Exorcism: Fact or Fiction?

[RamistThomist]

Olson, Ken. Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1992.

Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson’s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.

He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.

As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson’s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.

Criticisms:

I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim’s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d’etat by failing to point out that the CIA’s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.

The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, “He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified” (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That’s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that “suffering is not so that God can be glorified.” If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).

Conclusion:

The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn’t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.

 

[mossy]

Olson, Ken. Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1992.

Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson’s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.

He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.

As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson’s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.

Criticisms:

I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim’s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d’etat by failing to point out that the CIA’s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.

The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, “He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified” (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That’s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that “suffering is not so that God can be glorified.” If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).

Conclusion:

The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn’t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.

Does he discuss whether or not a true Christian can be demon possessed?
Terry

 

[mossy]

Olson, Ken. Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1992.

Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson�s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.

He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.

As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson�s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.

Criticisms:

I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim�s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d�etat by failing to point out that the CIA�s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.

The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, �He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified� (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That�s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that �suffering is not so that God can be glorified.� If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).

Conclusion:

The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn�t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.

Does he discuss whether or not a true Christian can be demon possessed?
Terry

 

[RamistThomist]

Olson, Ken. Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1992.

Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson�s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.

He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.

As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson�s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.

Criticisms:

I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim�s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d�etat by failing to point out that the CIA�s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.

The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, �He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified� (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That�s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that �suffering is not so that God can be glorified.� If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).

Conclusion:

The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn�t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.

Does he discuss whether or not a true Christian can be demon possessed?
Terry

He says the word "possessed" is the wrong word, though he leans towards the affirmative. When we say "possessed" what do we mean?

a) the demon assumes full control, whether permanently or temporarily, of the person?
b) the demon's personality dominates the person's personality (and hence, we see multiple/split personalities)?
c) the demon "oppresses" the person?

Admittedly, Olson himself doesn't really give a full discussion. He says that he ministered to people who named the name of Christ, yet demons were clearly present. This leads me to posit that there might not always be a hard-line between a-b) and c).

 

[earl40]

He says the word "possessed" is the wrong word, though he leans towards the affirmative. When we say "possessed" what do we mean?

a) the demon assumes full control, whether permanently or temporarily, of the person?
b) the demon's personality dominates the person's personality (and hence, we see multiple/split personalities)?
c) the demon "oppresses" the person?

Admittedly, Olson himself doesn't really give a full discussion. He says that he ministered to people who named the name of Christ, yet demons were clearly present. This leads me to posit that there might not always be a hard-line between a-b) and c).

All three in my opinion are superstition if one thinks they (demons) are acting directly on any person. To assume such gives one a Flip Wilson excuse.

 

[RamistThomist]

He says the word "possessed" is the wrong word, though he leans towards the affirmative. When we say "possessed" what do we mean?

a) the demon assumes full control, whether permanently or temporarily, of the person?
b) the demon's personality dominates the person's personality (and hence, we see multiple/split personalities)?
c) the demon "oppresses" the person?

Admittedly, Olson himself doesn't really give a full discussion. He says that he ministered to people who named the name of Christ, yet demons were clearly present. This leads me to posit that there might not always be a hard-line between a-b) and c).

All three in my opinion are superstition if one thinks they (demons) are acting directly on any person. To assume such gives one a Flip Wilson excuse.

Are the accounts in the New Testament superstition? Further, what would we say to someone like J.P. Moreland, an evangelist and analytic philosopher who got his degree at Southern Cal (and not, say, Oral Roberts University), who has exorcised demons out of some of his students?

https://youtu.be/nguSz-ByEZI

What about the overwhelming evidence of "personalities" who are able to tell you things about your life that the person in question would have no way of knowing?

Mind, for the record I don't think a demon (which I define as an instantiation of a dark personality, albeit immaterial) can assume 100% control.

 

[RamistThomist]

I went and looked up daimonidzai in my various lexicons. I plan to get to BDAG tonight. Louw & Nida was quite interesting. Under daimonidzai in volume one they glossed it as "demon possession." However, in volume II (p. 147) in the semantic domain they noted that "demon possession" better means the person possesses a demon rather than is possessed by a demon. I have nothing particular riding on either reading, though I lean towards the latter.

 

[earl40]

Mind, for the record I don't think a demon (which I define as an instantiation of a dark personality, albeit immaterial) can assume 100% control.

The devil sort of made me do it? The below appears to be crystal clear who is 100% responsible.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter. I realize there are a lot of stories told and published of exorcisms. But how do we go about forming our doctrines on this or any other matter- from the Bible, and not from people's experiences. And that's the thing, I don't see the encouragement in the Bible for us to go beyond what the apostles have said. They do warn us and speak of the fact of Satan's designs against the church, but their words are to encourage us in our battle against sin, that we won't give Satan a foothold in that way. I think about descriptive vs. prescriptive and am reminded of this quote from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "We must reject anything which is not based soundly upon the teaching of the Epistles. We must be very careful that we do not take an incident out of the Gospels, and weave a theory around it... we must realize that our standard... is to be found in the Epistles." ~ D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times, page 11.

 

[RamistThomist]

Mind, for the record I don't think a demon (which I define as an instantiation of a dark personality, albeit immaterial) can assume 100% control.

The devil sort of made me do it? The below appears to be crystal clear who is 100% responsible.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Right, and that's why I said--and even John Wimber, a man most people consider to be "crazy" said--that demons do not have absolute control. Demonized individuals (which is what daimonidzai literally means) still have personal responsibility. In any case, James's statement does not negate the reality of the demonic realm, nor such realm's manifesting itself to humans.

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Which proves....? I don't recall my original post being about how to exorcise demons. Of course, that was in the book but I didn't do a play-by-play summary of the book.

I realize there are a lot of stories told and published of exorcisms. But how do we go about forming our doctrines on this or any other matter- from the Bible, and not from people's experiences.

I don't recall saying anything to the contrary.

And that's the thing, I don't see the encouragement in the Bible for us to go beyond what the apostles have said. They do warn us and speak of the fact of Satan's designs against the church, but their words are to encourage us in our battle against sin, that we won't give Satan a foothold in that way.

Going beyond the apostles said, regarding what, exactly? I don't recall anyone saying we have to go beyond what the apostles said.

I think about descriptive vs. prescriptive and am reminded of this quote from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "We must reject anything which is not based soundly upon the teaching of the Epistles. We must be very careful that we do not take an incident out of the Gospels, and weave a theory around it... we must realize that our standard... is to be found in the Epistles." ~ D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times, page 11.

I am not entirely sure of what you think I am saying. I don't really see anything in Lloyd-Jones that contradicts my assertion that the demonic realm is real, attacks the kingdom of Christ, and that both Scripture and much of the entirety of Christian experience acknowledge that exorcisms are real.

Anyway, it's interesting that you mention Lloyd-Jones. The following is from his biography.

Then one morning he awoke soon after six a.m. in 'a complete agony of soul' and even feeling a sense of evil in the room. He once spoke of the well-known episode in the life of Luther in terms which could have applied to his own experience at Bristol, "he was deeply conscious of the devil's presence in his room and he could not get away from him."

Iain Murray, The Fight of Faith: 1939-1981 (Banner of Truth), 208.

 

[timmopussycat]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter. I realize there are a lot of stories told and published of exorcisms. But how do we go about forming our doctrines on this or any other matter- from the Bible, and not from people's experiences. And that's the thing, I don't see the encouragement in the Bible for us to go beyond what the apostles have said. They do warn us and speak of the fact of Satan's designs against the church, but their words are to encourage us in our battle against sin, that we won't give Satan a foothold in that way. I think about descriptive vs. prescriptive and am reminded of this quote from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "We must reject anything which is not based soundly upon the teaching of the Epistles. We must be very careful that we do not take an incident out of the Gospels, and weave a theory around it... we must realize that our standard... is to be found in the Epistles." ~ D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times, page 11.

At that point, MLJ was discussing edification with particular refererence to "sanctification and holiness" p. 10. He did not have an absolute objection to basing doctrine on the Gospels and Acts where that was appropriate. MLJ teaches on the matter of Satanic attacks in his essay "Body, Mind and Spirit" in 'Healing and the Scriptures' pp 165-7 and he makes the following points:
He rejects the idea that demonic possession has not taken place since the Apostolic age,
He allows that today's saints may experience "Satanic attacks"
He recognizes the reality of contemporary demon possession, and even that in some cases Christians can be possessed. (on which point btw, I disagree – I think Satanic attacks and deceptions can create the appearance of possession but not the reality), and
MLJ believed in exorcism having seen it himself.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I've read Ian Murray's biography of MLJ and knew that he's said to have experienced what he believed was palpable demonic activity. The quote from him was the only one I could think of to try to bolster what I was trying to say, but probably didn't express very well. Whatever the context of his quote, it still applies to any doctrine. Jacob, I wasn't challenging any point you were trying to make or insinuating anything about that you said, after all your post is a critique of a book and in it you didn't express any of your own ideas on demonic activity and what the duties of the church are in that regard. But your post is titled "Exorcism: Fact or Fiction" after all, and is in regard to a book devoted at least partly to that topic. I was just interested in interacting with ideas many have of what the church in our day should expect to need to know and to do regarding demonic activity.

 

[RamistThomist]

Right. I was just wondering what people thought which position I was advocating. I would never say that experience is higher than doctrine (though doctrine is never lived out in the abstract). And the bible, which presumably is where we get doctrine, deals with exorcisms (albeit not in a how-to style).

The title of the post is the title of the book, which is how I post book reviews.

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter. I realize there are a lot of stories told and published of exorcisms. But how do we go about forming our doctrines on this or any other matter- from the Bible, and not from people's experiences. And that's the thing, I don't see the encouragement in the Bible for us to go beyond what the apostles have said. They do warn us and speak of the fact of Satan's designs against the church, but their words are to encourage us in our battle against sin, that we won't give Satan a foothold in that way. I think about descriptive vs. prescriptive and am reminded of this quote from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "We must reject anything which is not based soundly upon the teaching of the Epistles. We must be very careful that we do not take an incident out of the Gospels, and weave a theory around it... we must realize that our standard... is to be found in the Epistles." ~ D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times, page 11.

At that point, MLJ was discussing edification with particular refererence to "sanctification and holiness" p. 10. He did not have an absolute objection to basing doctrine on the Gospels and Acts where that was appropriate. MLJ teaches on the matter of Satanic attacks in his essay "Body, Mind and Spirit" in 'Healing and the Scriptures' pp 165-7 and he makes the following points:
He rejects the idea that demonic possession has not taken place since the Apostolic age,
He allows that today's saints may experience "Satanic attacks"
He recognizes the reality of contemporary demon possession, and even that in some cases Christians can be possessed. (on which point btw, I disagree – I think Satanic attacks and deceptions can create the appearance of possession but not the reality), and
MLJ believed in exorcism having seen it himself.

There is also a section in volume 1 of his bio where an ex-witch writes to him and said she felt a "power" in his church, but it was a "clean power."

 

[earl40]

Right, and that's why I said--and even John Wimber, a man most people consider to be "crazy" said--that demons do not have absolute control. Demonized individuals (which is what daimonidzai literally means) still have personal responsibility. In any case, James's statement does not negate the reality of the demonic realm, nor such realm's manifesting itself to humans.

I hear you, and only want to express my concern that we ought not to think demons have some kind of supernatural control over men which is superstition.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Earl,

When you say, "we ought not to think demons have some kind of supernatural control over men which is superstition", I wonder what you think of this thread:


http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/puritan-reformed-others-quotes-spiritual-warfare-85560/

 

[earl40]

Hello Earl,

When you say, "we ought not to think demons have some kind of supernatural control over men which is superstition", I wonder what you think of this thread:


http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/puritan-reformed-others-quotes-spiritual-warfare-85560/

Boy that is a lot to comment on and for now I shall only say it appears this is saying satan has some kind of supernatural control over men and I see the vestiges of medieval thinking of a demon behind every bush and standing on one shoulder whispering into the ears of people.

Below is Hodge with comment.

Neither give place to the devil.—"So give place to" is to get out of the way of, to allow free scope to; and therefore to give an occasion or advantage to any one. We are neither to cherish anger, nor are we to allow Satan to take advantage of our being angry. Anger when cherished gives the Tempter great power over us, as it furnishes a motive to yield to his evil suggestions.

So how exactly does satan take advantage of people? Is it by whispering in ones ear? Is it by using a supernatural power to force one to be angry?

As burning arrows not only pierced but set on fire what they pierced, they were doubly dangerous. They serve here therefore as the symbol of the fierce onsets of Satan. He showers arrows of fire on the soul of the believer; who, if unprotected by the shield of faith, would soon perish.

Now here I do like that Hodge used the word "symbol".

It is a common experience of the people of God that at times horrible thoughts, unholy, blasphemous, skeptical, malignant, crowd upon the mind, which cannot be accounted for on any ordinary law of mental action, and which cannot be dislodged.

I see this as the result of what satan did in the fall of man, and have little to no problem putting all the blame or account on fallen man.

They stick like burning arrows; and fill the soul with agony. They can be quenched only by faith; by calling on Christ for help. These, however, are not the only kind of fiery darts; nor are they the most dangerous. There are others which enkindle passion, inflame ambition, excite cupidity, pride, discontent, or vanity; producing a flame which our deceitful heart is not so prompt to extinguish, and which is often allowed to burn until it produces great injury and even destruction. Against these most dangerous weapons of the evil one, the only protection is faith. It is only by looking to Christ and earnestly invoking his interposition in our behalf that we can resist these insidious assaults, which inflame evil without the warning of pain. The reference of the passage, however, is not to be confined to any particular forms of temptation. The allusion is general to all those attacks of Satan, by which the peace and safety of the believer are specially endangered.

Once again I can attribute all the above to the work of satan in the fall of man. Which is why those in hell will be punished for the own sin and punished accordingly.

 

[RamistThomist]

Right, and that's why I said--and even John Wimber, a man most people consider to be "crazy" said--that demons do not have absolute control. Demonized individuals (which is what daimonidzai literally means) still have personal responsibility. In any case, James's statement does not negate the reality of the demonic realm, nor such realm's manifesting itself to humans.

I hear you, and only want to express my concern that we ought not to think demons have some kind of supernatural control over men which is superstition.

As I noted earlier, I hold that the person is the acting agent in charge of his actions.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Earl,

I think it is clear that – with regard to Satan – unregenerate men "are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Tim 2:26), and that they walk "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The Puritan etc quotes were simply to show that the devils are active against the saints, and that we are to resist them in the power of Christ's indwelling Spirit, and by His word.

I discern that some modern Reformed folks have an aversion to even the idea that supernatural power from the dark side exists in the world today, but that it is all merely deception and delusion – or superstition.

This does not exculpate men of responsibility for their actions, and for rebellion against God.

 

[earl40]

I discern that some modern Reformed folks have an aversion to even the idea that supernatural power from the dark side exists in the world today, but that it is all merely deception and delusion – or superstition.

Indeed I am one of the "some" and I acknowledge it is a minority position. Why so is a matter of how God has and is working on me in how we are to read His Word. I know you have looked into this far more than I have, and I wish not to try to convince myself of another opinion I once had, in that demons somehow work via means that are supernatural. Take Eve for instance. I believe she literally spoke with satan in the garden, and she and Jesus are the only humans who saw and heard satan speak. Eve did so by the virtue of being yet unfallen and Jesus because of who He is, and I see no other evidence of people in scripture being tempted by supernatural means. Now in saying this I can say it is because of satan and the fall man that many follow him instead of Jesus.

Take my experience of where I have worked for 30 plus years at a hospital. I have encountered many many people who attribute evil acts to superstition because of the misunderstanding of how satan works on people in a supernatural and paranormal way. With those who act very very evil as if they are being controlled by satan in a paranormal way I have learned that I can overcome "satan" with love, knowing that I am no different than them without Our Lord. In every situation I have encountered I use the love of Jesus and "demons" of the evil inclination of people disappear to as if it were magic which of course would just as superstitious if I thought it was magic.

 

[Free Christian]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

 

[RamistThomist]

In every situation I have encountered I use the love of Jesus and "demons" of the evil inclination of people disappear to as if it were magic which of course would just as superstitious if I thought it was magic.

John Wimber recommends this very approach.

 

[jwright82]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

Isn't it interesting that demon possession seems to affect only certain traditions.

 

[earl40]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

Isn't it interesting that demon possession seems to affect only certain traditions.

What I find interesting is that all traditions have demons acting, super naturally or para normally, over people. Also what is interesting is that many in the western mindset have dismissed such (correctly) for all the wrong reasons.

 

[jwright82]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

Isn't it interesting that demon possession seems to affect only certain traditions.

What I find interesting is that all traditions have demons acting, super naturally or para normally, over people. Also what is interesting is that many in the western mindset have dismissed such (correctly) for all the wrong reasons.

I'm just saying it seems more prominent in certain traditions over others.

 

[earl40]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

Isn't it interesting that demon possession seems to affect only certain traditions.

What I find interesting is that all traditions have demons acting, super naturally or para normally, over people. Also what is interesting is that many in the western mindset have dismissed such (correctly) for all the wrong reasons.

I'm just saying it seems more prominent in certain traditions over others.

I "seems so" but I think the % of superstitions belief In my most humble opinion is about the same in all traditions. Take for instance a good conservative reformed person and ask them if satan can suggest or tempt a person in a direct immediate and personal way. Press them how he (satan) does this and you will find no difference in the answer than what you may have seen in any fictional movie about exorcism done today.

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't it interesting though, and I think instructive, that we have narratives in the NT that show our Lord's power in casting out demons, and we have narratives that show his apostles doing his same works, but we don't have instructions from the apostles to the churches on the matter.

Well pointed out!
I wonder how many exorcisms today are based upon the RC version of such?

Isn't it interesting that demon possession seems to affect only certain traditions.

What I find interesting is that all traditions have demons acting, super naturally or para normally, over people. Also what is interesting is that many in the western mindset have dismissed such (correctly) for all the wrong reasons.

I'm just saying it seems more prominent in certain traditions over others.

I've long wrestled with this claim. Here is how I look at it:
a) if demon-possession means that demons have acting control over an agent, then very few traditions experience demon-possession.
b) if daimonidzai or its cognates better translate as demonized, then it's probably more widespread.
c) I'm beginning to suspect that most demonized afflictions aren't forever, which means if they are seasonal and aren't identified, then they aren't reported.
d) In which case (c), it is probably more widespread than we think.
e) God says this stuff happens.
f) Per Roman and EO cases of demonization, which appears to be more common than in Protestant worlds, we can see:
f1) Demonism happens more frequently when the kingdom of Christ is in conflict with the kingdom of Satan.
f2) Rome and EO have more paganism within their systems than we do, so they should expect more demonisms.
g) demons don't currently exist in the Bible; they exist in real life.
g1) The "supernatural" (whatever that word means) didn't cease when St John put a period at the end of Revelation.
h) Per (f2), fighting demons doesn't mean that those who fight demons are necessarily flawed in their theology.