# Demonization - who's to blame?



## Pergamum (Aug 31, 2008)

I am rereading the Gospels where demons are involved. One thing that surprised me:


Jesus seemed to lay no blame on the demonized. 

He called the Pharisees vipers but never claimed that they were possessed; and those that were bothered by demons he had compassion. After the Transfiguration he helped a small boy that may have been demonized since infancy.

So, it seems from the NT, that those demonized were "innocent victims." Jesus opposed the religious leaders the harshest and called them snakes but did not claim that they were demonized (although their father was the devil...does that qualify?) nor didhe try to exorcise them. However, for the demonized, he had compassion and healed them.


But we tend to think of those who claim to have demons today as bringing it upon themselves or dabbling with the occult. And those whom I have encountered that they or their neighbors have claimed to "have demons" had some pretty severe sins or invited in the demons themselves through magic.



Was there a shift that occurred; or are we thinking wrongly about demonization based on the NT record?


----------



## Leslie (Aug 31, 2008)

Good question. Probably a more basic question is that if a person were demonized as a result of sin, would Jesus necessarily have said, "This is your own fault because you shouldn't have done_____"? 

Certainly demons can be acquired innocently. I don't know of anyone who deals with deliverance who would maintain otherwise. Conventional deliverance wisdom is that a common cause is a generational curse. In the case of demonization that mimics physical illness, it is frequently a curse put on the individual by an enemy involved in the occult. Westerners are most vulnerable because they are clueless; they have no idea what is happening because of their defective worldview.

This is my two cents.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 31, 2008)




----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 31, 2008)

With only one exception everyone that I have dealt with who was demonized would have been 'innocent'. They were either in an occult practicing family, had been a victim of ritual abuse, or something of the like.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 31, 2008)

I agree with Leslie in that, we in the west, often don't have much of a clue in this area of spirituality. So, please consider my thoughts in that regard. But, I wonder if, even if, for some, one's sin and slothfulness of allowing Satan a foothold in their lives were sometimes a part of the reason to blame for being demonized, wouldn't Christ be compassionate nonetheless and see them as a victim, not only of Satan, but of their own sin as well? Sin has so engulfed us all that it's a wonder that a foothold is not offered to Satan by many every day of their lives. So, I tend to view Christ as compassionate towards the demon possessed, not really because they are not to blame in some degree, but because he sees them as blinded and controlled by their own sin, which does make them more vulnerable to Satan and often places them more readily in the path of his influence, and sometimes even makes them willing participants of his possession.

Blessings and kind regards!


----------



## Timothy William (Aug 31, 2008)

Could Judas be a possible counter-example, as one whom Satan enters because of his prior sin, or is Satan entering Judas not a case of actual possession?


----------



## Leslie (Sep 1, 2008)

It seems that the scriptures are silent as to whether Judas was overtly demonized. However, his behavior certainly has a lot in common with the behavior of those who are demonized. [For this purpose, I'm considering those demonized if their problems are successfully addressed under that assumption--to use a medical model, there is a successful therapeutic trial.]

His behavior was self-destructive--there were predictable negative consequences.
He knew better but deliberately did his deed anyway.
There seemed to be a compulsion about the activity--as if he were driven.

Addictions have, by definition, these three elements. Those who have a successful track record in dealing with addictions (chemical or seksual) find that the vast majority of those involved (including believers) have spiritual/demonic issues that must be addressed. A case in point is a rescue program for street walkers in Addis Ababa.


----------



## TimV (Sep 1, 2008)

> His behavior was self-destructive--there were predictable negative consequences.
> He knew better but deliberately did his deed anyway.
> There seemed to be a compulsion about the activity--as if he were driven.
> 
> Addictions have, by definition, these three elements. Those who have a successful track record in dealing with addictions (chemical or seksual) find that the vast majority of those involved (including believers) have spiritual/demonic issues that must be addressed.



While this is a subject I don't know enough to comment on, I'd be wary of the "vast majority" categorization. I don't think it's totally self justifying on my end, but most people who get to know themselves find that we do all three of those elements every day, and Paul addresses the issue startlingly clearly in Romans 7


> For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 1, 2008)

bump


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 1, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Good question. Probably a more basic question is that if a person were demonized as a result of sin, would Jesus necessarily have said, "This is your own fault because you shouldn't have done_____"?
> 
> Certainly demons can be acquired innocently. I don't know of anyone who deals with deliverance who would maintain otherwise. Conventional deliverance wisdom is that a common cause is a generational curse. In the case of demonization that mimics physical illness, it is frequently a curse put on the individual by an enemy involved in the occult. Westerners are most vulnerable because they are clueless; they have no idea what is happening because of their defective worldview.
> 
> This is my two cents.



Being a doctor, you should know that when it comes to the works of darkness, we cannot know for sure what is really going on out there. One reason is that we do not have the ability to do "experiments" on demons or witchcraft to learn how it works, and it would be an abomination before God to try such a thing. 

If you study the history behind the Salem Witch Hunt in New England (1690s), you will find that certain pastors had foolishly written books on Witchcraft such as Cotton Mather, which were largely based on Old English Mythology, and carried a mixture of truth and superstition. I find that the same thing has happened today within some evangelical circles of the Third World. You have these Ghost-busters that think they know why and where the evil spirits are at work and how we are to avoid them as Christians. Yet, the Bible is largely silent when it comes to the details of how and where Satan is at work. Sometimes, Satan is spoken of to refer to the world of spiritual darkness in general, other times, it is referring to Lucifer himself. When I lived in Malaysia, I heard all sorts of fancy stories by local Christians on demonizations, some of which I find difficult to believe. 

For example, one pastor told us that a frequent reason why exorcisms would fail is that the demonized wanted to keep his demon and did not want to surrender it. Again, this account seems to contradict Pergy's observation that in the NT, Jesus never appears to lay the blame on the possessed. I remember reading a book by John Piper where he points out that in the case of demon possessions, the demonized did not necessarily have the ability to believe in Jesus or be freed from possession. 

Another point that would be important to Reformed Theology is that an exorcism is not equal to a conversion. Someone may be exorcised from a demon, and yet remain an unbeliever as Jesus speaks in one account where demons may return stronger and more numerous than in the first place. (This was also pointed out in one Tabletalk magazine devotion).

We also need to distinguish between demonizations and demon-harassments. I will maintain that believers may be harassed by demons, but they cannot be demonized, since that would contradict the sceal of the Holy Spirit that Paul speaks of in Ephesians. Ultimately, all demonizations and harassments come by permission from God, and consequently, such curses must be viewed as coming from God indirectly through Satan. This view will differ drastically from the Pentecostal viewpoint that God and Satan are fighting against each other and one is overcoming the other. This is a denial of God's sovereignty and is unscriptural.

Finally, my response to Pergy would be that demonizations do not always take place because the demonized had tampered with the works of darkness and invited the demons into his life, although this can be a reason. (Where would the expression of selling one's soul to the devil come from?). Sometimes, the demons are merely harassing an individual, being permitted to do so by God's command, such as Saul's case or Shechem's story in Judges). Secondly, I would maintain that the demonized may be afflicted against his own will and unable to get out of his plight for a reason we ignore, although I will refrain to go inquire further. I think for the case of Jesus not laying any blame on demonized victims might be explained by the fact that they were not able to free themselves from the demons as they had sunk themselves too deep into witchcraft. There is a difference between being innocently tormented by demons and being unable to free oneself from demon possession. Afterall, is there anyone really innocent in this world?


----------



## Leslie (Sep 1, 2008)

TimV said:


> > His behavior was self-destructive--there were predictable negative consequences.
> > He knew better but deliberately did his deed anyway.
> > There seemed to be a compulsion about the activity--as if he were driven.
> >
> ...




As with anything in the so-called 'mental illness' category, it's a matter of degree. Anyone reading a description of schizophrenia, personality disorder, narcissism, or any other phenomenon like this can see himself in the description and truly we all have elements thereof. What makes a person an addict and/or demonized (possession is not a scriptural term in the Greek) is the severity and frequency with which these compulsive, self-destuctive behaviors occur, consuming large amounts of time, money, and energy; and the person's utter helplessness against them. 

It is my impression that those who minister to people with addictive behaviors have a much better track record if/when they deal with demonic elements. Setting street girls free is almost impossible in 90% of the cases, unless they get rid of attached evil spirits. A counselor who ministers to pastors addicted to internet po-n has said the same.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 2, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Good question. Probably a more basic question is that if a person were demonized as a result of sin, would Jesus necessarily have said, "This is your own fault because you shouldn't have done_____"?
> ...




After the Transfiguration, Jesus healed a boy who had been possessed since he was a small child. It appears that this boy probably did not have a long history of seeking out witchcraft. Therefore, a certain "innocence" in this regard can be maintained.


----------



## Neogillist (Sep 2, 2008)

In that case, Pergy, I it seems that the boy inherited the demon from his parents or due to their sinful practices. By this, I do not imply that a demonic woman can give birth to a demonic child, (this is not one of these things we could prove) but that children often receive the punishment from their parents' sins. I myself used to believe that only original sin and its guilt was passed down from one generation to the next, but from reading more Scriptures, such as 2 Samuel 21 where descendents of Saul are slaughtered to expiate the blood-guiltiness of his house when they were apperently innocent and under God's command (according to most Reformed commentators), I came to realize that the Scriptures teach guilt by association. Thus, because we are part of Adam's race and Adam broke the Covenant of Works, God considers us guilty of breaking the covenant even if we did not commit the sin of eating the fruit personally. Consequently, just as a child cannot be deemed innocent in regard to original sin, neither can a demonized child be deemed innocently afflicted because of his parents' sins because he is guilty by association and inherits the consequences of his parents' sins just as we inherited original sin and its guilt.

In regard to the doctrine of original sin, Arminians differ from both Pelagians and Calvinists in that while they admit that original sin is transmitted to Adam's children from birth, they deny that the guilt itself is imputed to them, and maintain that Christ atoned for the guilt of original sin on the cross, such that no man is damned as a result of original sin. Some Arminians would also deny that God may punish children for their parents' sins in this life, as you may notice from reading Adam Clarke's commentary on 2 Sam. 21.

P.S.: I prayed for your wife this morning and hope she will recover soon from dengue.


----------



## Leslie (Sep 2, 2008)

Amen to the above. This is also confirmed in the decalogue in that the consequences of the sin of idolatry are visited on subsequent generations. It also conforms to the experience of those involved in deliverance: They find that deliverance is possible and/or easier if the person renounces the sins of his ancestors.


----------

