage and the consumption of meat; this reached an extreme in Manichaenism, which did not prevent St. Augustine in his Manichaean youth from having several lovers.

That gives contemporary context, looking towards today, it is also important to apply it to like examples .. such as the societally cultivated mental disorder that tells otherwise healthy women that they're fat .

 

[mikedsjr]

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

 

[mikedsjr]

I don't see he ever mentioned 2015 in this.

 

[Wgw]

That gives contemporary context, looking towards today, it is also important to apply it to like examples .. such as the societally cultivated mental disorder that tells otherwise healthy women that they're fat .

This is certainly a great wrong of our age, althoigh I fault excesses in the healthfood industry for commercially exploiting obesity.

 

[jenny1972]

I think Christians need to study the history of Christianity and learn exactly where Christian doctrines evolved from how they evolved find out for yourself dont just blindly believe what is taught but instead actually investigate Christian history .We should not think we know everything , or that human teachers around us know everything they base their beliefs on the neat package that the politically driven corrupt catholic church has been peddling for the last 2000 years , instead seek out the history and truth behind it and let God guide you not human teachers who are following doctrine that they have been taught by other human teachers .

We should all be interested in returning to the original Christianity which is simply what Jesus taught and nothing extra that was added later like Church hierarchy that was invented later and is nothing more than political self serving and other widely accepted Christian doctrine .... its not as easy to question beliefs that are mainstream but just because beliefs are widely held doesnt mean they are accurate , so i think Christians do need to question long held doctrines and find out for themselves and verify where it comes from and exactly how they were created . And if we discover after independent study and scrutiny that the doctrines are grounded on Jesus' direct teachings then we can be confident in them but until then how can we be ? were we not told to be careful not to trust human teachers who add or subtract from the Word of God so then lets start being careful i think Christians are not at all careful and have become way too trusting and relaxed.

 

[Wgw]

I think Christians need to study the history of Christianity and learn exactly where Christian doctrines evolved from how they evolved find out for yourself dont just blindly believe what is taught but instead actually investigate Christian history .We should not think we know everything , or that human teachers around us know everything they base their beliefs on the neat package that the politically driven corrupt catholic church has been peddling for the last 2000 years , instead seek out the history and truth behind it and let God guide you not human teachers who are following doctrine that they have been taught by other human teachers .

We should all be interested in returning to the original Christianity which is simply what Jesus taught and nothing extra that was added later like Church hierarchy that was invented later and is nothing more than political self serving and other widely accepted Christian doctrine .... its not as easy to question beliefs that are mainstream but just because beliefs are widely held doesnt mean they are accurate , so i think Christians do need to question long held doctrines and find out for themselves and verify where it comes from and exactly how they were created . And if we discover after independent study and scrutiny that the doctrines are grounded on Jesus' direct teachings then we can be confident in them but until then how can we be ? were we not told to be careful not to trust human teachers who add or subtract from the Word of God so then lets start being careful i think Christians are not at all careful and have become way too trusting and relaxed.

The main problem with this is that, setting aside the fact that the hierarchy is described in the NT (at least a two degree hierarchy, although I would argue it is the full three degree scheme), and related objections, this relies on the Great Apostasy theory which in turn makes Matthew 16:18 out to be a lie.

Also I would argue the risks of altering scriptural doctrine and thus distorting our understanding of the incarnate Word are intensified if one takes a sort of Bishop James Pike approach and ransacks the doctrinal heritage of the church in a misguided attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Surely the pious, persecuted Christians of the first, second, third and fourth centuries can be looked upon as understanding much more closely the specific context of the Christisn message and should be regarded as authoritative in a manner impossible for later figures, like Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) or various contemporary voices, who claim to be able to better understand the apostles than their immediate successors.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is certainly a great wrong of our age, althoigh I fault excesses in the healthfood industry for commercially exploiting obesity.

Being as the love of money is said to be the root of all evil in the bible and Jesus spoke of Mammon or money as an object of affection that is counter to worshipping God .. tis possible there is a demonic element with any such industry with said results.

 

[TAR26]

Very interesting subject. I believe Paul made explicitly clear what these doctrines of demons are, of which, he begins to address from the beginning of his letter to Timothy, chapter 1, vs 4. These doctrines of demons and seducing spirits use the law in an unlawful manner. Of which, the first demon or seducing spirit to teach such perversions was in the garden, who seduced Eve, and she partook and gave to her husband, which immediately killed him too.

The Book has 2 great subjects, the thing that causes death, and the thing that gives life. The 2 trees.

If you teach or believe that any law, or action in accordance thereof, is able to save or give life, or reconcile you to God, specifically eternal or everlasting life, then (it seems to me ) you have succumbed to the doctrines of devils.

Now...to succumb to the doctrine of Christ, to believe that God is "our" heavenly Father, that our Father's kingdom come (presently, as it is within us, spiritual, not physical )