# Demon Possession



## OPC'n (Jul 23, 2012)

I believe strongly that many ppl who have mental illnesses act the way they do bc of a true mental disease. I know that in Biblical times there were demon possessed ppl. I also believe that some ppl who practice pagan worship (I've met some) are demon possessed. I don't believe that every unsaved person is running around demon possessed, and I don't believe that a saved person can be demon possessed. That being said, do you believe that ppl who don't practice pagan worship and are not saved could be vulnerable to being possessed? If so, what do you think makes one person more vulnerable than the next? I only ask this bc I know John MacArthur (not a fan of his teachings but he's a brother in Christ so I love him as such) stated once that he encountered someone who was demon possessed and he talked to the demon and prayed with the person. I get sort of skeptical about claims such as this (I'm in no way saying he was making it up just not sure if the "possessed" person was playing him or not) and was wondering what you all thought on the subject.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 23, 2012)

I think people can be demon possessed just as they were in Jesus' time. However, in Jesus' time that is when they were at their peak. I think our sin nature can be influenced by a spirit without actually being possessed per se...so sometimes I wonder about what MacArthur says in regard to that sort of stuff. Maybe the guy was just saying that because he was frustrated at God or something.


----------



## rookie (Jul 23, 2012)

I echo nearly everything you mentioned Sarah. I remember once, a couple of brothers from the Brethren Assembly (not to be confused with Assemblies of God), I was attending the Gospel Hall in a local town, wanted to reach out with gospel series (gospel messages every night of the week) in a town about 1.5 hrs from where the local assembly gathers. And they were provided with a trailer (more like an older mobile home) that was empty. So they went in to inspect it, wanting to make sure it was solid and that no one would fall through the floors and such.

I remember one of them telling me that when they walked in for the first time, they didn't pray for the location, the time or anything and both confessed after to not reading their scriptures for a couple of weeks, being preoccupied with various projects. When they walked in, they felt a huge "cold" coming toward them, that they could not explain. The kicker, it was in the middle of summer where temperatures are near 95 or higher (35 for us Canadians) where this was taking place. Nowhere near cold. And when they felt it..they said it was almost worthy of wearing a winter jacket....so both, ran out since they didn't know what was going on. So they asked the elders of a couple local churches in communion with ours to pray for the location and such...

When they approached the said mobile home again...they didn't sense anything similar to the previous visit. Temperature inside was the same as outside (still hot) and they did end up using that location for proclaiming the gospel.

To this day, they still don't know what was in that place..they just know they didn't want to stick around to find out. They also say if anyone needs an exorcist..not to call them after what the experienced. That being said...they are of the most faithful brothers to the scriptures that I know. 

Somewhat unrelated to the first post...but I can't deny a presence in this world..it's all around us.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jul 23, 2012)

I find that we shouldn't be too sceptical or too quick to see demons in things. It's easy to go either way. I don't like it when people talk of Christians being "possessed". The bible teaches that nowhere as I know of. If we are God's child, He possesses us, no-one else. Off the back of that, I do believe demonic influences can still come over individuals who are Christians, who love God. 

I see no reason for John MacArthur to lie, either. Some of what he says is good, some not. But I am sure he truly loves God. So unless he was deceived, I see no reason to not believe him. Jesus cast out demons. We know Satan is still active. False religions are the work of the demonic are they not?

Then again, I may be totally wrong. I'm open to correction...


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 23, 2012)

What is the definition of demon possession from Scripture, as opposed to being tempted by the Devil or his minions?


----------



## Elimelek (Jul 23, 2012)

Dear All

Demon Possession is probably one of the most difficult concepts found in the New Testament. Possession and exorcism is quite foreign to a Western mindset. In the Gospel of Mark it seems that exorcism is a very literal way in which Jesus establishes the kingdom of God on earth. The longest miracle that we have, Mark 5:1-20, is a story about Jesus exorcising the demon(s) Legion. It is quite interesting as the demons uses the words one is thought to be placed in the mouth of the exorcist. (Since the discovery of the Greek magical papyri our understand of exorcism has improved tremendously.) The demons are unable to exorcise Jesus. He command them to go into the pigs and the pigs go over a cliff into the sea. Thus all impurity is removed from the land of the Gerasenes. However they choose not to welcome Jesus but to show him the way. One can say that the Gerasenes "exorcised" Jesus from their territory. 

In Mark 5:1-20 the power of demons are nothing to Jesus, He doesn't heed them, but Jesus gives men a choice to follow Him or to turn from Him. We don't always accept the consequences of our decisions.

Personally, I don't think it is right to equate demon possession with mental disease. Demons inhabit a "sane person," not someone that needs psychiatric help. There is in all exorcisms a return to the person's original state. Many mental illnesses are a person's original state. Futhermore, I would ask, today, does the exorcism bring the kingdom of God or facilitate the spreading of it, if not, I am not sure how genuine it is. 

Kind regards


----------



## Zach (Jul 23, 2012)

I don't remember who it was that said it (maybe it was Dr. Sproul?) but I think his approach was a good one and can apply here. Regarding the existence of Satan he said something along the lines of we shouldn't pretend that the evil one is unreal and give him no attention in our fight against sin and we also shouldn't see the evil one everywhere and let him already be the center of our attention. Likewise, I think we should not pretend that demons do not exist nor should we see them everywhere and in everything and make them, rather than Christ, the center of our focus.


----------



## No Name #5 (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm noticing remarkably little Scripture in this thread. Where is the Scriptural support for your guys' contention that people can still be possessed by demons following the closing of the Canon?


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 24, 2012)

No Name #5 said:


> I'm noticing remarkably little Scripture in this thread. Where is the Scriptural support for your guys' contention that people can still be possessed by demons following the closing of the Canon?



Ok, first.....the closing of the Canon means you don't add (subtract) from Scripture. But what I think you mean is that we are not experiencing the miracles of healing etc, "your young men and woman prophesying", etc. However, I really don't find one can equate the time of when Christ and his disciples performed miracles and also the time of Pentecost with demon possession. People being freed from demon possession *was* one of the miracles seen just like the healing of ppl with illnesses that we have today. You wouldn't deny that we still have the same diseases/disabilities they had back then would you? Just bc the miracles performed by men ceased doesn't mean the illnesses ceased.


----------



## Rufus (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm skeptical of 95% of "demon" possessions. Usually because people end up associating the oddest things with "dark spirits". Sometimes it comes across as Witch Doctorish and hardly Christian. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 24, 2012)

It seems somewhat mysterious. Are there any good Reformed books out there on the subject.

I think that although we shouldn't equate mental illness with demon possession, it is the case that when someone is mentally ill their minds are weak and more susceptible to demonic attack. Once they are healed of the mental illness they are not susceptible in that way. I don't know if this accounts for some cases of demonic possession in Scripture.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 24, 2012)

Does the Bible ever mention mental illness/insanity *without* an evil spirit's being involved? I can't think of anywhere.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 24, 2012)

JennyG said:


> Does the Bible ever mention mental illness/insanity *without* an evil spirit's being involved? I can't think of anywhere.



Did they call it mental illness or demon possession is how I would look at it and answer your question. I'm not sure about every case in the Bible and what they called each one.


----------



## Andres (Jul 24, 2012)

The Scriptures are by no means exhaustive.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 24, 2012)

Andres said:


> The Scriptures are by no means exhaustive.


no. It's striking though, if the Bible only ever refers to mental troubles under the heading of demon intervention, while modern psychiatry only ever does the opposite, and has no category for possession except perhaps as a species of religion-induced delusion.

I haven't thought it through, but I'm interested in what wiser people think. For myself, I'm very conscious that my knee-jerk discounting of possession accounts is first of all a hangover from earlier secular and sceptical habits of thinking


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 24, 2012)

Something I'd like to point out is the fact that demon possession is almost always exclusive to the new testament. There are only a few occasions in the OT that might be considered demon possession. This is important because Christ and His apostles dealt specifically with demon possession. No one else within that time period were said to have dealt with demons. The elders in Ephesians weren't commissioned by Paul to get rid of demons, nor is that part of an office bearer's job. I think this too is key. If there is anything significant to demon possession, it was to show as a sign from Christ and His apostles the power of God at work in the early Church. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say, dogmatically, that demon possession is non-existent, nor am I going to say that it's real. I will say this: I don't see scriptural evidence to suggest it having a purpose after the period of the early church. 

I think John put it best when he spoke of the purpose of signs during that time: "30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20). The purpose of signs and miracles is this: that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you have life in Him.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 24, 2012)

Don't try and create a dichotomy between mental illness and demonic scheming. Because demons have very little power (after the cross) they rely on our own fears and superstitions to leverage the illusion of great power. Because of this, they will use mental illness (an abnormal pattern of behaviors) and/or other disabilities (allergies, chronic fatigue) to help create an illusion of dominion or influence. In the sovereignty of God, He will use this to discipline believers or move them into greater dependence upon him or to punish the non-believer. Satan has no real dominion, but anyone who practices willful rebellion puts himself UNDER the dominion of sin and that is the dominion of Satan.


----------



## calgal (Jul 24, 2012)

Sarah pardon me while I detour the discussion for a minute. The following physical disorders were called demonic possession until medicine advanced (or God guided the doctors to find a cure or at least stop said disorders):
1. Epilepsy/any seizure
2. Deafness/Blindness/Muteness
3. Club foot
4. Birthmark
5. Cleft Palate
6. Downs Syndrome
7. Physical Illness

Now saying this to a mama of a child with any of the above will not end well. And using this logic with a patient or doctor will most likely earn one a nice long chat with their licensing board. Can the above conditions be demonically enhanced? Absolutely. And mental illness is not possession by a demon (could it be? Sure! But is it? Most likely not). Just sayin'


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 24, 2012)

BobVigneault said:


> Don't try and create a dichotomy between mental illness and demonic scheming. Because demons have very little power (after the cross) they rely on our own fears and superstitions to leverage the illusion of great power. Because of this, they will use mental illness (an abnormal pattern of behaviors) and/or other disabilities (allergies, chronic fatigue) to help create an illusion of dominion or influence. In the sovereignty of God, He will use this to discipline believers or move them into greater dependence upon him or to punish the non-believer. Satan has no real dominion, but anyone who practices willful rebellion puts himself UNDER the dominion of sin and that is the dominion of Satan.



I couldn't agree more! Mental illness has nothing to do with demon possession anymore than physical illness does. Also, let's not forget that not only do I not see the Scriptures equating mental illness with possession I did find a physical disability that was due to demon possession so if anything there's a better case (not that I'm making it "just say'n") for physical disabilities to be that of demon possession if we are looking for Scriptural "proof" which I don't think we should since that's not what this thread is about. 

Luke 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 24, 2012)

Be careful about trying to build a doctrine around a narrative portion of Scripture. Jesus cast out many demons in order to demonstrate that the Kingdom had come and to display the Glory of the Father. There was greatly increased demonic activity throughout the earthly ministry of Christ, beginning with the birth (Why did God send an ARMY of angels in advance of and to attend the birth?)

As for disabilities God is quite clear on the cause in Exodus 4:11: Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

God used a demon to bring about muteness so that the message of Christ, the Gospel, the coming of the Kingdom, the Glory of God would be validated. These were signs and wonders to accompany the Kingdom coming with glory, majesty, dominion and authority.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 24, 2012)

BobVigneault said:


> Be careful about trying to build a doctrine around a narrative portion of Scripture. Jesus cast out many demons in order to demonstrate that the Kingdom had come and to display the Glory of the Father. There was greatly increased demonic activity throughout the earthly ministry of Christ, beginning with the birth (Why did God send an ARMY of angels in advance of and to attend the birth?)
> 
> As for disabilities God is quite clear on the cause in Exodus 4:11: Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?
> 
> God used a demon to bring about muteness so that the message of Christ, the Gospel, the coming of the Kingdom, the Glory of God would be validated. These were signs and wonders to accompany the Kingdom coming with glory, majesty, dominion and authority.



I wasn't trying to build a doctrine around physical disabilities (and that's why I said "If anything there's a better case (not that I'm making it "just say'n") and demon possession. I was using that Scripture to show how silly it is to say that mental illness is bc of demon possession. Ok I'm getting to be a really bad writer when even bawb misunderstands me


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 24, 2012)

My caution wasn't directed at you personally, dear one, I was just throwing it out as a general rule of caution. Bottom line is, sometimes sickness may be influenced by a demon (by the way, following Scripture, I never use the word possession) and most times it's not. In the same way, Jesus said that sometimes sickness is the direct result of personal sin and most times it is not. Either way, it's a very tough call.


----------



## Loopie (Jul 24, 2012)

I would like to quickly point out that not every instance of illness or disease in the New Testament was a result of demon possession:

Mark 1:32-34 (NASB) 
32 When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed. 
33 And the whole city had gathered at the door. 
34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was. 

In such examples as the woman with the flow of blood, this was not a case of demon possession. 

Now even though I agree that we as a society are more aware of epilepsy and other diseases, this does not at all mean that all such diseases were believed to have been caused by demons. In other words, it seems that demonic possession could manifest itself in ways that looked like diseases. 

Matthew 12:22 (NASB) 
22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 

Here we see that in this instance of demon-possession, it was manifested in the man as blindness and muteness. We see later on that Jesus does heal other blind men, but scripture does not at all say that those other instances of blindness were the result of demon possession (John 9:1-4). Blindness and muteness could have been the result of either natural causes, or a supernatural influence (demonic possession).

As for whether demonic possession in the New Testament still exists in the exact same form today is a question that I have not fully reached a conclusion on. I would certainly agree that demonic influences still exist today, but to say whether full possession still exists is a different question that I have yet to fully study.

What I will say though is that when I see events like the Miami man who was eating another man's face I cannot help but think of demonic influences (and possibly possession). Here is the news article for those who have not heard of it: Rudy Eugene Identified As Naked Miami Man Who Chewed Victim's Face (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

I would like to quote some interesting parts of that article:

"But Vega said when the police officer yelled at Eugene to back away, the naked man merely raised his head "with pieces of flesh in his mouth," growled, and began chewing again."

"The officer reportedly then shot Eugene once, but Eugene still continued to attack the man's face, prompting the officer to shoot multiple times until he was dead. The shooting and its aftermath were captured on surveillance video from the Miami Herald's parking garage, but police are still trying to piece together details and are asking witnesses to come forward."

"Aguilar says authorities have seen several such cases of delirium in which people *have taken off their clothes, seemingly displayed superhuman strength, and have used their jaws as weapons*. One such assault allegedly occurred after the Ultra Music Festival in March when a naked reveler Evan Oberfelder attacked a good samaritan and first responders after being hit by a taxi. 14 police officers were treated for blood exposure or injuries after managing to subdue Oberfelder."

Finally, after reading a bit more about the shooter in the Colorado town of Aurora, it seems obvious that something was wrong both 'mentally' and 'spiritually' with this man. I won't deny the possibility that demonic influences were involved in that man's decision to do what he did. Yet it seems to be very difficult to explain it from a purely natural or psychological perspective (he was a PhD student, no criminal background, seemingly normal parents, etc.). Perhaps there were drugs involved, but nothing has come out yet about that possibility. For that reason I cannot rule out the possibility of demonic influence. Thoughts?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 24, 2012)

JennyG said:


> Does the Bible ever mention mental illness/insanity *without* an evil spirit's being involved? I can't think of anywhere.



The case of Nebuchadnezzar seems to be one such, and there are probably more.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 24, 2012)

Sarah,

We had an interesting – and extended – discussion on this topic a few years back: http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/how-do-you-know-if-you-being-spiritually-attacked-37281/

Some good reformed books on the topic also noted in the thread.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 24, 2012)

Interesting article, Kevin, and I have often wondered in re: schizophrenics and similar - why don't they tell the voices, "no?"

For example, a terrible voice is shouting at them to, say, burn themselves with an iron. I don't understand why the schizophrenic or disturbed person does not say something like: "No, I will not do that. It is not God's will for me. If it is not God's will, I will not do it. I hear you shouting, but you have no authority over me, I don't have to obey you, I will not obey you. Shout for days, it does not matter, I will not do that or any other sinful thing."

I suppose it is easy for me to say, since I have never heard voices, thank God, but it seems to be an unexplored part of the "schizophrenic" situation: why don't they answer back?


----------



## Leslie (Jul 25, 2012)

The scriptures do not have a term that directly translates as demon possession. There is being demonized and having a demon, which are used interchangably in the Greek. Possession is an extra-scriptural concept and probably is not valid. The scriptures are totally silent on whether believers can or cannot be demonized. However, in Luke 11, Jesus implies that casting out demons from unbelivers is not a good idea; it may leave the patient in a worse way. Hence, I'll never ever attempt or refer for exorcism if the patient is an unbeliever. 

Last year I had a patient, a woman who went crazy right after childbirth, first baby. She was totally catatonic, refused to nurse the baby who was critically malnourished. I have pictures. We "borrowed" the baby to care for her, and promised to have a pastor come pray for the woman. There was a delay. After 6 months the woman showed up at the clinic after the family got tired of waiting and found their own exorcist. She was totally sane, wanted her baby back (which she got). She was a believer, both before and after. 

When I had a clinic in an occult-ridden area, I hired a local pastor part-time to deal with demon problems, we had so many. I had three events where patients were thrown into a fire by a demon (two patients, happened twice to one of them) resulting in extensive burns. 

The labels on mental illnesses are merely descriptive, not etiological. To say that someone has post-traumatic stress disorder is merely to say that his problem originated temporally after some event. It's not a diagnosis analogous to pneumococcal pneumonia. Same with schizophrenia or bipolar or whatever, in these cases descriptive of the symptoms but silent as to the cause. To say someone is demonized is indeed analogous to saying someone has pneumococcal pneumonia. It defines an etiology and suggests an approach to the problem. Hence, saying that someone is schizophrenic because he is demonized is analogous to saying that someone has intractable vomiting due to stomach cancer. It is a useful label which may be right or wrong in any particular case.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 25, 2012)

Mary,

Granted that one of your patients might have changed due to an "exorcist" doesn't give reason for demon possession. Also, I'd like to note that even though scripture doesn't particularly have the phrase "believers can't be possessed" it would be wrong to suggest they can. As we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (according to 1cor) and the Spirit does indwell within us, keep in mind that this is God. Knowing that God is amongst us, do you think scripture implies He would let an evil spirit possess one of His children? Also, I'd be interested if you could point me to a passage that shows a believer being possessed, since I'm pretty certain a passage like that is non-existent. I could be wrong though.

Like I said before, I'll say again, demon possession, within scripture, was done most specifically during the time of Christ on earth and His apostles. It was to demonstrate the power of God at work. Before and after that time, there would be no reason for demon possession.


----------



## Loopie (Jul 25, 2012)

I suppose we need to develop a clear definition of what we mean by demon possession. I think perhaps different people have a different idea of what would constitute demonic possession (how does this affect the human will, decision making, etc.?). How do we differentiate demonic influences and demonic possession? It is very important that we all are on the same page regarding the definition of 'influence' or 'possession' in order to proceed further.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 25, 2012)

I think you're right, Eric. We first need to define our terms. I would say demon possession proper is when one's volitional faculties – and consequently one's actions – are under the control of a foul spirit (aka devil, demon), at least some of the time. Demonization may also be of lesser degrees, such as causing hallucinations (visual, auditory, olfactory), bodily sensations, physical infirmities, mental images, unwanted feelings, etc.

What people in the Western countries (the "civilized" world), including the genuine Christians, categorically deny, missionaries and Christian workers in primitive cultures take for granted, i.e., that occurrences of the full spectrum of demonization exist today, and manifest often.

Christ came to set the prisoners of Satan free through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit of God; His coming did not automatically release all the devil's prisoners from the time of His appearing; the laborers in His vineyard carry on His work. Here in the West, when a person starts showing signs of that mental deterioration that comes with demonization (note: *not* all such deterioration is directly from demons) they get incarcerated and/or sent to a psych ward and given various kinds of drugs that deaden such activity. In some circles this is called "chemical restraints". That's why we don't see more of it.


----------



## John Bunyan (Jul 25, 2012)

Elimelek said:


> It is quite interesting as the demons uses the words one is thought to be placed in the mouth of the exorcist. (Since the discovery of the Greek magical papyri our understand of exorcism has improved tremendously.) The demons are unable to exorcise Jesus.


Please tell me more about it, or point me to places where I can read about this.


----------



## Loopie (Jul 26, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think you're right, Eric. We first need to define our terms. I would say demon possession proper is when one's volitional faculties – and consequently one's actions – are under the control of a foul spirit (aka devil, demon), at least some of the time. Demonization may also be of lesser degrees, such as causing hallucinations (visual, auditory, olfactory), bodily sensations, physical infirmities, mental images, unwanted feelings, etc.
> 
> What people in the Western countries (the "civilized" world), including the genuine Christians, categorically deny, missionaries and Christian workers in primitive cultures take for granted, i.e., that occurrences of the full spectrum of demonization exist today, and manifest often.
> 
> Christ came to set the prisoners of Satan free through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit of God; His coming did not automatically release all the devil's prisoners from the time of His appearing; the laborers in His vineyard carry on His work. Here in the West, when a person starts showing signs of that mental deterioration that comes with demonization (note: *not* all such deterioration is directly from demons) they get incarcerated and/or sent to a psych ward and given various kinds of drugs that deaden such activity. In some circles this is called "chemical restraints". That's why we don't see more of it.



Steve,

I think you make some excellent points, and I think I would agree with the definitions that you laid out. For instance, when I think of demon possession, I think of a person as, in a sense, no longer being themselves. They no longer act 'human', and might communicate in a way that could not possibly be 'themselves'.

As an example I would point out in Mark 5:9 that the demon, when asked its name, called itself 'Legion', for it was many. Now today we could perhaps categorize such a person as having 'multiple personalities', where there are 'many' persons inside one human. Would it be wrong to allow the possibility that some people with multiple personality disorder today might be demon possessed?

I also like your definition of demonization (or simply put 'demonic influences'). In my mind such a person is still 'in control of themselves', and they are still 'themselves'. They still act 'human', but are simply being attacked or influenced by demonic forces.

In the end, I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who is a Christian, who has the Holy Spirit living within them, CANNOT be 'possessed' by a demon. As for being 'influenced' or 'attacked' by demons, it seems that this still might happen to a Christian today. That is not to say that the Christian is powerless, or that Christ cannot protect his sheep. Some Christians I know claim to have felt at times that they were being attacked and discouraged, or made to feel sudden fear or dread. Of course, calling out to the Lord in prayer was their reaction to these situations, and so they found peace and safety in the Lord (and rightfully so, since He never fails).

Finally, when it comes to demonic possession occurring in unbelievers, I honestly do believe that this still happens today, though not necessarily to the extent that it happened in the New Testament. I certainly believe that Satan has been bound in a sense, but I also recognize that according to 1 Peter 5:8, Satan stills prowls like a lion seeking whom he may devour. Now I know that 1 Peter 5:8 is not specifically talking about demonic possession, but it seems that Satan is bound in one sense while still roaming in another (and I am trying to figure out how to best understand that).

I guess my question is: Is Satan bound in such a way that demonic possession (in unbelievers) no longer takes place at all? Similarly, has demonic influence (as defined above), become less common due to Satan being bound, or is it still as common as it was at the time of Christ?


----------



## JennyG (Jul 26, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Originally Posted by JennyG
> Does the Bible ever mention mental illness/insanity without an evil spirit's being involved? I can't think of anywhere.
> The case of Nebuchadnezzar seems to be one such, and there are probably more.



oh yes, thanks for reminding me! I'd forgotten that one


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 26, 2012)

Eric, the understanding of Rev 20:2-3 where Satan is said to be bound usually – at least by the amillennial school in its interpretation of prophecy – is said to refer to his ability to deceive the nations qua nations. During the "thousand" years of this binding the nations were no longer under satanic thrall due to the gospel being preached in them. In the old dispensation salvation was generally confined within the precincts of Israel, whereas in the new it went forth through all the world. The "thousand" is a symbolic number meaning completeness, fulness, as in Ps 50:10's "the cattle upon a thousand hills" are the LORD's, that is to say, not _only_ on a thousand hills, but the cattle in all the world are His.

So while the nations, having the gospel during the period of Satan's binding (he cannot stop the spread of the gospel – not even by killing the messengers of it) are freed from deception, when that "millennial" period is finished the nations will once again be in the bondage of deception. That is often understood to mean that the gospel of Christ, and its messengers, will be outlawed – officially deemed invalid, negligible – and Satan will once again seek to establish his own kingdom in the earth. This period, although short, will be a time of great persecution and affliction for true Christians and their churches. This loosing of Satan is by the hand of the sovereign Lord.

But even though – during the thousand year period – the nations as such are not deceived, the demonic legions still deceive individuals and groups, as much as they ever have, if not more – or at least as much as in the pagan nations before the first advent of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Loopie (Jul 27, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Eric, the understanding of Rev 20:2-3 where Satan is said to be bound usually – at least by the amillennial school in its interpretation of prophecy – is said to refer to his ability to deceive the nations qua nations. During the "thousand" years of this binding the nations were no longer under satanic thrall due to the gospel being preached in them. In the old dispensation salvation was generally confined within the precincts of Israel, whereas in the new it went forth through all the world. The "thousand" is a symbolic number meaning completeness, fulness, as in Ps 50:10's "the cattle upon a thousand hills" are the LORD's, that is to say, not _only_ on a thousand hills, but the cattle in all the world are His.
> 
> So while the nations, having the gospel during the period of Satan's binding (he cannot stop the spread of the gospel – not even by killing the messengers of it) are freed from deception, when that "millennial" period is finished the nations will once again be in the bondage of deception. That is often understood to mean that the gospel of Christ, and its messengers, will be outlawed – officially deemed invalid, negligible – and Satan will once again seek to establish his own kingdom in the earth. This period, although short, will be a time of great persecution and affliction for true Christians and their churches. This loosing of Satan is by the hand of the sovereign Lord.
> 
> But even though – during the thousand year period – the nations as such are not deceived, the demonic legions still deceive individuals and groups, as much as they ever have, if not more – or at least as much as in the pagan nations before the first advent of Jesus Christ.



Thanks Steve! That does indeed help to clarify things.


----------



## Leslie (Jul 28, 2012)

It is not valid to argue from the silence of scripture that believers cannot be posseessed. By the same logic, one could say that cars don't exist because scripture doesn't mention them. In the case of my patient who had postpartum psychosis (by stateside criteria), it was the unanimous opinion of all those around that she was demonized. It seems a little inappropriate to maintain from two continents away that it could not have been because of one's theoretical theological framework. What else, besides demonization, responds dramatically to exorcism? Incidently, the stateside medical establishment is helpless to deal with postpartum psychosis aside from mitigating the symptoms with brain-numbing drugs. This woman was totally mentally normal instantaneously and stayed that way over a matter of weeks with no psychotropic medication whatsoever.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Mary,
> 
> Granted that one of your patients might have changed due to an "exorcist" doesn't give reason for demon possession. Also, I'd like to note that even though scripture doesn't particularly have the phrase "believers can't be possessed" it would be wrong to suggest they can. As we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (according to 1cor) and the Spirit does indwell within us, keep in mind that this is God. Knowing that God is amongst us, do you think scripture implies He would let an evil spirit possess one of His children? Also, I'd be interested if you could point me to a passage that shows a believer being possessed, since I'm pretty certain a passage like that is non-existent. I could be wrong though.
> 
> Like I said before, I'll say again, demon possession, within scripture, was done most specifically during the time of Christ on earth and His apostles. It was to demonstrate the power of God at work. Before and after that time, there would be no reason for demon possession.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 28, 2012)

Leslie said:


> It is not valid to argue from the silence of scripture that believers cannot be posseessed.



You just defeated you're own argument. It's not valid to argue from the silence of scripture that believers CAN be possessed (according to your own reasoning). 

Also, i pointed out quite clearly that there is no purpose for demon possession anymore. It would be quite a thing for God the Spirit to indwell a body with an evil spirit inside. Interesting how one can put the Holy Other in the same room with evil. I don't believe scripture is utterly silent on this issue. I have pointed out that scripture implies such.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 28, 2012)

Leslie said:


> The scriptures do not have a term that directly translates as demon possession. There is being demonized and having a demon, which are used interchangably in the Greek. Possession is an extra-scriptural concept and probably is not valid. The scriptures are totally silent on whether believers can or cannot be demonized. However, in Luke 11, Jesus implies that casting out demons from unbelivers is not a good idea; it may leave the patient in a worse way. Hence, I'll never ever attempt or refer for exorcism if the patient is an unbeliever.
> 
> Last year I had a patient, a woman who went crazy right after childbirth, first baby. She was totally catatonic, refused to nurse the baby who was critically malnourished. I have pictures. We "borrowed" the baby to care for her, and promised to have a pastor come pray for the woman. There was a delay. After 6 months the woman showed up at the clinic after the family got tired of waiting and found their own exorcist. She was totally sane, wanted her baby back (which she got). She was a believer, both before and after.
> 
> When I had a clinic in an occult-ridden area, I hired a local pastor part-time to deal with demon problems, we had so many. I had three events where patients were thrown into a fire by a demon (two patients, happened twice to one of them) resulting in extensive burns.



I find mistakes in this comment. 

Firstly, let's talk about the Scripture you gave. I don't agree that it was Christ's caution to not cast out demons from an unbeliever. I believe the point he was making was this: unbelievers who were demon possessed and then were freed from them didn't have the capability of keeping out demons bc they don't have the Holy Spirit within them to keep out the demons. Even his disciples had to cast out demons using Jesus' name for only God has authority over demons. On the other hand, believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit isn't going to share his temple with demons. Since this Scripture is talking about the unbeliever and it states that since the unbeliever had put his "house in order", the one demon on his own was incapable of entering the man/woman alone and would have to go out and recruited more demons to overcome the unbeliever. How much stronger would the believer be who is filled with the Holy Spirit? The devil and all his legions wouldn't be more powerful to overcome the Holy Spirit and enter the believer. It's just ridiculous to think that is even possible, bc what you are saying is that the Holy Spirit is too weak to keep out demons from his own. I think if you think about it you would agree to that. I also don't see the purpose God would have in allowing a believer to be demon possessed. Sanctification process is actually a process he demands (does within us) from believers and allowing demons to inhabit us just goes in the wrong direction. 

Secondly, if she is a believer having the Holy Spirit within her Who isn't too weak to keep out demons and Who would have no good reason to allow demons within his temple, she couldn't be demon possessed....thus she actually did have PPD as defined by the medical community. 

Thirdly, you don't find the reformed church going around casting out demons. That's more of the Pentecostal denomination who has a lot of incorrect doctrine. 

Fourthly, I would have to question the believability of a family who sends a new born infant home with a medical caretaker and wants that same caretaker to find an exorcist for their loved one. Then gets tired of waiting SIX MONTHS (really? they are ok with missing the first six months of a new born's life?) for you to find an exorcist and then just like that they find one and boom she's free from the demons by the exorcist. Why did they wait that long for you to find one? I'm not saying that where you live isn't dark with demonic powers (I'm thinking they have pagan worship in that country), and that it isn't beyond God to have a pastor who can cast out demons. But if he does and can, then I would also have to believe that he can discern between ppl who do and don't have demons. Since it's impossible for believers to have demons, then I have a problem believing that he is in fact that man. BTW, if you don't think the Bible is talking about oppression as being possession, why do you use the term exorcism? Wouldn't exorcism imply possession? 

You see how this just doesn't make any sense. Medical caregivers shouldn't see demons in any mentally ill patient and should treat these ppl. As a caregiver, you should know that antidepressants are not brain numbing medications which is the first line of treatment for ppl with PPD.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2012)

I do think the Lord Jesus cast demons out of unbelievers, though I think some did become believers as a result. We have so many accounts of His healing and casting demons out of masses of people. Some of these were Jews, but unregenerated (I think) and others Gentiles (in both groups some of whom afterwards became believers).

What Mary says is true though, that if – per Matt 12:43 ff – someone has a devil expelled and is not converted to Christ, the devil can return and bring seven worse devils with him (although He was talking of the case of unregenerate, unrepentant Israel in this saying). 

Is there no purpose for possession in these days? Is there any purpose for any evil? We know there must be, for it exists. Hell has _its_ purposes as well as Heaven. Of course the sovereign Lord overrides all evil and works it to His good ends. If one were to go to primitive lands (in Asia, Africa, South America, etc) one might see things unheard-of here in the West; I refer to places where the Gospel of Christ and the power of God is not known, or is rejected. Has the human condition undergone massive change (immunity from demonic attack) because Christ came into the world? In 2 Tim 2:26 Paul says that some are caught in “the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”

Now, I often hear it said that Christians are immune from possession of the devil, and I fully agree, with this caveat: there is a difference between full possession, where a person’s volition and hence their actions are taken over by an evil spirit, their personalities “submerged” in the evil spirit’s takeover, and the lesser varieties of influence and infiltration by devils.

Consider what Calvin says in his comments on Eph 4:27, "Neither give place to the devil"?
Neither give place (τῷ διαβόλῳ) to the devil. I am aware of the interpretation which some give of this passage. Erasmus, who translates it, “neither give place to the Slanderer,” (calumniatori) shews plainly that he understood it as referring to malicious men. But I have no doubt, Paul’s intention was, to guard us against allowing Satan to take possession of our minds, and, by keeping in his hands this citadel, to do whatever he pleases. We feel every day how impossible, or, at least, how difficult it is to cure long-continued hatred. What is the cause of this, but that, instead of resisting the devil, we yield up to him the possession of our heart? Before the poison of hatred has found its way into the heart, anger must be thoroughly dislodged. [Taken from this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/f64/how...itually-attacked-37281/index2.html#post469974]​ 
To give you a more current example with respect to a believer: Take someone who has been genuinely converted to Christ, but has backslidden and reverted to taking drugs – the psychedelic, _pharmakeia _variety – and has opened him or herself to demonic influence deep in their being. Now, that one who belongs to Christ, and has been indwelt and sealed (unto eternal salvation – Eph 1:13-14) by the Spirit of God – is His beloved possession – cannot be possessed by another, for who can overpower the Almighty or take what is His? But there is such a thing as spiritual fornication – adultery – whether it be deliberate or through deception, and one might expect God to act in reclaiming one of His children from such; how He acts will depend of the circumstances of the situation. He will not lose a one of those who are His!

But do not be deceived: sin will give entrance to the spirit of ungodliness. How? Well, take sins of the flesh, sexual lust, gluttony, sloth, habit-forming drugs, alcoholism . . . continual indulgence weakens the volition in man, leading to passivity of the will and the giving of oneself over to strong desires of various sorts – do you think that such passions cannot be amplified by the demonic, that giving place to the devil’s temptations will not also give opening to his activity, the end of which is the enslavement of the whole person?

Then we have the modern “arts” – the _arts of Babylon_ I call them – wherein we are addicted to entertainment, fantasies that we utterly delight in . . . I refer, of course, to the movies and television. For some, they turn over the exploits of Batman or – you name your favorite superheroes – in their minds far more than the exploits of the Champion of Heaven and His singlehanded warfare against the entire demonic realm, and the stunning way He became the “Death of death” that we might no longer taste its horrible bitterness.

Who is the brilliance, the genius, behind the Babylonian arts that so enthrall us? When we give our imaginations to the panoply of demi-gods – contemplating their powers, might, victories, adversaries, defeats, triumphs, etc – what are we doing? There are some who give themselves over to this to such an extent that their spiritual lives are perfunctory – functionally negligible – exercises, while the real action in their hearts are the high-tech wonders that have captivated their souls. Is there demonic activity in such?

Please note: I make no law whatsoever with regard to movies, TV, books, comics, graphic novels, computer games, etc. I have the freedom to watch or read what I will, and I would take it from no one. But I guard my mind against the entrance of that which is filthy, or which would ensnare me in its power, that which would take up too much of my time. Spiritual awareness is of the highest importance to me. Awareness of what? The King of course! Without an ongoing – constant – communion with Jesus I am a broken and weak wretch. He is that which preserves me from temptation, that which upholds me in trials.

We must learn this, each of us who name His name, for the days are coming when we shall need this cultivated practice of drawing on His presence for every need – in times of peace, and times of trouble.

We are so smug about our supposed “perpetual deliverance” from the demonic that we grow lazy and careless. We give our attention all else but that which is the one crucial thing – it is in the intimate presence of our Savior that we are safe from all that will come to us. And the preaching of the Gospel, be it on the streets, in the pulpit, or individual witness, is the power of God and the weapon of the church.

Sorry to come on so heavy, but I see trouble coming quickly, and we unaware and unprepared.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 28, 2012)

Steve, I recognize within your writing that you agree that it is our own sin that trips us up which can lead us astray if we don't constantly "work out our salvation through fear and trembling". We are to blame for our own trespasses. I just wanted to say that first. I'm not denying that there are some ppl out there that are demon possessed, but I believe they are those who practice pagan worship and possibly other unbelievers are. However, I don't believe that all unbelievers are demon possessed and I'm sure you would agree. That said, Calvin is talking about being tempted or deceived by Satan and then we fall into sin not being possessed by him or his demons. We are not possessed by demons when we are tempted and "backslide" (I don't believe in that terminology since I believe in sanctification. I believe that everything that happens in a believer's life happens for further sanctification. God doesn't cause us to sin but he does use each occasion of our lives to further our sanctification.). David, when he was sexually tempted, wasn't demon possessed even though he stayed in his sin for quite sometime. Why? Because he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 20:42
For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand," and I Cor 12:3 "and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.") Don't you find it curious that Jesus states in that Scripture when the unbeliever is freed from the demon and "puts his house in order" the demon is then incapable of reentering that unbeliever and that the demon has to recruit other demons to form a stronger force in order to reenter the unbeliever? Since that is true, why would you think that it would be possible for the whole army of Satan's demons to enter a believer who has the Holy Spirit within them? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit isn't strong enough to keep them out? I don't think you believe that. If he is strong enough to keep them out, to which purpose would he allow the believer to become demon possessed? And if it's ok with the Holy Spirit for the believer to become demon possessed by sinning what would be his purpose for casting out the demons before he was a believer? Why not leave the demons in the believer if they come and go with the believer's sinful acts? I believe that flies in the face of the sanctification process. When I asked Leslie if God would have any purpose for allowing someone to be demon possessed, I was referring to a believer which I clearly stated. I think you didn't understand that part since you talked about its purpose and hell. So all the sin that you talked about of which we may partake is our sinful nature indulging itself. We sin every moment of the day bc we are not yet perfected. However, that doesn't make any believer open to demon possession. I don't care how long they stay in their sin (David being a good example), if they are saved, they are protected by the Holy Spirit who wouldn't allow a demon to possess his temple.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2012)

Hi Sarah,

Actually it was Andrew I was answering re purpose of demon possession; looking back on his post, I see he also was referring to a believer. To make myself clear, a believer _cannot_ be possessed in the full sense of possession, as they are already the possession of God, and cannot be taken from Him (I did state this above). What I said that did pertain to a believer was “influence and infiltration”, that is, their controlling or influencing some feelings, sensations, thoughts, or actions. You say this cannot happen? Because we are sanctified?

I said nothing about the expelled demon being incapable of reentering on its own and needing other devils to gain entrance! I think he takes 7 others more wicked than himself because there is room for them and a fully empty heart is an attractive dwelling for them.

Nor did I say a word about “a whole army of demons . . . [entering] a believer who has the Holy Spirit within them” – where did you get _that_ from? What I do say is that we can be influenced and even infiltrated either through deception or through sin. By influenced I mean “influenced to act or think or feel a certain ungodly way” through thoughts, feelings, or leadings prompted by Satan (or his underlings). Do you not think this can happen? What then is temptation?

To repeat, a believer _cannot_ be possessed by the or a devil, not in the proper sense of possession. That we are in the process of being sanctified – or even once and for all set apart for God’s use and purposes – does not exempt us from falling prey to temptation or deception, and consequent alignment with the will of the evil one. There is no such thing as “automatic protection” for the believer; he or she must ever be watchful and prayerful. 

Jesus said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me . . .” (Matt 16:23), for Peter had aligned himself with the will of the devil. The Lord also said to Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not . . .” (Lk 22:31-32).

So, please, Sarah, don’t get me wrong when I talk of believers vulnerable to be influenced or even infiltrated (_not_ possessed, but inroads made into their lives and hearts) by the demonic through their own (the believers) sinful opening themselves to do evil, or their being deceived that something evil (such as the so-called Holy Laughter spirituality) is good and thus embrace it.

You think there is automatic protection for the believer whatever he or she does? Can you show me this from Scripture (if this is even what you are saying – it is possible I am not understanding you)?


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 28, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Sarah,
> 
> Actually it was Andrew I was answering re purpose of demon possession; looking back on his post, I see he also was referring to a believer. To make myself clear, a believer _cannot_ be possessed in the full sense of possession, as they are already the possession of God, and cannot be taken from Him (I did state this above). What I said that did pertain to a believer was “influence and infiltration”, that is, their controlling or influencing some feelings, sensations, thoughts, or actions. You say this cannot happen? Because we are sanctified? My bad... i thought you were talking to me since it was right under my comment and you didn't link your comment to anyone else. I do believe that we are tempted by evil spirits but that's all. I don't believe they are capable of infiltrating or controlling our minds. I believe that they tempt us and that our sinful nature chooses to sin. I don't believe we can blame the Devil and I doubt you are saying that we can.
> 
> ...


 ..............


----------



## Leslie (Jul 29, 2012)

The scriptures are silent as to the spiritual status, believer or unbeliever, of those who were demonized. Hence scripture is silent on this. Hence we cannot say that only believers or only unbelivers can be demonized. Where the scriptures are silent, we must be silent. 




Andrew P.C. said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > It is not valid to argue from the silence of scripture that believers cannot be posseessed.
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 29, 2012)

Hi Sarah, I’d like to keep this simple, and to-the-point. So I’ll only focus on one thing, that which seem to be the main difference we have. We both agree that a born-again child of God cannot be possessed of the devil. By possession I mean being taken over in such a sense that the personality (including the volition) is “submerged” beneath the personality of the devil. This is a full takeover of the person, full-blown possession, and cannot happen to a believer.

Where we differ concerns what I call _influence_ or _infiltration_, which are lesser encroachments of the devil against us (I quoted Calvin on such in post #40 above). With regard to my using the word infiltrated, you said, “I guess you would have to define this word according to what you mean by using it bc I see it the same as possession.”

It is not the same. Peter was not possessed when he rebuked the Lord and told Him He should not go to Jerusalem to be killed (Matt 16:22), but where did he get that thought? Where did it come from? Did it _originate_ from Peter’s own heart? The Lord seems to think otherwise as He turned to Peter and addressed Satan directly. Hendriksen, in his Matthew commentary, says on this passage,

“. . . the Lord recognizes that Satan is using Peter as his agent in an attempt to seduce Jesus to try to obtain the crown without enduring the cross. So Jesus, in speaking to Peter, is actually addressing Satan, or if one prefers, is addressing whatever in Peter has been perversely influenced by the prince of evil . . . Jesus continues: *You are a trap *[an offense AV]* to me, for you are looking at things not from God’s point of view but from men’s*. Jesus immediately recognizes the ‘trap’ Satan is setting. Not for a moment does he entertain the devil’s suggestion. He knows that he is being confronted by the same tempter who at a previous occasion tried to inveigle him with a false promise . . . 

“Peter, allowing himself to be influenced by Satan, was speaking from the foolishly human point of view . . . [and] did not realize that he was asking for his own eternal damnation [if Christ had not gone to the cross].” (pp. 655, 656)​ 
This is an example of both being influenced by Satan, and having one’s thoughts and even volition infiltrated. By infiltrated I refer to the evil suggestion of the devil taking root within Peter’s mind and then expressed and spoken to Jesus. The devil had gained entrance to Peter's mind and his thoughts were channeled through him. The Lord reproved this instantly, and no doubt Peter was stung by this fearsome rebuke of Christ and repented instantly. This was the Lord, but sometimes evil advice – suggested by Satan – takes root in people’s hearts.

Consider the other verse I mentioned, where Jesus says to Peter when he insists he will not deny Him: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not . . .” (Lk 22:31-32).

You answered to this, “Is this the ‘infiltration’ part of which you referred to earlier? If so, I still don't know what you mean by that on a personal level. As to [this] second Scripture... Satan didn't get Peter.” 

Oh no? He did indeed get him, but only for a while – till he repented. Both of these instances reflect satanic influence to the extent of infiltration, a) in the first case, being the personal messenger of Satan delivering a horrific temptation to the Savior (of course Peter’s indwelling sin was involved, but this does not negate the yielding of his mind and voice to be instruments of Satan, if but for a moment), and b) denying before the world that he even knew Christ, this through intense fear, but a wicked lie nonetheless. What did Jesus say to the crowd come to arrest Him in the garden? “. . . this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Lk 22:53). This same “power of darkness” – the age-old fury and murderous rage of the prince of demons against the God he sought to supplant, and Who cast him from heaven – was there in those same men in the courtyard with Peter, and Peter, brash and brave as he was, could not stand up to this invisible torrent of satanic rage coursing through these men (and women). He folded due to the intensity of this Christ-hating fury that pervaded the high priest’s palace (in the council chambers of the high priest this fury was focused like a laser against the Lord, and they illicitly sentenced him to death – men, filled with the rage of Satan their father (John 8:40-44) – condemning the most high God for blasphemy. They could not have done any of this in their own puny strength. The power of darkness was afoot in Jerusalem that night, and struck at the Lord, and His apostle.

We do not know much of these raging passions and furies of opposition to Christ _channeled through men_ here in the “civilized” West – not *yet* – but Peter knew it and fell. Satan had him. But the Lord had asked the Father to save him, and the Almighty delivered him from Satan’s snare – through granting grace and repentance.

We may sing this hymn (although better known in the UK), Will your anchor hold, but we don’t know it as our persecuted brethren do.

At any rate, Sarah (sorry to go on so long), the word of God does show the wiles of satanic influence and infiltration in a person. (It may be argued that Peter was not filled with the Spirit yet, and that’s true, but the principle remains: we are responsible for staying in the Lord’s presence and depending on His power to sustain us through all, and not to “give place to the devil” (Eph 4:27), but resist him and his wiles in the power of the Lord’s might (Eph 6:10 ff).)

This all is a matter of personal consciousness as well; how aware are we of our thought life? The fleeting thoughts that pass through our minds, are they all simply of us? Are any of the Holy Spirit bringing His word to mind? Are any of the adversary seeking to counter God’s word with error, various temptations – fear, lust, anger, pride – catering to our indwelling sin. How aware are we of what goes though our perceptual fields? What happens when we allow something in because a) we believe a lie, thinking it a truth, and embrace it and build part of our lives around it? Or b) because the extreme delight of it overwhelms our defenses against what we know is a forbidden pleasure – and if we keep indulging it, our will to resist growing weaker and weaker, till it has complete mastery over us, does not this become a stronghold of darkness? Is this merely a work of the indwelling sin in us, or has a satanic hand been stoking the infernal fires of our passions?

We need to know the wiles of our adversaries. Our comfort zones won’t always protect us. But the Lord will.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 30, 2012)

Steve, I got this from Calvin's commentary on Matt 16:22-23 

"Matthew 16:22. _And Peter, taking him aside, began to rebuke him._ It is a proof of the excessive zeal of Peter, that he reproves his Master; though it would appear that the respect he entertained for him was his reason for taking him aside, because he did not venture to reprove him in presence of others. Still, it was highly presumptuous in Peter to advise our Lord to spare himself, as if he had been deficient in prudence or self-command. But so completely are men hurried on and driven headlong by inconsiderate zeal, that they do not hesitate to pass judgment on God himself, according to their own fancy. Peter views it as absurd, that the Son of God, who was to be the Redeemer of the nation, should be crucified by the elders, and that he who was the Author of life should be condemned to die. He therefore endeavors to restrain Christ from exposing himself to death. The reasoning is plausible; but we ought without hesitation to yield greater deference to the opinion of Christ than to the zeal of Peter, whatever excuse he may plead.
And here we learn what estimation in the sight of God belongs to what are called good intentions. So deeply is pride rooted in the hearts of men, that they think wrong is done them, and complain, if God does not comply with every thing that they consider to be right. With what obstinacy do we see the Papists boasting of their devotions! But while they applaud themselves in this daring manner, God not only rejects what they believe to be worthy of the highest praise, but even pronounces a severe censure on its folly and wickedness. Certainly, if the feeling and judgment of the flesh be admitted, Peter’s intention was pious, or at least it looked well. And yet Christ could not have conveyed his censure in harsher or more disdainful language. Tell me, what is the meaning of that stern reply? How comes it that he who so mildly on all occasions guarded against breaking even a bruised reed, (Isaiah 42:3,) thunders so dismally against a chosen disciple? The reason is obvious, that in the person of one man he intended to restrain all from gratifying their own passions. Though the lusts of the flesh, as they resemble wild beasts, are difficult to be restrained, yet there is no beast more furious than the wisdom of the flesh. It is on this account that Christ reproves it so sharply, and bruises it, as it were, with an iron hammer, to teach us that it is only from the word of God that we ought to be wise.
23. _Get thee behind me_, Satan. It is idle to speculate, as some have done, about the word (ὀπίσω) behind; as if Peter were ordered to follow, and not to go before; for, in a passage which we have already considered, Luke (4:8) informs us that our Lord used those very words in repelling the attacks of Satan, and the verb ὕπαγε (from which the Latin word Apage is derived) signifies to withdraw Christ therefore throws his disciple to a distance from him, because, in his inconsiderate zeal, he acted the part of Satan; for he does not simply call him adversary, but gives him the name of the devil, as an expression of the greatest abhorrence.
_Thou art an offense to me_; for thou relishest not those things which are of God, *but those which are of men*. We must attend to this as the reason assigned by our Lord for sending Peter away from him. Peter was an offense to Christ, so long as he opposed his calling; for, when Peter attempted to stop the course of his Master, it was not owing to him that he did not deprive himself and all mankind of eternal salvation. This single word, therefore, shows with what care we ought to avoid every thing that withdraws us from obedience to God. And Christ opens up the original source of the whole evil, when he says that Peter relishes those things which are of men. Lest we and our intentions should be sent away by our heavenly Judge to the devil, let us learn not to be too much attached to our own views, but submissively to embrace whatever the Lord approves. Let the Papists now go and extol their notions to the skies. They will one day learn, when they appear before the judgment-seat of God, what is the value of their boasting, which Christ declares to be from Satan And with regard to ourselves, if we do not, of our own accord, resolve to shut ourselves out from the way of salvation by deadly obstacles, let us not desire to be wise in any other manner than from the mouth of God."

Calvin doesn't seem to speak of Peter being "infiltrated" by Satan. I don't believe Satan controls the believer's mind for if he did then we could blame our sins on him. Sproul once said (this isn't a quote word for word) "that Satan cannot be in all places at once like God is, and that he doubts seriously that Satan has ever looked his way. Satan is after the "big fish" (Peter would have been one) and tempts them. For the rest of us, his demons tempt us." Do his demons whisper deceit into our ears? Yes, but neither Satan nor his demons control our minds or infiltrate our minds/bodies.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 30, 2012)

Sarah, your post makes it clear that Calvin does not agree in this instance as to what motivated Peter to rebuke the Lord, though the quote below does show him to agree with _the principle_ I have stated as regards influence and infiltration; Calvin on Ephesians 4:27:

Neither give place (τῷ διαβόλῳ) to the devil. I am aware of the interpretation which some give of this passage. Erasmus, who translates it, “neither give place to the Slanderer,” (calumniatori) shews plainly that he understood it as referring to malicious men. But I have no doubt, Paul’s intention was, to guard us against allowing Satan to take possession of our minds, and, by keeping in his hands this citadel, to do whatever he pleases. We feel every day how impossible, or, at least, how difficult it is to cure long-continued hatred. What is the cause of this, but that, instead of resisting the devil, we yield up to him the possession of our heart? Before the poison of hatred has found its way into the heart, anger must be thoroughly dislodged.​ 
You will no doubt be aware he is not talking of full-blown “possession”, but a far lesser (usually temporary) control given to the devil by our yielding to sin. Also, you should know that when speaking of “the devil”, by metonymy this may refer to the lesser devils. I think Sproul is correct in the loose quote of him you gave.


----------



## Elimelek (Aug 18, 2012)

*In answer on John Bunyan's request*

Dear John Bunyan

I am not sure how to point or tell more about what I have previously written. More than a century or so after the Gospels was written, some Greek magical papyri were written which could serve as manuals for exorcisms. These were discovered in the middle of the 20th century. The interesting thing was that these exorcism formulas not only contained the names of ancient deities but even Jesus' name and the Lord's name were used. Here is the biographical details of two of the books in which the magical papyri was published: 

[FONT=&quot]Preisendanz, K., 1973. _Paryri Graecae Magicae: Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri (volume I). _2nd edition Stuttgart: Verlag B.G. Teubner.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Preisendanz, K., 1974. _Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri (volume II). _2nd edition Stuttgart: Verlag B.G. Teubner.

Unfortunately I was not able to look at the third volume myself. 

In Mark 5:7 Legion addresses Jesus with the following words, "[/FONT]τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου; *ὁρκίζω* *σε* (horkizo se) τὸν θεόν, μή με βασανίσῃς." (What do I have to do with you, Jesus son of the Most High? I beseech/ exorcise you God, do not martyr me.) (own translation, I usually translate into Afrikaans, so I don't take it as a final translation).

We find in Papyrus XVI (9 times) the formula [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]*ὁρκίζω* *σε*" (horkizo se) on the lips of the exorcist followed by the type of demon, "demon of death." A small variant is found in Papyrus XVIII "exhorkizo se." You can look at papyri XXII, XXXIX, P56, P9, P10, P12 as further examples. 

It is clear that the general practise was to gain control over the demon through using powerful names of which the names of Jesus, God and other ancient idols were used. The exorcist exorcised a demon by identifying which sort of demon he was (the demon already knows that Jesus is the son of the Most High), the seal of Solomon (the David star) could also be used as a symbol of which the demon would be scared and it could extract him from the person. Like always, Jesus doesn't conform to exorcism practises.

Commentaries that might help is M Eugene Boring's Gospel of Mark in the New Testament Library and more critical Adela Yabro Collins' Gospel of Mark in the Hermeneia series. Unfortunately prof. Richard Horsley has hijacked the interpretation of the text with a post-colonial reading of Mark 5. I see that even NT Wright has reflected his ideas in his "Mark for Everyone." The problem with Horsley's approach is, that he imposes ideas that he wants to find in the text on the text.

Kind regards


----------

