# Roman Catholic Exorcism



## JesusIsLord (Apr 24, 2018)

Hello everyone, I have been seeing a lot lately regarding the newest documentary by the creator of “the exorcist”.

His new Doc is about Father Amorth, the foremost Vatican exorcist. They claim to have recorded a real exorcism but I was interested in asking here on PB about demonic forces and exorcisms.

Are excorsisms nowadays real? What did the puritans think about demon possession?

Why or why not? Our Lord and the apostles obviously dealt with this such thing but can we say that this type of activity (possession) has ended? Ive really not thought throuhg this so I am just asking. Thanks for the help


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 24, 2018)

1. Exorcisms are real. 
2. Rome isn't doing it the way Jesus did.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 24, 2018)

https://frame-poythress.org/territorial-spirits-some-biblical-perspectives/


----------



## earl40 (Apr 24, 2018)

Oh my my. To think, as many do, that evil spirits invade people in the way most think, ought to be exercised from such thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Oh my my. To think, as many do, that evil spirits invade people in the way most think, ought to be exercised from such thinking.



I know you and I have disagreed on this, but I don't necessarily disagree with that statement. Most of what modern Christians think about "demons" comes from Milton and Dante, and so it is wrong. If that is what people think "enter" a person, then no, that doesn't happen.

If, per the NT, what enters is something like a kakos or an akathartos, then yes we have to affirm it.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know you and I have disagreed on this, but I don't necessarily disagree with that statement. Most of what modern Christians think about "demons" comes from Milton and Dante, and so it is wrong. If that is what people think "enter" a person, then no, that doesn't happen.
> 
> If, per the NT, what enters is something like a kakos or an akathartos, then yes we have to affirm it.



I strongly suspect we can not agree, even with your qualification, which I suspect is...dare I say probably superstitious. Sorry if this sounds uncharitable but this is how I see it.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> Hello everyone, I have been seeing a lot lately regarding the newest documentary by the creator of “the exorcist”.
> 
> His new Doc is about Father Amorth, the foremost Vatican exorcist. They claim to have recorded a real exorcism but I was interested in asking here on PB about demonic forces and exorcisms.
> 
> ...


Demonic possession was evident in the Bible, especially at the time of our Lord Jesus being here upon the earth, and I wonder at times just how much of what has been classified as strictly mental illness, split personalities, might in fact really be demonic influences going on.
Not saying that all or even most mental illness could be caused by that, but some could be, as the unsaved party when using drugs/alcohol, and in false religions could be open to having demonic force attacking and attaching themselves to that party.
My senior pastor is a very godly and mature pastor, and he had years ago an experienced dealing with a possession situation, and while the person was delivered and saved afterwards, something that he does not speak much upon nor seeks out to do again.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Demonic possession was evident in the Bible, especially at the time of our Lord Jesus being here upon the earth, and I wonder at times just how much of what has been classified as strictly mental illness, split personalities, might in fact really be demonic influences going on.



I would say mental illness, split personalities and such were evident in the bible, and many misclassify such as the some type of evil spirit having a direct influence on people. Just because there was not an official word or classification to label such problems does not mean people back then did not know exactly that such people who manifested such bad behavior were simply "crazy".


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I would say mental illness, split personalities and such were evident in the bible, and many misclassify such as the some type of evil spirit having a direct influence on people. Just because there was not an official word or classification to label such problems does not mean people back then did not know exactly that such people who manifested such bad behavior were simply "crazy".


The people that the scriptures plainly stated were demon possessed all were, correct?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The people that the scriptures plainly stated were demon possessed all were, correct?



Not wanting to succumb to a million questions on this subject I suggest all read this thread concerning the OP post. Especially Pastor Winzers advice. 


https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ufos-ghosts-and-the-occult-demonic-experiences.91634/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Oh my my. To think, as many do, that evil spirits invade people in the way most think, ought to be exercised from such thinking.


You do not believe that Demons can influence and even do possession of those who are not saved?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1. Exorcisms are real.
> 2. Rome isn't doing it the way Jesus did.


Only those who are not sealed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit can be possessed, and those times are few, but can happen in cases where violence, drugs, and alcohol are being used.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Not wanting to succumb to a million questions on this subject I suggest all read this thread concerning the OP post. Especially Pastor Winzers advice.
> 
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ufos-ghosts-and-the-occult-demonic-experiences.91634/


So were those the bible called demon possessed were, correct?


----------



## Cymro (Apr 25, 2018)

My take on it is, that Christ has bound the strong man and his house, and spoiled his goods. That Satan’s power is not what it was. The atonement has destroyed the works of the devil, and wherever Christianity has been planted and established, there demonic influence is subdued. But missionaries who go out to evangelise the regions beyond may encounter such remaining darkness. It is obvious that those practitioners of exorcism nowadays, use different means than our Lord. He did it merely by the word of His power; they with the forcible laying on of hands and a great deal of energetic shouting the name of Jesus; or with bells , candles and the signing of a cross, and a Latin imprecation. I think one has to be careful in bringing illnesses into this sphere as it can give sensitive souls doubts and fears concerning their state.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

Cymro said:


> My take on it is, that Christ has bound the strong man and his house, and spoiled his goods. That Satan’s power is not what it was. The atonement has destroyed the works of the devil, and wherever Christianity has been planted and established, there demonic influence is subdued. But missionaries who go out to evangelise the regions beyond may encounter such remaining darkness. It is obvious that those practitioners of exorcism nowadays, use different means than our Lord. He did it merely by the word of His power; they with the forcible laying on of hands and a great deal of energetic shouting the name of Jesus; or with bells , candles and the signing of a cross, and a Latin imprecation. I think one has to be careful in bringing illnesses into this sphere as it can give sensitive souls doubts and fears concerning their state.


Those who are saved and now indwelt by the Holy Spirit can never be possessed as such, but if we choose to do things that can open up a way to us from Satanic forces, God will permit them to influence us and cause problems.
Those who are lost are still under the dominion and kingdom of satan now.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Not wanting to succumb to a million questions on this subject I suggest all read this thread concerning the OP post. Especially Pastor Winzers advice.
> 
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ufos-ghosts-and-the-occult-demonic-experiences.91634/



Winzer didn't deal with the totality of biblical data, nor does his argument stand logical scrutiny. He said that demons are just dead idols. But if we take that line of reasoning and apply it to the gospels, it didn't work. Did Jesus simply cast out seven dead idols from Mary Magdelene?

Winzer is correct that what we call demons isn't entirely accurate. But he doesn't deal with the scholarship on the subject. Hebrew and Ugaritic scholar Michael Heiser, pretty much along with all standard critical scholarsip, has noted that the Bible uses a number of terms for very different entitites:

1. Rephaim.
2. Thrones
3. Powers
4. Principalities
5. Rulers in high places

He also came very close to implying, though if I recall correctly when I challenged him on this he didn't give a direct answer, that it was just the belief in demons that made the demonized suffer. This is ironic, given his conservatism, because that view is Liberalism 101.

My own take, following the Gospel data and the arguments in Jude and 2 Peter:

1. Demons are similar to cthonic forces and they are unclean spirits.
2. What we call fallen angels (which is a bad term) are those angels who wanted to mate with human women in Genesis 6, Jude, and 2 Peter 2. God is keeping them in eternal chains in gloomy darkness until that great day.
3. Therefore, demons =/= fallen angels.
4. Further, the Archangel Michael was hesitant to rebuke Satan, yet the disciples rebuke demons. So they can't be of the same class.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So were those the bible called demon possessed were, correct?



Read the thread supplied.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## earl40 (Apr 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Winzer didn't deal with the totality of biblical data, nor does his argument stand logical scrutiny. He said that demons are just dead idols. But if we take that line of reasoning and apply it to the gospels, it didn't work. Did Jesus simply cast out seven dead idols from Mary Magdelene?.



The word of the day is.....nominalism. This word explains your disagreement with Pastor Winzer.





BayouHuguenot said:


> He also came very close to implying, though if I recall correctly when I challenged him on this he didn't give a direct answer, that it was just the belief in demons that made the demonized suffer. This is ironic, given his conservatism, because that view is Liberalism 101.



Hardly a lib Winzer is in this area.  I understand where you are coming from as well as the most of people who are Christian.



BayouHuguenot said:


> My own take, following the Gospel data and the arguments in Jude and 2 Peter:
> 
> 1. Demons are similar to cthonic forces and they are unclean spirits.
> 2. What we call fallen angels (which is a bad term) are those angels who wanted to mate with human women in Genesis 6, Jude, and 2 Peter 2. God is keeping them in eternal chains in gloomy darkness until that great day.
> ...



This ought to be enough evidence for most Christians to flee from such thinking.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The word of the day is.....nominalism. This word explains your disagreement with Pastor Winzer.



Never mind that is not what the word nominalism means in any of its uses. So perhaps you would like to tell us what he means by that.


earl40 said:


> This ought to be enough evidence for most Christians to flee from such thinking.



What does "this" refer to? My taxonomy? If my taxonomy is faulty then you need to show me where. I am getting my data from the Scriptures. Should we flee the Scriptures? Or the claim that....what exactly?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Winzer didn't deal with the totality of biblical data, nor does his argument stand logical scrutiny. He said that demons are just dead idols. But if we take that line of reasoning and apply it to the gospels, it didn't work. Did Jesus simply cast out seven dead idols from Mary Magdelene?
> 
> Winzer is correct that what we call demons isn't entirely accurate. But he doesn't deal with the scholarship on the subject. Hebrew and Ugaritic scholar Michael Heiser, pretty much along with all standard critical scholarsip, has noted that the Bible uses a number of terms for very different entitites:
> 
> ...


Is he not supporting then Accommodation, in that Jesus knew that he was dealing with mere superstition of the time, and was just using a show to deliver people from mental illness problems?
Jesus talked to a literal Satan in wilderness, and the scriptures say that Judas was possessed by Satan Himself, so how can one hold to inspiration and infallibility of the Bible and hold to such beliefs as those of mistaken identification of demons?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Read the thread supplied.


So Jesus was wrong when he called them as demons, and spoke to satan directly?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The word of the day is.....nominalism. This word explains your disagreement with Pastor Winzer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The scriptures clearly teach that Jesus cast out real demons from possessed people, as a sign that the Kingdom of God in His person had now arrived, so what was he casting out?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Read the thread supplied.


Paul commands us to not allow satan to gain a stonghold into our lives, and scriptures tell us that satan is to be resisted, so we are now under spiritual warfare , correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

I just got finished r


Dachaser said:


> Is he not supporting then Accommodation, in that Jesus knew that he was dealing with mere superstition of the time, and was just using a show to deliver people from mental illness problems?
> Jesus talked to a literal Satan in wilderness, and the scriptures say that Judas was possessed by Satan Himself, so how can one hold to inspiration and infallibility of the Bible and hold to such beliefs as those of mistaken identification of demons?



That's what it seems he is saying. Of course, the text says no such thing and such a view can only be read into it. Basically, Jesus knew the ancient world was too stupid to realize it was only phobias and psychoses.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I just got finished r
> 
> 
> That's what it seems he is saying. Of course, the text says no such thing and such a view can only be read into it. Basically, Jesus knew the ancient world was too stupid to realize it was only phobias and psychoses.


or that Jesus bought into their superstition and honestly was wrong on demons? That is a heretical view on Jesus.


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Oh my my. To think, as many do, that evil spirits invade people in the way most think, ought to be exercised from such thinking.



Earl,
You must be possessed with the skeptic spirit. This particular spirit is only sent away by sipping Woodford Reserve Bourbon and smoking a Romeo y Juliet cigar, chanting"whhhhhhhaaaazzzzuuup", all while patting you on the back. This may go on for several days and should be done on a pontoon boat. Jacob and I will be down for the weekend to perform this exorcism. Prepare yourself......

@BayouHuguenot

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 25, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Earl,
> You must be possessed with the skeptic spirit. This particular spirit is only sent away by sipping Woodford Reserve Bourbon and smoking a Romeo y Juliet cigar, chanting"whhhhhhhaaaazzzzuuup", all while patting you on the back. This may go on for several days and should be done on a pontoon boat. Jacob and I will be down for the weekend to perform this exorcism. Prepare yourself......
> 
> @BayouHuguenot


If Earl's not interested, I'll take his cigar and bourbon.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 25, 2018)

I drink either red wine or Yeunglings (MAGA).

Back to the OP. I did some notes on biblical demonology (this is just scratching the surface).


Why is Satan called the prince of the powers of the air (Eph. 2:2) if he is locked underground?
If all the demons are in hell, then why do we wrestle against principalities and powers _in the heavenly places_ (Eph. 6)?
If Ha Shatan is locked underground, then how did he appear before God in Job?
If all the demons are in hell, then how did they possess people in the NT?
 Yet Peter says some were thrust into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4).
Why does Peter use the word Tartarus when he could have simply said hell or hades?
 Was the spirit in 1 Kings 22:19-23 good or bad? If he was good, then was God commanding him to lie? If he was bad, then why was he in heaven?
Is God the only kind of Elohim? You have to say no, because God (singular Elohim) is often speaking to plural Elohim, and even if the latter are just men, they aren’t the kind of Elohim that Yahweh is.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 25, 2018)

Two quotes from Rev. Winzer from the thread Earl linked to:

“The Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures had very distinct notions of these things. Christ and His apostles only associated them with the work of Satan and his messengers.”

“Satan at that time exercised a specific adversarial role among the visible covenant nation, especially as it related to Messiah. The demonic power was part of the darkness in which the people sat before they would see the great light of Messiah, and when the great light shone the darkness was dispelled, which created these unique interactions "in the flesh," in the "rudiments of the world." It was unique and unparallelled because it was an extraordinary meeting point in history. I do not expect to see it again. I certainly would not use modern claims to demonic possession as any indication of what was happening in the narratives.

“In hindsight, and with the full revelation of Scripture, we understand that these "demons" were in fact "devils," operating under the agency of Satan, but we must not assume the people thought in this way. It is likely that they held very confused ideas about "demons"...”

I had a hard time grasping what Reverend Winzer was saying at the time of that conversation, but I think these quotes from him show that he believed that Christ and the apostles truly dealt with “Satan and his messengers.” Rev. Winzer preferred to call those messengers “devils,” following the KJV, since there was and is such misinformation about what a “daemon” meant to the people in NT times, as well as what it means to people today. 

He believed the encounters with those devils in Scripture were “unique and unparallelled because it was an extraordinary meeting point in history.”
I tend to agree, and believe that Christ’s victory on the cross was such a decisive victory blow to Satan that the activity as recorded in the gospels and Acts is over. Not to say that Satan isn’t still on the prowl and dangerous, and we must resist him in just the ways taught in the epistles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Rev. Winzer preferred to call those messengers “devils,” following the KJV, since there was and is such misinformation about what a “daemon” meant to the people in NT times, as well as what it means to people today.



I've already dealt with the ambiguous terminology in Scripture. True, daimion meant something different in Plato, but it's clear that by the time of Scripture the meaning changed. To collapse the latter meaning into the former is the word = concept fallacy.


Jeri Tanner said:


> He believed the encounters with those devils in Scripture were “unique and unparallelled because it was an extraordinary meeting point in history.”



Scriptural evidence that it stopped?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 26, 2018)

The precedent is set for the concept that activities in the gospels and Acts stopped; people being raised from the dead, for instance, miraculous healings, and the immediate, infallible communications of the Holy Spirit. So the question is, did the kind of demonic activity encountered in the gospels and Acts also stop?

The raising from the dead, the miraculous healings, the direct kind of communications from the Spirit- I believe those all ceased after the apostles because they were part of the verification that the Messiah had at last appeared to destroy the works of the devil. Included in that, logically, would be the kind of convulsive demonic activity described. The epistles do not instruct the church in dealing with demons, but they do instruct us in dealing with Satan (mainly, don’t give place to him by sinning).

Beyond that, I don’t know about the reports of stuff that happens when someone is supposedly demon-possessed. We know that Satan ensnares unbelievers and holds them captive to do his will (2 Timothy 2:24-26), but they are to dealt with by gentle words of correction. I don’t see the continuance of the kind of activity, and the way it was dealt with in the narratives, in the didactic epistles.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I drink either red wine or Yeunglings (MAGA).
> 
> Back to the OP. I did some notes on biblical demonology (this is just scratching the surface).
> 
> ...


satan is not bound in hell right now, as he is still free to roam around, as he will not be bound until at end of this Age.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Two quotes from Rev. Winzer from the thread Earl linked to:
> 
> “The Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures had very distinct notions of these things. Christ and His apostles only associated them with the work of Satan and his messengers.”
> 
> ...


His power over the saved has indeed been broken, but those lost rare still under his dominion and Kingdom, and as such, can be opening themselves to demonic activities by playing around with occult, in false religions, on drugs and alcohol though.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The precedent is set for the concept that activities narrated in the gospels and Acts stopped; people being raised from the dead, for instance, miraculous healings, and the immediate, infallible communications of the Holy Spirit. So the question is, did the kind of demonic activity encountered in the gospels and Acts also stop?
> 
> The raising from the dead, the miraculous healings, the direct kind of communications from the Spirit- I believe those all ceased after the apostles because they were part of the verification that the Messiah had at last appeared to destroy the works of the devil. Included in that, logically, would be the kind of convulsive demonic activity described. The epistles do not instruct the church in dealing with demons, but they do instruct us in dealing with Satan (mainly, don’t give place to him by sinning).
> 
> Beyond that, I don’t know about the reports of stuff that happens when someone is supposedly demon-possessed. We know that Satan ensnares unbelievers and holds them captive to do his will (2 Timothy 2:24-26), but they are to dealt with by gentle words of correction. I don’t see the continuance of the kind of activity, and the way it was dealt with in the narratives, in the didactic epistles.


satan is still active and well connected on earth, for is he not the one behind the spread of Islam, and other false religions? the one that instigates wars and basically trying to destroy those under his dominion?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Satan is not bound in hell right now, as he is still free to roam around, as he will not be bound until at end of this Age.


I know. That's what I said.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2018)

[


BayouHuguenot said:


> I know. That's what I said.



Here is an interesting question I have for all. If one is supposed to resist the devil does that mean one is to *literally* resist him one on one? Lets be honest I seriously doubt any of us have gone head to head with satan. I bring this question to the forefront, because many will say that one must read and understand scripture *literally.* The point I am trying to make in that a "didactic" reading does not always mean a literal sense is intended when we read the bible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting question I have for all. If one is supposed to resist the devil does that mean one is to *literally* resist him one on one? Lets be honest I seriously doubt any of us have gone head to head with Satan. I bring this question to the forefront, because many will say that one must read and understand scripture *literally.* The point I am trying to make in that a "didactic" reading does not always mean a literal sense is intended when we read the bible.



What does "literally" mean?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting question I have for all. If one is supposed to resist the devil does that mean one is to *literally* resist him one on one? Lets be honest I seriously doubt any of us have gone head to head with Satan. I bring this question to the forefront, because many will say that one must read and understand scripture *literally.* The point I am trying to make in that a "didactic" reading does not always mean a literal sense is intended when we read the bible.


Are we under a literal/real spiritual warfare against Satan and His minions?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What does "literally" mean?



Do you think you literally have resisted satan one on one?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Do you think you literally have resisted Satan one on one?


I have been attacked by Him at times, as in he controls this world system, and so the temptations for us to be sinning against God can be set up by Him...


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have been attacked by Him at times, as in he controls this world system, and so the temptations for us to be sinning against God can be set up by Him...


I don’t want to read too much into the fact that you capitalized a pronoun referring to Satan...


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 26, 2018)

David, I know you didn’t capitalize on purpose and I probably shouldn’t have said that, but in a way, we can give the devil credit for too much, and miss some important ways that we should be on guard because of his activity.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting question I have for all. If one is supposed to resist the devil does that mean one is to *literally* resist him one on one? Lets be honest I seriously doubt any of us have gone head to head with Satan. I bring this question to the forefront, because many will say that one must read and understand scripture *literally.* The point I am trying to make in that a "didactic" reading does not always mean a literal sense is intended when we read the bible.


Right- to resist the devil is to believe what God has said and resist any temptation to test God or to doubt him. Not some kind of power battle. When we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God in all his providences, we are resisting the devil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> David, I know you didn’t capitalize on purpose and I probably shouldn’t have said that, but in a way, we can give the devil credit for too much, and miss some important ways that we should be on guard because of his activity.


Good catch by you, as I did not even notice that was done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Right- to resist the devil is to believe what God has said and resist any temptation to test God or to doubt him. Not some kind of power battle. When we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God in all his providences, we are resisting the devil.


We have to be active and diligent in resisting the Satan and his ways, as we have to put on the full armor of God, and rely upon the Holy Spirit to give us the strength to resist and turn away from the temptations Satan daily provides in all our lives.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 26, 2018)

Only God is omnipresent and the devil but a fallen created angel. He therefore is unable to personally deal with each member of the world let alone the church. Only certain individuals had encounters with him, eg, Job, and our Lord. He has principalities and powers that do his work of temptations, but don’t credit him with omnipresence.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 26, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Only God is omnipresent and the devil but a fallen created angel. He therefore is unable to personally deal with each member of the world let alone the church. Only certain individuals had encounters with him, eg, Job, and our Lord. He has principalities and powers that do his work of temptations, but don’t credit him with omnipresence.


Indeed. No credit for omniscience or omnipotence, too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 26, 2018)

FYI, attached is a copy of my old _Roman Ritual_ (1964), which can also be found in various formats with some internet searching. See the section on _Exorcism_ for a view into the Romanist's ways and means.

You can also learn in the RR how we former Romanist clergy actually made holy water.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Only God is omnipresent and the devil but a fallen created angel. He therefore is unable to personally deal with each member of the world let alone the church. Only certain individuals had encounters with him, eg, Job, and our Lord. He has principalities and powers that do his work of temptations, but don’t credit him with omnipresence.


I don't , but he has a multitude of demons to assist him, as well as many in this world system who are sprouting firth his notions, without even realizing that they are!


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Do you think you literally have resisted Satan one on one?



What does literally mean?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 26, 2018)

A very helpful book on this topic is “Satan Cast Out” by Frederick S. Leahy; it provides a balanced view and gives Scriptural answers to a lot of questions.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What does literally mean?



My question I thought was self evident in the context of our conversation. I apologize if I was not clear. The reason I asked what I did is to bring out your thoughts on how a person is encountered by satan or "demons". Many people think people are possessed by demons or satan, in that the evil spirit somehow *directly causes* them to sin "literally".....(The devil made me do it). Flip Wilson used to get a good laugh out of this, and people knew (correctly I may add) he was giving a negative satire of such thinking. Now I can say yes we can be tempted by them BUT that temptation is not a direct cause from a spiritual tempter. This is how we are tempted "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his *own lust*, and enticed." Is it not interesting How James _puts all the blame_ of sinning on ourselves and not on some demon or satan.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> My question I thought was self evident in the context of our conversation. I apologize if I was not clear. The reason I asked what I did is to bring out your thoughts on how a person is encountered by Satan or "demons". Many people think people are possessed by demons or Satan, in that the evil spirit somehow *directly causes* them to sin "literally".....(The devil made me do it). Flip Wilson used to get a good laugh out of this, and people knew (correctly I may add) he was giving a negative satire of such thinking. Now I can say yes we can be tempted by them BUT that temptation is not a direct cause from a spiritual tempter. This is how we are tempted "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his *own lust*, and enticed." Is it not interesting How James _puts all the blame_ of sinning on ourselves and not on some demon or Satan.



Of course I don't hold that the unclean spirit causes them to sin.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course I don't hold that the unclean spirit causes them to sin.



So if you assert such, what exactly does an fallen angel (unclean spirit or demon) do while hanging around in a person, if you think they somehow posses a person?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So if you assert such, what exactly does an fallen angel (unclean spirit or demon) do while hanging around in a person, if you think they somehow posses a person?



A demon isn't a fallen angel. Jude and Peter are really clear on that. Further, the term "possessed" is rather loaded in English. The literal Greek transliteration is "demonized."

Further, the problems with "demonization" as to how it is in a person are similar to the problem of how a "soul" is in a person. We have to say it is in a person in order to maintain Christian theism, but how is a mystery. For example, if I cut off my finger, and my soul is spread out in my person, did I lose 8% of my soul just then? Of course not.

As to what a demon does in a person. I don't know. The gospels and Acts give us a lot of info, and not every case is the same, so I don't want to generalize.

I did a taxonomy earlier where I distinguished between unclean spirits, the Satan, fallen angels, beney elohim, and the like. As a general rule, Satan, Azazel, and most of the darker beney elohim do not inhabit a person.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So if you assert such, what exactly does an fallen angel (unclean spirit or demon) do while hanging around in a person, if you think they somehow posses a person?


The demons will attempt to influence the lost to act out their desires, and can work against Christians who are in a state of unconfessed/unrepentant sin, as doing that allows the devil to try to get a work into our lives. Also being involved in Occultic things can allow him an entry way into lives. Lost persons also can allow a gateway in by being drugged/drunk, as those activities can lower their guard down.
Every person is responsible for their own sins, but the demonic can at times put heavy pressure on someone to submit to their fleshly desires.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A demon isn't a fallen angel. Jude and Peter are really clear on that. Further, the term "possessed" is rather loaded in English. The literal Greek transliteration is "demonized."
> 
> Further, the problems with "demonization" as to how it is in a person are similar to the problem of how a "soul" is in a person. We have to say it is in a person in order to maintain Christian theism, but how is a mystery. For example, if I cut off my finger, and my soul is spread out in my person, did I lose 8% of my soul just then? Of course not.
> 
> ...


Only time satan himself possessed someone was in case of Judas. but I think scriptures do indicate that when a demon comes into a lost person, it can mimic the behavior of someone who would look to be insane, crazy, deranged etc.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Only time Satan himself possessed someone was in case of Judas. but I think scriptures do indicate that when a demon comes into a lost person, it can mimic the behavior of someone who would look to be insane, crazy, deranged etc.


The thing about all these assertions is that there is an unseen world that God alone knows about. Christ and the apostles, being uniquely commissioned to go in his name, were the ONLY ONES in Scripture who actually knew that a person’s behaviors were due to demonic forces. NONE SINCE THEM possess this knowledge. We can talk as if we know all about what makes this and that happen, and what’s going on with this and that occurrence, but the fact is we do not know and cannot know. The spiritual answer for every person who is erratic, troubled, insane, evil, and so forth is the same. We don’t know how or if demons are involved. The spiritual solution is the truth of the gospel, shared with them; and prayer and exhortation and the means of grace in the church- not exorcism. The physical solution might be medicine. Please read Leahy’s book! It’s so helpful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> were the ONLY ONES in Scripture who actually knew that a person’s behaviors were due to demonic forces



That, too, is an assertion. I, on the other hand, have given a logical taxonomy based on the data in Scripture.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My own take, following the Gospel data and the arguments in Jude and 2 Peter:
> 
> 1. Demons are similar to cthonic forces and they are unclean spirits.
> 2. What we call fallen angels (which is a bad term) are those angels who wanted to mate with human women in Genesis 6, Jude, and 2 Peter 2. God is keeping them in eternal chains in gloomy darkness until that great day.
> ...


Jacob,
I'm curious--can you point us to any sources that take the same perspective as you on demons?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Jacob,
> I'm curious--can you point us to any sources that take the same perspective as you on demons?



Jude, for starters. But for those who can follow the languages, the following is pretty good.

The best scholarly source (which none of us can afford):
_Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999)

Gershon Edelstein, “Rephaim, Valley of (Place),” in _Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary_, vol. 5 (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992)

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rephaim-LBD.pdf

C. E. L’Heureux, “The Ugaritic and the Biblical Rephaim,” _Harvard Theological Review_ 67:3 (1974) 265–274

This next one is the best on the whole topic. 
Amar Annus, “On the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,”_ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha_ 19.4 (2010): 277–320

Brian Doak, The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of
Ancient Israel, Ilex Series 7 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013)

Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward and Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106.1 (March 1987): 13-26

Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1–4 in Early Jewish Literature, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198, second series; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013)

Ronn Johnson, “The Old Testament Background for Paul’s Principalities and Powers,” (PhD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004
http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/wp-c...round-for-Pauls-Principalities-and-Powers.pdf

I have a lot more I'll post later.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Jude, for starters. But for those who can follow the languages, the following is pretty good.
> 
> The best scholarly source (which none of us can afford):
> _Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Cologne; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999)
> ...


Thanks. I don't mean to discount any of the sources you've listed; I don't know anything about them, but frankly, I don't have time to read all of that. I'm curious, in particular, whether there are any orthodox Christian scholars, rather than more critical, speculative ones.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Thanks. I don't mean to discount any of the sources you've listed; I don't know anything about them, but frankly, I don't have time to read all of that. I'm curious, in particular, whether there are any orthodox Christian scholars, rather than more critical, speculative ones.



I've only read half of them. My point in the overload was that the Christian and scholarly community is well-aware of these issues. They are light years ahead of most of us. We have the temptation to say, "Canon closed. None of this is real anymore." As a result, we really don't wrestle with God's word on this.

The best single source on this is Michael Heiser, Unseen Realm. He has done everything from debunk ancient alien theory to writing respected monographs on Hebrew and Ugaritic.

http://drmsh.com/


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Winzer didn't deal with the totality of biblical data, nor does his argument stand logical scrutiny. He said that demons are just dead idols. But if we take that line of reasoning and apply it to the gospels, it didn't work. Did Jesus simply cast out seven dead idols from Mary Magdelene?
> 
> Winzer is correct that what we call demons isn't entirely accurate. But he doesn't deal with the scholarship on the subject. Hebrew and Ugaritic scholar Michael Heiser, pretty much along with all standard critical scholarsip, has noted that the Bible uses a number of terms for very different entitites:
> 
> ...


Jacob,

You're right to point us to the Scriptures on this matter. However, you haven't really dealt with the Biblical terms.

_Thrones, powers, _and_ principalities_ are all metonymies substituting an abstract principle of rule for a concrete, personal ruler. So they can all be equated with "rulers in high places." They mean the same thing.

Jude 6 says, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." The word translated "first estate" is ἀρχὴν, or _principality._ Here, one of the same words for rule that gets used metonymically to refer to demons is applied to angels. I don't think it's any stretch to say that the two are the same--both are characterized as having _principality_.

In regard to the casting out of devils, it always occurs in the context of the extraordinary acts of Jesus and the apostles. Mark 3:14-15: "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." This is not an ordinary gift for Christians in any circusmtance to exercise; it's an extraordinary function for extraordinary times.

So can exorcisms still occur? Yes, I think so, but only in extraordinary circumstances, along with the other extraordinary gifts and offices. One example would be an evangelist ministering in a pagan land--he may be given power by the Spirit to perform extraordinary works.

Lest anyone think I'm outside of the Reformed view of extraordinary gifts and offices, here's Gillespie:


> I must say it, to the glory of God, there were in the church of Scotland, both in the time of our first reformation, and after the reformation, such extraordinary men as were more than ordinary pastors and teachers, even holy prophets receiving extraordinary revelations from God, and foretelling diverse strange and remarkable things, which did accordingly come to pass punctually, to the great admiration of all who knew the particulars. Such were Mr. Wishart the martyr, Mr. Knox the reformer, also Mr. John Welsh, Mr. John Davidson, Mr. Robert Bruce, Mr. Alexander Simpson, Mr. Fergusson, and others. -_Miscellany_, Chapter V, section 7.


And Calvin:


> These three functions [apostles, prophets, and evangelists] were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ. Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day. For there was need for such persons to lead the church back from the rebellion of Antichrist. Nonetheless, I call this office "extraordinary," because in duly constituted churches it has no place. - Institutes Book IV, ch. III, sec. 4."



Edit: I didn't address the Rephaim that Jacob named. They were a Canaanite tribe, as in Genesis 15: "*18*In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: *19*The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, *20*And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the *Rephaims*, *21*And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." They were apparantly a gigantic race of men, as in Deut 2:"*10*The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; *11*Which also were accounted giants *[Rephaim]*, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims." Their tribal name likely came to refer to gigantic men in general. Later legends would have turned them into some mythical creature.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 27, 2018)

@BayouHuguenot, I meant to address the question of _chains of darkness _and of _Tartarus.
_
Chains cannot be made out of darkness, darkness cannot be used to bind anyone, and angels probably can't be bound with chains anyway. So much to say, this is obviously symbolic language, intended to refer to torment and condemnation. It doesn't refer to the _manner _of their torment, but to the fact that they are in a _state _of torment. Likewise, fictional Tartarus doesn't refer to the _place _of their torment and condemnation, but to the _state _of torment and condemnation that they are consigned to. Rather than enjoying their original happy and holy estate of principality (2 Pet 2), like fallen men, they are bound by sinful corruptions and by misery.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> _Thrones, powers, _and_ principalities_ are all metonymies substituting an abstract principle of rule for a concrete, personal ruler. So they can all be equated with "rulers in high places." They mean the same thing.



I don't think they do, but it doesn't change my own conclusions even if I am wrong on that. My point was that this refutes the classic Miltonian/Dantean view of demons that everyone in the West defaults on.


TylerRay said:


> This is not an ordinary gift for Christians in any circusmtance to exercise; it's an extraordinary function for extraordinary times.



To say it is an extraordinary act and ceased is begging the question. In any case, it goes against almost the entirety of Christian experience.


TylerRay said:


> Edit: I didn't address the Rephaim that Jacob named.



They were giants that Moses specifically targeted for killing (Og). They are also shades that greeted Lucifer (whatever that name means) when he fell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> @BayouHuguenot, I meant to address the question of _chains of darkness _and of _Tartarus.
> _
> Chains cannot be made out of darkness, darkness cannot be used to bind anyone, and angels probably can't be bound with chains anyway. So much to say, this is obviously symbolic language, intended to refer to torment and condemnation. It doesn't refer to the _manner _of their torment, but to the fact that they are in a _state _of torment. Likewise, fictional Tartarus doesn't refer to the _place _of their torment and condemnation, but to the _state _of torment and condemnation that they are consigned to. Rather than enjoying their original happy and holy estate of principality (2 Pet 2), like fallen men, they are bound by sinful corruptions and by misery.



I am not sure exactly what that changes in my argument, though any Greek-speaking reader would have associated Tatarus with a place.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not sure exactly what that changes in my argument, though any Greek-speaking reader would have associated Tatarus with a place.


The difference it makes is that it doesn't rule out the wicked angels being at large.

Any English-speaker would associate hell with a place, but when someone says, "I've been through hell today," we know he's using it figuratively.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That, too, is an assertion. I, on the other hand, have given a logical taxonomy based on the data in Scripture.


I should have said that from Scripture, the only ones we can know had infallible knowledge about demonic activity were Christ and the apostles. And shouldn’t have used all caps


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I should have said that from Scripture, the only ones we can know had infallible knowledge about demonic activity were Christ and the apostles. And shouldn’t have used all caps



I don't see how it follows that the apostles had infallible knowledge, therefore we can't have any knowledge. And I don't think they necessarily had infallible knowledge all the time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The difference it makes is that it doesn't rule out the wicked angels being at large.



Certainly some are at large. We know that from the book of Daniel. Some were imprisoned via Jude, yet the archangel Michael fought the Prince of Persia and Greece.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't see how it follows that the apostles had infallible knowledge, therefore we can't have any knowledge. And I don't think they necessarily had infallible knowledge all the time.


I didn’t say we can’t have “any” knowledge. We can’t have infallible knowledge about what may be going on in the spiritual realm because we’re not apostles or prophets. I think the apostles were given knowledge (infallibly) when it pleased God to give it to them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I didn’t say we can’t have “any” knowledge. We can’t have infallible knowledge about what may be going on in the spiritual realm because we’re not apostles or prophets. I think the apostles were given knowledge (infallibly) when it pleased God to give it to them.



I don't dispute that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2018)

If I may add a few penultimate statements:

1. I agree that our current view of demons is very faulty. We owe more to Milton than we do to the Bible.
2. With that said, the Bible has some very surprising suggestions on angelology.
3. I am quite willing to entertain naturalistic solutions to many phenomena. For example, the CIA mind control projects where their subjects had multiple personalities/alters looks a lot like demon possession, but a rational explanations is available.
3.1 No one likes the rational explanations I give. But that involves much on MK-ULTRA that makes people uncomfortable.
4. The X-Files is my new favorite TV show.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 27, 2018)

Jesus called casting out demons the children's bread. It belonged to the covenant people, not the dogs. We've made it so backwards, as if it belongs to the pagans and not to the elect. 

There are some awful but glorious stories out there about people who got saved, with horrible childhoods including ritual satanic and sexual abuse, and have had much struggle to get free of torment, including exorcism. Debating if the unclean tormenting spirit is inside, or outside attacking, doesn't really matter. Some times it just needs to be told to leave, period. 

I grew up with a wicked Christ hating father, who believed the Aryan race was the pinnacle of evolutionary superiority, and the Jews got what they deserved with Hitler. Blacks were a subhuman race. He never touched me, but he was a merciless man. Plenty of screaming and swearing and smashing things at home.

I sought counsel as a young adult, after several years as a Christian. The presenting problem was a vague emotional torment at night sometimes for hours, that I thought maybe linked to the nights my Dad held my Mom against the wall screaming he would kill her. I was faithful in the Christian disciplines but the attacks at night came sporadically and I felt helpless during them. I had fully repented of teenage dalliances in minor occult and drug experiences. 

The pastor and wife who listened to me asked a lot of probing questions. I sat there rationally and calmly talking, maybe a bit tearful, and finally the man said that without a question it was an evil spirit. He commanded it to come out, and I bent over double screaming feeling like my insides were literally coming out. (I didn't even feel that way later having four babies.) Anyway, the freedom afterwards was astonishing. 

I think my mind and emotions had the most help from understanding the sovereignty of God, as I pursued sound doctrine and theology in the years to pass, and also faced some deep and strong bitterness I had to repent of. But the God of grace who has mercy on his children gave me the children's bread in a time of hunger and I will always be grateful. 

Given what kids today are exposed to and into, when we have the next great revival, I hope some of you will be more open to casting out demons should such persons come for help and counsel. Not all PTSD type torment is just in the brain.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The difference it makes is that it doesn't rule out the wicked angels being at large.
> 
> Any English-speaker would associate hell with a place, but when someone says, "I've been through hell today," we know he's using it figuratively.


Just the worst fallen angels were being confined to imprisonment until time of their final judgment, while the rest seem to be allowed to be around and about still.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I should have said that from Scripture, the only ones we can know had infallible knowledge about demonic activity were Christ and the apostles. And shouldn’t have used all caps


The Holy Spirit can still reveal to any of us demonic activity, as all of us in Christ have authority over satan and his forces in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If I may add a few penultimate statements:
> 
> 1. I agree that our current view of demons is very faulty. We owe more to Milton than we do to the Bible.
> 2. With that said, the Bible has some very surprising suggestions on angelology.
> ...


The demonic forces associated with satan can and do mimic things such as mental powers and magic, as he changes with the times, as he was at first ghosts and witches, and now aliens.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

lynnie said:


> Jesus called casting out demons the children's bread. It belonged to the covenant people, not the dogs. We've made it so backwards, as if it belongs to the pagans and not to the elect.
> 
> There are some awful but glorious stories out there about people who got saved, with horrible childhoods including ritual satanic and sexual abuse, and have had much struggle to get free of torment, including exorcism. Debating if the unclean tormenting spirit is inside, or outside attacking, doesn't really matter. Some times it just needs to be told to leave, period.
> 
> ...


We have to be balanced in this area, as while a majority of things associated to satanic/demonic activities are bogus, there are still some that are indeed legit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2018)

_They're here!
_
Once you start summarizing and systematizing what the Bible says about the spiritual world, you will realize that it is far more exciting than any sci-fi novel. 

As to the apostles' having infallible knowledge, I am not so sure that is a good model. We see the apostles often acting quite fallibly. Was Peter infallible until he got to Jerusalem, and the infallibility switched off, only to switch back on again?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> _They're here!
> _
> Once you start summarizing and systematizing what the Bible says about the spiritual world, you will realize that it is far more exciting than any sci-fi novel.
> 
> As to the apostles' having infallible knowledge, I am not so sure that is a good model. We see the apostles often acting quite fallibly. Was Peter infallible until he got to Jerusalem, and the infallibility switched off, only to switch back on again?


The Apostles were only infallible when recording/speaking forth doctrines, as their theology was inspired by God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Apostles were only infallible when recording/speaking forth doctrines, as their theology was inspired by God.



No one disputes that. I suppose we are debating, or Mrs Tanner implied, that when the apostles were casting out demons, at that moment they had infallible knowledge of the spirit realm. They might have, but there is no Scriptural evidence for that claim.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one disputes that. I suppose we are debating, or Mrs Tanner implied, that when the apostles were casting out demons, at that moment they had infallible knowledge of the spirit realm. They might have, but there is no Scriptural evidence for that claim.


I’ll try to put it better- God gave them the knowledge, infallibly, that they needed for the occasion, whether it was healing as with Peter and John and the lame man, or with Paul as with the slave girl with the spirit. Of course they weren’t infallible men who always knew everything infallibly! That wasn’t true of any OT or NT prophet. 

Back to the OP, and it’s the last time I’ll mention this book, but exorcism is dealt with very thoroughly and biblically in the Leahy book.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ll try to put it better- God gave them the knowledge, infallibly, that they needed for the occasion,



Except we don't have Scriptural evidence for that claim. But even if they had this infallible situational knowledge that Scripture says nothing about, it doesn't negate any of my claims.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Except we don't have Scriptural evidence for that claim. But even if they had this infallible situational knowledge that Scripture says nothing about, it doesn't negate any of my claims.


I’m probably not understanding your issue with this, and I must not be stating it right. Do you believe that when Peter fixed his gaze on the lame man and spoke to him, Peter knew, prophetically, by the Spirit that God was going to heal this man through him?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m probably not understanding your issue with this, and I must not be stating it right. Do you believe that when Peter fixed his gaze on the lame man and spoke to him, Peter knew, prophetically, by the Spirit that God was going to heal this man through him?



He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.


Ok, I think this comes down to a difference in how we view the offices and gifts of apostle and prophet as they functioned in the OT and NT (apostolic) church. It also seems to have to do with ideas regarding continuationism vs. cessationism. I’m coming from the view that when the apostles and prophets received revelation from God on a matter (the lame man, the girl with the spirit of divination), they knew they had received immediate revelation from God and that they were indeed acting in accordance with his will. (Galatians 1:12) But ministers of the gospel aren’t hampered by the cessation of this kind of immediate revelation in dealing with demonic activity. God has prescribed the means for setting people free from bondage to sin and the devil in the proclamation and teaching (which includes correction, rebuke, exhortation, etc.) of his word.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok, I think this comes down to a difference in how we view the offices and gifts of apostle and prophet as they functioned in the OT and NT (apostolic) church. It also seems to have to do with ideas regarding continuationism vs. cessationism. I’m coming from the view that when the apostles and prophets received revelation from God on a matter (the lame man, the girl with the spirit of divination), they knew they had received immediate revelation from God and that they were indeed acting in accordance with his will. (Galatians 1:12) But ministers of the gospel aren’t hampered by the cessation of this kind of immediate revelation in dealing with demonic activity. God has prescribed the means for setting people free from bondage to sin and the devil in the proclamation and teaching (which includes correction, rebuke, exhortation, etc.) of his word.



One can logically be a cessationist and believe in exorcisms. This is surprisingly common in some Lutheran circles.

Unclean spirits didn't stop demonizing people once the ink was dry in Revelation 22.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> One can logically be a cessationist and believe in exorcisms. This is surprisingly common in some Lutheran circles.
> 
> Unclean spirits didn't stop demonizing people once the ink was dry in Revelation 22.


But you’re not interacting with proposition that in dealing with troubled people, there is no longer the direct revelation from God to the Minister that there is indeed demonic activity, and what to do about it. We are no longer to directly speak to demons, to call them out, as Christ and the apostles did. To do so, considering our fallibility in discerning, could be very harmful to a troubled soul. The counsel and exhortation of the word of God is the cure offered for all troubles, including from Satan. Of course, the minister, and everyone, should pray for the Lord to deliver all people under their care from Satan and his devices! We pray this daily, as Christ taught us to pray. And in some instances, that prayer takes on new fervency. 

But to speak and act as if we have direct revelation about what’s going on in individual circumstances, those gifts of revelation having ceased, is not good. 

So I’d say it is indeed a matter of cessationism (I understand there some extreme forms or expressions of cessationism that are wrong) vs. continuationism (maybe inconsistent) that drives different approaches.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> there is no longer the direct revelation from God to the Minister that there is indeed demonic activity, and what to do about it.



I did interact with it. I argued that it doesn't logically follow.


Jeri Tanner said:


> We are no longer to directly speak to demons, to call them out, as Christ and the apostles did.



Says who?


Jeri Tanner said:


> To do so, considering our fallibility in discerning, could be very harmful to a troubled soul.



So can preaching. In any case, John told us to test the spirits.


Jeri Tanner said:


> The counsel and exhortation of the word of God is the cure offered for all troubles, including from Satan. Of course, the minister, and everyone, should pray for the Lord to deliver all people under their care from Satan and his devices! We pray this daily, as Christ taught us to pray. And in some instances, that prayer takes on new fervency.



No one disagrees with that.


Jeri Tanner said:


> But to speak and act as if we have direct revelation about what’s going on in individual circumstances, those gifts of revelation having ceased, is not good.



Assertion. 


Jeri Tanner said:


> So I’d say it is indeed a matter of cessationism (I understand there some extreme forms or expressions of cessationism that are wrong) vs. continuationism (maybe inconsistent) that drives different approaches.



Cessationists would disagree with you (as would the entirety of church history), but in any case cessationism isn't a self-evident proposition.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ll try to put it better- God gave them the knowledge, infallibly, that they needed for the occasion, whether it was healing as with Peter and John and the lame man, or with Paul as with the slave girl with the spirit. Of course they weren’t infallible men who always knew everything infallibly! That wasn’t true of any OT or NT prophet.
> 
> Back to the OP, and it’s the last time I’ll mention this book, but exorcism is dealt with very thoroughly and biblically in the Leahy book.


The Holy Spirit can still give that today, as in the gift of discernment, the ability to know whether something being claimed as real as is a legit supernatural happening or not.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.


Were their any times they misunderstood that a demon was present though?


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m probably not understanding your issue with this, and I must not be stating it right. Do you believe that when Peter fixed his gaze on the lame man and spoke to him, Peter knew, prophetically, by the Spirit that God was going to heal this man through him?


Peter knew that Jesus would be able and willingly to heal that man on the spot.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.


It did seem that God somehow notified Peter that he was there to do a miracle of healing in the name of Jesus there.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok, I think this comes down to a difference in how we view the offices and gifts of apostle and prophet as they functioned in the OT and NT (apostolic) church. It also seems to have to do with ideas regarding continuationism vs. cessationism. I’m coming from the view that when the apostles and prophets received revelation from God on a matter (the lame man, the girl with the spirit of divination), they knew they had received immediate revelation from God and that they were indeed acting in accordance with his will. (Galatians 1:12) But ministers of the gospel aren’t hampered by the cessation of this kind of immediate revelation in dealing with demonic activity. God has prescribed the means for setting people free from bondage to sin and the devil in the proclamation and teaching (which includes correction, rebuke, exhortation, etc.) of his word.


There is also the situation here that Christians cannot be possessed by any demonic forces/powers, as we are now in Christ and sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, can still be oppressed by those same forces, and the remedies to combat that are the ones that you listed here. Those whoa re lost in sins can at times have the possession activity be going on in their lives.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But you’re not interacting with proposition that in dealing with troubled people, there is no longer the direct revelation from God to the Minister that there is indeed demonic activity, and what to do about it. We are no longer to directly speak to demons, to call them out, as Christ and the apostles did. To do so, considering our fallibility in discerning, could be very harmful to a troubled soul. The counsel and exhortation of the word of God is the cure offered for all troubles, including from Satan. Of course, the minister, and everyone, should pray for the Lord to deliver all people under their care from Satan and his devices! We pray this daily, as Christ taught us to pray. And in some instances, that prayer takes on new fervency.
> 
> But to speak and act as if we have direct revelation about what’s going on in individual circumstances, those gifts of revelation having ceased, is not good.
> 
> So I’d say it is indeed a matter of cessationism (I understand there some extreme forms or expressions of cessationism that are wrong) vs. continuationism (maybe inconsistent) that drives different approaches.


The activity of demonic possession is real today, but not nearly as many have the TV/and Movie show to us, and that involves on the ones who are lost . the Holy Spirit Himself should be giving discernment to the Pastor/Elders.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There is also the situation here that Christians cannot be possessed by any demonic forces/powers, as we are now in Christ and sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, can still be oppressed by those same forces, and the remedies to combat that are the ones that you listed here. Those whoa re lost in sins can at times have the possession activity be going on in their lives.



"Possession" is a misleading English word, as the Greek word simply means "demonized." Now those like John and Tony Podesta, who engage in satanic rituals, are probably far gone.

In any case, Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Were their any times they misunderstood that a demon was present though?



I don't know. I'm not trying to prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't on me. In any case, the book of Acts doesn't give us a complete list of every action ever performed (or not performed).


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

One of the ironies in saying that Peter knew infallibly (during that moment anyway) is that it has Peter's natural abilities being supervened upon. That's starting to look a lot like Holy Spirit Possession.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

Here is a good summary of verses that combat the Miltonian view that we tend to default to.
https://www.miqlat.org/angels-and-demons.htm


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> One of the ironies in saying that Peter knew infallibly (during that moment anyway) is that it has Peter's natural abilities being supervened upon. That's starting to look a lot like Holy Spirit Possession.


Think that the 2 extremes to be avoided about satan and demons would be to live and act as if they do not exist at all, or to live and act as if they are everywhere, and one is to be afraid of them. We are not to be ignorant of them and their ways, but to walk in faith and obedience to Jesus Himself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

Here are some other things to think about:

1. Where does the OT say that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the same as the Ha Satan in Job 1?

2. Wouldn't a better name for him be _ḥêlel ben shaḥar _(Isaiah 14:12).

3. Whoever the entity is in Genesis 3, he was originally a guardian cherub (Ezekiel 28).

4. Where does the Bible speak of _ḥêlel ben shaḥar's _taking 1/3 of the angels with him in a pre-temporal fall?


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here are some other things to think about:
> 
> 1. Where does the OT say that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the same as the Ha Satan in Job 1?
> 
> ...


Do the scriptures ever even mention that he was/is a former Archangel though?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do the scriptures ever even mention that he was/is a former Archangel though?



It specifically calls him a guardian cherub, which isn't the same thing as an archangel. An angel is just a messenger, and can be human or divine. Michael is called an Archangel. Interestingly, he doesn't challenge the devil directly, so it appears that he would have been lesser in rank. But that wouldn't have necessarily been the case with a guardian cherub.


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It specifically calls him a guardian cherub, which isn't the same thing as an archangel. An angel is just a messenger, and can be human or divine. Michael is called an Archangel. Interestingly, he doesn't challenge the devil directly, so it appears that he would have been lesser in rank. But that wouldn't have necessarily been the case with a guardian cherub.


I am mindful of the passage where is states that not even Michael dared to rebuke satan, but that he used the Lord Himself to rebuke him.


----------

