Thought and sin

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
Clearly you didn't bother to read the passages and the notes from the Douay-Rheims Bible.
=======================================

I will get to that this session.

======================================
What I am saying, or rather asking, is: what justifies your applying I Tim 4 to the Ca ...[text shortened]... hurch.
I will not visit your website to see what it has to offer.

jaywill, thanks for your courteous reply. I will try to reciprocate; you'll have to forgive me for any brusqueness in what follows (for which forgiveness I ask in advance 🙂 )

jaywill said:

Wasn't it you who refered to asking advice on Christian marriage issues from the Jesuit priests ?

pyx replies:

No, that was Kunsoo. I'm not sure what his(?) religious affiliation is, if any. I just jumped in to defend the Catholic Church, of which I am (by the grace of God) a member.

I wouldn't particularly defend the Jesuits as they are today. The Church (in the English-speaking world especially) is near a low point of faithfulness and orthodoxy, and the Jesuit Order is not in good shape right now. From what I know, there are faithful and good Jesuits, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule, unfortunately. So flippant as it may have been, kunsoo's friend's comment was probably unfortunately all too accurate 🙂

jaywill said:
MIXTURE is the nature of the Roman Catholic Church. That is the MIXTURE of biblical things with bantantly unbiblical things.

pyx replies:

I would disagree with that statement (surprise, surprise), as well as your calling the Catholic Church "the oldest Christian sect." (She is God's Church, not a sect). I challenge you to find one single Catholic doctrine (or so much as a practice approved by the universal Church) that cannot be reconciled with the Bible. The first bishops of the Catholic Church (the Apostles, including St. Paul) *wrote* the Bible, after all, and a council of the Catholic Church determined the content of the Bible, and the Church claims to be the authentic interpreter of the Bible, so I think they're going to be pretty careful that they don't transgress the boundaries of Scripture when they do their office (Matt. 28:20).

That being said, the Catholic Church is definitely a mixture of the wheat and the chaff (and while I'd like to think I'm part of the wheat, that too is for God to determine, and not me 🙂 )

And I don't have a website that's worth your time, anyway. 🙂 drbo.org belongs to somebody else; it's the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible (as revised by Dr. Challoner).. it's an excellent (and very faithful, in the sense of being literal) translation. I have heard stories of people taking Bible classes at seminary and quoting something from the DRV and getting their professor's attention for its fidelity to the original languages.

Priestly (and religious) celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, but even so, it has roots that go back to St. Paul (cf I Cor 7). There are married priests in the Catholic Church (some of the Eastern-rite churches, and some Anglican convert priests in the Roman rite, may be married). But even in the primitive church, I believe that once a priest was ordained, he was not allowed to marry, and if a married priest's wife died, he could not remarry. And even in the Orthodox Church, only unmarried priests may become bishops.

If requiring priests to be celibate is a "doctrine of demons," I wonder why God allowed it to go on for 15 centuries before moving somebody to correct it 🙂

Originally posted by pyxelated
jaywill said:

[b]"Deceiving spirits" and "teachings of demons" enfluencing men to establish a doctrine "forbidding marriage" is an error predicted by the word of God.

What room is there for argument ? Are you saying that First Timothy 4:1-3 is wrong ? Are you saying that for Christain brothers to establish a legality that tion of the original). I don't think it's nearly as cut-and-dried as it seems to you.[/b]

The website is nicely laid out for studying that translation of the Bible.

After reading the portion of First Corinthians 7 a number of times, I was not sure what you wanted me to pay attention to.


[6] But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. [10] But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

[6] "By indulgence"... That is, by a condescension to your weakness.

[9] "If they do not contain"... This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

Well, my Recovery version has 7:9 - "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn [with desire]."

I suppose that you mean the Catholic commentary's comment - "If they do not contain"... This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency somehow refers to those priests and nuns who are under a vow to remain single ?

Is that what you are getting at ?

Well, I think this portion of First Corinthains Paul desires that all the believers be as absolute for the Lord's economy as he is. Nowhere that I can think of does Paul mention a "VOW" to not marry.

Nowhere in the New Testament that I can think of was a VOW placed upon him, either by the church in Antioch or any other local church. Did the other apostles persuade Paul that he had to make a VOW to remain unmarried ?

So when your article refers to "such, as by vow, have given their first faith to God" I can only conclude that the commentator is refering to some "vow" of the religious tradition of Catholicism and not to some "vow" refered to by Paul in his letter.


Then as I read your commentary I ask - WHO is the "they" of this passage ?

"But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn [with desire]." (v.9) ?

The commentator says this "they" does not refer to those under the VOW. The passage seems specifcally to refer to UNMARRIED and Widows. That would those not married and those who were married, whose spouses have DIED.

"But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them of they remain even as I am. But if *THEY* - (unmarried and widows) do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn [with desire]."

Why do you read into these passages that Paul is speaking to unmarried and widows who are not under a vow ?

Where is the vow mentioned ?

The commentary to the Recovery Version includes this about verse 8:

"This was the apostle's wish and opinion in his earlier ministry (vv. 7, 25,40). Later, after witnessing the actual outcome, he charged young widows to marry (1 Tim. 5:11-15 and note 14(1) ).

Now the word continency is the same Greek word as is used in 9:26 regarding athletes' abstaining from sensual indulgence during preparation for the games.

The RcV translates it "self control" .

If there is something in these verses which seems to you to permit the legal requirement or vow that a worker for the Lord never marry as a obligatory church law, please elaborate how you see that in this passage.

I think you are reading Roman Catholic Clerical tradition INTO the passage. And I originally did not refer to First Corinthians 7 to begin with. I refered to the unambiguous 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

"But the Spirit says expressly that in the later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons ... WHO FORBID MARRIAGE ... " (my emphasis)


What has been the outcome lately, of thousands of a clerical class who are under a legal VOW to be unmarried ? Has it been a glory to God or a terrible scandel to the Christian faith ?

=============================
pyx replies:

No, that was Kunsoo. I'm not sure what his(?) religious affiliation is, if any. I just jumped in to defend the Catholic Church, of which I am (by the grace of God) a member.
==================================

My apologies. I will consider your other comments this evening sometime.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
Clearly you didn't bother to read the passages and the notes from the Douay-Rheims Bible.
=======================================

I will get to that this session.

======================================
What I am saying, or rather asking, is: what justifies your applying I Tim 4 to the Ca hurch.
I will not visit your website to see what it has to offer.

[/b] I wrote :

============================
I will not visit your website to see what it has to offer.
===============================

This was a typo. I meant to write "I will [NOW] visit your website ..."

Revelation 2:6

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

Anyone here want to take a stab at this? What is "the deeds of the Nicolaitanes"?

Originally posted by josephw
Revelation 2:6

[b]But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

Anyone here want to take a stab at this? What is "the deeds of the Nicolaitanes"?[/b]

The footnote in the Recovery Version reads for Nicolaitans in Rev. 2:6:

The Greek word is composed of two words, one meaning conquer or be victorious over and another meaning common people, secular people, or laity: Thus, it means conquering the common people, being victorious over the laity; Nicolaitans, then must refer to a group of people who esteem themselves higher than common believers. This was undoubtedly the hierarchy adopted and established by Catholicism and Protestantism. The Lord hates the works, the behavior, of these Nicolaitans, and we must hate what the Lord hates.
God in His economy intended that all His people be priests servng Him directly. In Exo. 19:6, God ordained the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests. This means that God wanted them all to be priests. However, because they worshipped the golden calf (Exo. 32:1-6), they lost the priesthood, and only the tribe of Levi, because of its faithfulness to God, was chosen to replace the whole nation of Israel as priests to God (Exo. 32:25-29; Deut. 33:8-10). Hence, there was a mediatorial class between God and the children of Israel. This became a strong system in Judaism. In the New Testament, God has returned to His original intention according to His economy, in that He has made all believers in Christ priests ( [Rev] 1:6; 5:10; 1 Pet 2:5, 9). But at the end of the initial church, even in the first century, the Nicolaitans intervened as the mediatorial class to spoil God's economy. According to church history, this became a system that was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and has been retained by the Protestant churches. Today in the Roman Catholic Church there is the priestly system, in the state churches there is the clerical system, and in the independent churches there is the pastoral system. All these are a mediatorial class, spoiling the universal priesthood of all believers. Thus, there are two distinct classes - the clergy and the laity. But in the proper church life there should be neither clergy nor laity; all believers should be priests of God. Because the mediatorial class destroys the universal priesthood in God's economy, the Lord hates it.

Among the seven serving ones in Acts 6:5, one was named Nikolaos (Gk.). There is nothing in church history to indicate that this Nikolaos was the first of the Nicolaitans." - Witness Lee


footnote 2:6(1) of Revelation - The RcV - www.recoveryversion.org

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
His response - "You're going to need a special priest. Maybe a Jesuit."
=================================

I suppose that the rest of your post was meant to be humorous or a lampoon of some sort. So I did not take it too seriously.

But the Roman Catholic Church erred greatly in its establishment of the prie ...[text shortened]... ATION of my heart be acceptable to You, O Lord, my rock my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:14) [/b][/b]

Uh, dude. I was joking. You're not a Puritan Christian are you? I thought they were the only ones who rejected humor on a theological basis.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
His response - "You're going to need a special priest. Maybe a Jesuit."
=================================

I suppose that the rest of your post was meant to be humorous or a lampoon of some sort. So I did not take it too seriously.

But the Roman Catholic Church erred greatly in its establishment of the prie ...[text shortened]... ATION of my heart be acceptable to You, O Lord, my rock my Redeemer." (Psalm 19:14) [/b][/b]

But wait a minute. Did you say that the Catholic priesthood is run by demons? Well, that's a profound statement.

I don't have a dog in that fight, so carry on.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
But wait a minute. Did you say that the Catholic priesthood is run by demons? Well, that's a profound statement.

I don't have a dog in that fight, so carry on.

==================================
But wait a minute. Did you say that the Catholic priesthood is run by demons? Well, that's a profound statement.

I don't have a dog in that fight, so carry on.
=====================================

That the Catholic priesthood is run by demons is not excactly how I put it.

I QUOTED Paul's word in First Timothy 4:1-3

"But the Spirit says expressly that in the later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons.

By means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, of men who are branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.

Who forbid marriage [and command] abstaining from foods, which God has created to be parteken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and have full knowledge of the truth."

I used the Roman Catholic example of the forbidding of priests and nuns to marry as an evident instance of this kind of apostasy and teaching of demons. There would be other examples in some of the sects of Protestantism as well.

To endulge in lust is an error on one side. To practice the forbidding of marriage would be the opposite error.

Originally posted by jaywill
The footnote in the Recovery Version reads for Nicolaitans in [b] Rev. 2:6:

The Greek word is composed of two words, one meaning conquer or be victorious over and another meaning common people, secular people, or laity: Thus, it means conquering the common people, being victorious over the laity; Nicolaitans, th ...[text shortened]... - Witness Lee


footnote 2:6(1) of Revelation - The RcV - www.recoveryversion.org[/b]

Yes. In other words a special class or priesthood that rules over the laity or common folk.

It happens in all denominations. It speaks to the condition of a man's heart. Because he believes he is superior both spiritually and intellectually, he exorcises his authority in a manner that subjugates others. The separation of the clergy from the laity.

True Bible teaching/believing churches have what the Bible calls elders. They are there to serve. Of course no one is perfect, and no church is perfect. But there is a Biblical model of what a local assembly should look like organisationally as well as how it should function. Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church, of which we are members. We are here to serve. Not to be served. The apostle Paul is a perfect example. The lead Elder in my church receives no monetary compensation for his service.( But that's my church. It doesn't mean that it has to be that way everywhere.)

The "deeds of the Nicolaitans" has to do with the kind of men who institutionalise the church and turn it into a means of personal gain, even to the extent of hiding the truth so as to prevent exposure. They're everywhere!

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
But wait a minute. Did you say that the Catholic priesthood is run by demons? Well, that's a profound statement.

I don't have a dog in that fight, so carry on.
=====================================

That the Catholic priesthood is run by demons is not excactly how I put it.

I QUOTED Paul's word i ...[text shortened]... s an error on one side. To practice the forbidding of marriage would be the opposite error.[/b]

Well, for the sake of argument, didn't St. Paul say something about avoiding sex and marriage if you can?

My understanding is that the Priesthood celibacy isn't about theology, but about practical focus and discipline - avoiding the entanglements which would cut into your 24/7 job. Contrary to popular belief, the Priests who have abused children and the like are a small minority, and probably shouldn't have been allowed into the Priesthood to begin with.

Baseball players and athletes practice celibacy, primarily as a matter of focus. Is that apostasy?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, for the sake of argument, didn't St. Paul say something about avoiding sex and marriage if you can?

My understanding is that the Priesthood celibacy isn't about theology, but about practical focus and discipline - avoiding the entanglements which would cut into your 24/7 job. Contrary to popular belief, the Priests who have abused children and the l ...[text shortened]... ll players and athletes practice celibacy, primarily as a matter of focus. Is that apostasy?

Paul voiced his burden for marriage issues in First Corinthians. And we are thankful he was careful to tell us when he was speaking his enlightened opinion and when he had a command of the Lord.

I think he changed in latter years from wanting widows to remain single to desiring that young widows marry. This might reflect a change in attitude as he grew in experience.

He was flexible and strong at the same time.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes. In other words a special class or priesthood that rules over the laity or common folk.

It happens in all denominations. It speaks to the condition of a man's heart. Because he believes he is superior both spiritually and intellectually, he exorcises his authority in a manner that subjugates others. The separation of the clergy from the laity.

T ain, even to the extent of hiding the truth so as to prevent exposure. They're everywhere!

It is easy for the natural man to take over and say "Yea! No organization!".

However there is the plurality of elders in the normal local church. And bearing oversight and responsibility can be done without usurping the function of the members of the Body.

The gifted ones teach others to do what they do. The body builds up itself in love. The joints of supply teach the saints to do the work of the ministry.

All speaking and all prophesying one by one that all be encouraged is the model in First Corinthians 14.

Where I meet we practice all saints prophesying meetings. And smaller gatherings encouage all brothers and sisters to arrive with something, to have something to share.

Saints will be very helped by what they themselves will say rather than always what one person says week after week. All may prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/index.html

http://www.christianwebsites.org/local-churches.htm

Originally posted by josephw
Yes. In other words a special class or priesthood that rules over the laity or common folk.

It happens in all denominations. It speaks to the condition of a man's heart. Because he believes he is superior both spiritually and intellectually, he exorcises his authority in a manner that subjugates others. The separation of the clergy from the laity.

T ...[text shortened]... ain, even to the extent of hiding the truth so as to prevent exposure. They're everywhere!

jaywill said:

True Bible teaching/believing churches have what the Bible calls elders. They are there to serve. Of course no one is perfect, and no church is perfect. But there is a Biblical model of what a local assembly should look like organisationally as well as how it should function. Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church, of which we are members. We are here to serve. Not to be served. The apostle Paul is a perfect example. The lead Elder in my church receives no monetary compensation for his service.( But that's my church. It doesn't mean that it has to be that way everywhere.)

The Greek word for "elder" is "presbyteros." Over the years, in English, this word got shortened to "prester" (anybody remember Prester John?) and then... yep, you guessed it... "priest."

The offices mentioned in the Bible are, in Greek and English:

diakonos "servant" = deacon
presbyteros "elder" = priest
episkopos "overseer" = bishop (drop the vowels off the ends, and change the consonants slightly, and it pops right out at you... piskop = bishop)

I don't know a great deal about how priests are compensated in the Church, but I don't think they make much, and nobody these days goes into the priesthood to get rich. 🙂 I believe they are allowed to keep and use any money they may have before entering the priesthood, but I'm sure many who are well-off are generous givers.

And to answer your earlier question about what I was pointing out in I Cor 7, it was the fact that St. Paul indicated that celibacy (his own practice) was best, but he allowed marriage for those (most of us, actually) who weren't up to living without sex.

Originally posted by pyxelated
jaywill said:

[b]True Bible teaching/believing churches have what the Bible calls elders. They are there to serve. Of course no one is perfect, and no church is perfect. But there is a Biblical model of what a local assembly should look like organisationally as well as how it should function. Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church, of which we riage for those (most of us, actually) who weren't up to living without sex.

jaywill said ? [/b]


I guess we are even now. I attributed a quote to you that you didn't write.
Now you attribute one to me which I didn't write.