# Ghosts, spirits, demons.



## Free Christian

Hi everyone. Recently I heard a discussion on ghosts and demons which is something I had not thought about too much in the past.
I had always thought that demons were not visible and yet heard some say that what people see as ghosts are visible demons. Also that what some see as aliens are demons also. 
I read in the New Testament where Jesus convinces those who saw Him after the crucifixion that he was not a spirit, or as some may say today a ghost.
So my questions are, can demons appear visually? Why if they appear to fool people into thinking the dead can appear as ghosts, don't they appear when requested by mediums who claim to be in contact with them? If they can appear when they want, then wouldn't them appearing on cue give greater power to their lies?
As I see it, all who are asked to conjure them today fail (unlike that in 1 Samuel 28) so was it that in those days it was different? That they appeared back then but don't have the power to now?


----------



## Matthew1344

I dont have answers to most of your questions but i do have an opinion on this :


Free Christian said:


> As I see it, all who are asked to conjure them today fail (unlike that in 1 Samuel 28) *so was it that in those days it was different? That they appeared back then but don't have the power to now?*



I don't think back then it was common either. 
1)Because the medium was freaked out when Samuel did appear. If it was a normal thing, she would have stayed calm.
2)When Samuel appeared on the scene, Saul no longer needed the medium. Saul and Samuel had their own conversation with no help or need of the medium.

This is my  

I am excited to see other people replies to your questions. They are very good!


----------



## Leslie

Only those born and raised in Western society don't believe in demons. They are a reality in Asia and Africa, something most pastors deal with at least on a weekly basis. The devil is pleased with Western unbelief in this regard. He can get away with more. Yet, even here, demons are more heard and felt than seen visually. This is similar to the NT where there were effects but no visual manifestations. The nature of spiritual reality has not changed over the millennia. It's just that Western denial/unbelief has developed.


----------



## MichaelNZ

The Bible says that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). If he disguises himself, who is he disguising himself for? It would have to be humans (as presumably angels and demons would be smart enough to tell the difference). 

I believe all ghost phenomena is caused by demons. Why? Because, if spirits seem to linger on earth after death, that casts doubts on the Bible's teaching that the souls of the departed go to either heaven or hell. People say that some departed spirits have trouble "crossing over". If that is true (which it isn't) then that sort of weakens the Christian teaching of all departed souls going to either heaven or hell and sort of leaves other options open.

When I was a Romanist, I remember asking a question on a Romanist forum about ghosts. They have another possible explanation - ghosts can also be spirits of human being in Purgatory. There is a "Purgatory Museum" in Rome which consists of artefacts supposedly touched by purgatorial spirits when they appeared to humans, presumably to ask for prayers to get them out. During the Borley Rectory hauntings in Britain, the words "light mass prayers" were supposedly written on the wall by the spirits. I've also heard accounts of "ghost priests", the so-called spirits of papist priests who promised to say Masses for certain people/intentions but forgot to do so on earth. One such account, recounted by Samuel Lover in _Legends and Stories of Ireland_, can be read here.

Ron Rhodes' book _The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums and Psychic Phenomena _is a good resource on ghosts. 

With regard to aliens, they are most likely demonic too. I've heard Matt Slick mention on his radio show that some people who were supposedly abducted by aliens reported that the aliens were teaching them new-age theology. He's also heard of accounts of alien abductees calling on the name of Jesus and being back in their bedrooms.


----------



## Matthew1344

Woah


----------



## earl40

Matthew1344 said:


> Woah



Be patient and wait for others to respond for there is much superstition that abounds.


----------



## Leslie

Michael, very helpful. Please let us avoid the word "superstition." The basic meaning is something that you believe, for which I hold you in contempt. It implies insult. I propose rational and scriptural.


----------



## earl40

Leslie said:


> Michael, very helpful. Please let us avoid the word "superstition." The basic meaning is something that you believe, for which I hold you in contempt. It implies insult. I propose rational and scriptural.



I hope you hold my belief in this area in contempt and not me personally.


----------



## earl40

Free Christian said:


> Hi everyone. Recently I heard a discussion on ghosts and demons which is something I had not thought about too much in the past.
> I had always thought that demons were not visible and yet heard some say that what people see as ghosts are visible demons. Also that what some see as aliens are demons also.
> I read in the New Testament where Jesus convinces those who saw Him after the crucifixion that he was not a spirit, or as some may say today a ghost.
> So my questions are, can demons appear visually? Why if they appear to fool people into thinking the dead can appear as ghosts, don't they appear when requested by mediums who claim to be in contact with them? If they can appear when they want, then wouldn't them appearing on cue give greater power to their lies?
> As I see it, all who are asked to conjure them today fail (unlike that in 1 Samuel 28) so was it that in those days it was different? That they appeared back then but don't have the power to now?



I am _almost_ compeled to allow Joshua's post speak for itself and I will attempt to answer this from what is ABSENT in scripture. No fallen human being has ever seen a demon much less smelled or felt one.


----------



## Leslie

earl40 said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone. Recently I heard a discussion on ghosts and demons which is something I had not thought about too much in the past.
> I had always thought that demons were not visible and yet heard some say that what people see as ghosts are visible demons. Also that what some see as aliens are demons also.
> I read in the New Testament where Jesus convinces those who saw Him after the crucifixion that he was not a spirit, or as some may say today a ghost.
> So my questions are, can demons appear visually? Why if they appear to fool people into thinking the dead can appear as ghosts, don't they appear when requested by mediums who claim to be in contact with them? If they can appear when they want, then wouldn't them appearing on cue give greater power to their lies?
> As I see it, all who are asked to conjure them today fail (unlike that in 1 Samuel 28) so was it that in those days it was different? That they appeared back then but don't have the power to now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am _almost_ compeled to allow Joshua's post speak for itself and I will attempt to answer this from what is ABSENT in scripture. No fallen human being has ever seen a demon much less smelled or felt one.
Click to expand...


So Jesus, who treated demons as real, had an erroneous worldview? O.K. He was accomodating. Like a pastor accomodates to his children about Santa Claus. But He preached a whole sermon on the subject, Luke 11. An accomodating pastor doesn't preach a sermon on Santa Claus. Moreover, He had no compunction against correcting the disciples' erroneous beliefs on other subjects. 

O.K. ghosts, goblins, aliens may not exist. Then again they may. A principle of exegesis is that it is not valid to argue from the silence of scriptures. If we did, we would maintain that motor vehicles don't exist. The scriptures DO speak affirmatively of the reality of demons, what they can do, what they can't do, what their effects are, and what believers can do about them. Read Luke 11. Throw that out as fairy tale, and the infallibility of the scriptures goes right out the window. What you 21st century Western clergy are saying is that the entire church for two millennia has had an erroneous worldview, but you are smarter and wiser than all previous generations combined. Maybe slightly arrogant?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Stop the name calling and seek to understand what each is saying/asking.


----------



## Free Christian

I have always believed that demons are not seen by anyone and that they cannot materialise or disappear at will. In Samuel 1 Saul asked the medium what the person looked like, If the demon or whoever it was had materialised then Saul would have not needed to ask the question, he would have seen what they looked like himself. Correct? I do not see anywhere in the Bible where demons are seen, such as those who were possessed in Jesus time where He dealt with them. 
What seems to restrict demons and aliens and ghosts that people see to only appearing at night, why not in the daytime as well? I notice too that Sauls encounter was at night also, whether there is any significance to that I don't know or are implying. Just mentioning it. 
To me evil spirits have no visible form, they are spirit, so how can they give themselves form? 
I think of this too. If they can materialise as some think, then they have the power of themselves to do so at will. If they can, then why do they not do so more often and wreak havoc on the world of unbelievers? If as some might suggest, not here but some people I might be talking to, that God limits them to how they can do what they do, then why and for what purpose would God allow demons to appear as aliens or ghosts? What purpose would that serve. Its questions like that which make me believe they do not and cannot materialise on will. Surely if they can materialise they would do so in more prove-able ways? All so called evidences I have seen are done with shonks and charlatans, none where the viewer is left in awe at what took place. 
People speak of haunted houses but I cannot fathom why an evil spirit would posses and inanimate object. In the Bible it was people they did this to, and a herd of swine on request.
Maybe Im going on too much with my questions though and I don't want to incite any ill feelings between people here so, what is the reformed view on the ability of demons to materialise in any way shape or form?


----------



## MW

Classically "demons" are identified as deities. Christians worship one true God. If people in the Western world have stopped believing in other deities it could only be because Christianity has had a beneficial influence over the Western mindset.


----------



## Steve Curtis

I would like to frame the question(s) this way:
1) Do demons exist (i.e., really, and not metaphorically)?
2) If so, where do they exist (i.e., are they - ever - 'on earth')? and
3) If they do exist, and they are 'amongst' us, what do they do?
In response to #3, Matthew Henry notes, "The devils assault us in the things that belong to our souls, and labor to deface the heavenly image in our hearts."
How, exactly, do they ('the devils') do this?


----------



## Tirian




----------



## MichaelNZ

> To me evil spirits have no visible form, they are spirit, so how can they give themselves form?



The same could be said of angels. But the Bible has many incidents of angels appearing to people. 

Numbers 22:31 specifically said that the Lord opened Balaam's eyes to see the angel. So since demons are under God's control too, then couldn't God allow people to see demons the same way He allowed Balaam to see the angel?


----------



## Free Christian

I should have added also that I do not believe in ghosts and aliens. Hope no one thought I did!


----------



## earl40

Below are some answers I gleamed from past posts on this subject at the PB.



kainos01 said:


> I would like to frame the question(s) this way:
> 1) Do demons exist (i.e., really, and not metaphorically)?



No one here said they did not.  The contention is that no one has seen, felt, or smelled any demon other than Jesus and Eve.



kainos01 said:


> 2) If so, where do they exist (i.e., are they - ever - 'on earth')?



They were on earth as seen in The Book of Job. Notice all the events they caused were nothing like what people think and report today. Now in the NT we see reports of "possession" written in a way as observed by the superstitious thinking of that time as we see in the testimonies of people today.




kainos01 said:


> 3) If they do exist, and they are 'amongst' us, what do they do?)



They do plenty now a days. What they do we do not see,hear or smell directly. This I do know....The tempting work of Satan in the garden and the result of the disobedience of our first parents we can see, feel and taste.


----------



## Steve Curtis

earl40 said:


> Now in the NT we see reports of "possession" written in a way as observed by the superstitious thinking of that time as we see in the testimonies of people today.



Could you clear this up? Are you saying that the way the NT accounts were _written_ (that is, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was reflective of the superstitious thinking "of that time"?



earl40 said:


> They do plenty now a days. What they do we do not see,hear or smell directly



Then, please respond to Henry's quote (or reject it) and my question:


kainos01 said:


> "The devils assault us in the things that belong to our souls, and labor to deface the heavenly image in our hearts."
> How, exactly, do they ('the devils') do this?


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> Could you clear this up? Are you saying that the way the NT accounts were _written_ (that is, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was reflective of the superstitious thinking "of that time"?



The New Testament uses descriptions by which the people of that time could identify a specific phenomenon. E.g., Acts 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:19-20. At the same time, the phenomena are denied any claim to divine power and honour which men give to them, 1 Cor. 8:4-6. This requires the reader to understand some terms and descriptions in a nominalist sense, Gal. 4:8.


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> The New Testament uses descriptions by which the people of that time could identify a specific phenomenon. E.g., Acts 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:19-20. At the same time, the phenomena are denied any claim to divine power and honour which men give to them, 1 Cor. 8:4-6. This requires the reader to understand some terms and descriptions in a nominalist sense, Gal. 4:8.



I certainly would not ascribe to demons honor nor "divine" power, nor do I contend that they are by nature "gods" (Gal. 4:8) - and I'm not sure who on this thread has suggested that or why you even make that point by quoting me; however, back to the context of my post, at any rate, I do believe the girl in Luke's account really had a "spirit of divination" and that the other descriptions of possession in the NT, while certainly contextually accessible, were nonetheless accurately assessed by the authors (e.g., Matthew 8:16; Mark 5:1ff; Luke 11:14, etc.) - are you arguing that the subjects of their narratives were, in fact, _not_ possessed by demons/spirits and that they employed this terminology simply so that "the people of that time could identify a specific phenomenon"?


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> I do believe the girl in Luke's account really had a "spirit of divination"



But you could not believe that the god Apollo or his oracle possessed the divine power of knowing and telling the future, surely.

The narratives are certainly accurate, but narrative is not normative and the descriptive is not prescriptive.


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> But you could not believe that the god Apollo or his oracle possessed the divine power of knowing and telling the future, surely.



I do not believe that any foreknowledge can be had, save that which is given to man by God to serve the purposes of His will, such as when false prophets perform “great signs and wonders” (Matthew 24:24). As Calvin notes in his commentary on the verse referenced earlier (Acts 16:16):

“But the question is, why God doth grant Satan so great liberty, as to suffer him to deceive miserable men, and to bewitch them with true divinations? For, *omitting the disputations which some men move concerning his foresight, I take this for a plain case, that he doth prophesy and foretell things to come*, and which are hidden only through God’s sufferance. But God seemeth by this means to lay open men who are reckless or careless to his subtilty, so that they cannot beware. For seeing that prophecies breathe out divine power, men’s minds must needs be touched with reverence so often as they come abroad, unless they contemn God. I answer, that Satan hath never so much liberty granted him of God, save only that the unthankful world may be punished, which is so desirous of a lie, that it had rather be deceived than obey the truth.”


----------



## Tirian

Mark 1:34 Then He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and *He did not allow the demons to speak*, because they knew Him.

Presumably Jesus did not allow the demons to speak, because if He had, the demons would have made fools of themselves because no-one would have heard them anyway!


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> I do not believe that any foreknowledge can be had, save that which is given to man by God to serve the purposes of His will, such as when false prophets perform “great signs and wonders” (Matthew 24:24).



You seem to be saying that what is given to false prophets is "given to man by God." In which case you have removed the medium of demons altogether. Besides the confusing nature of your statement, I fail to see how this relates to the question under discussion.

Calvin comments, "But Luke followeth the common custom of speaking, because he showeth the error of the common people, and not through what inspiration the maid did prophesy." He takes it as a nominalism, not as an attribution of reality. Calvin attributes the deception to the devil.


----------



## MW

Tirian said:


> Presumably Jesus did not allow the demons to speak, because if He had, the demons would have made fools of themselves because no-one would have heard them anyway!



Why do you think this? The devils clearly spoke. The narrative does not tell us how they spoke. The mode of speech is a matter of interpretation, and one which depends very much on the way one already thinks about the phenomena being recorded.


----------



## Caroline

The churches that I grew up in believed in visible demons and demonic possession even of Christians. It was often said that Satan was pleased with the unbelief in such things by other churches. I think there may be SOME truth to that (people who "believe in the basic good of all mankind" or whatnot). But the other side of it is that people become obsessed and paranoid. It was common practice to go through rooms of the house casting spirits out of them, and then worrying when illness struck that perhaps the spirits had returned. Clothes donated to our church had to be prayed over and anointed with oil lest they bring spirits in clinging upon them. People often claimed to see demons lurking around. I was once seized by the head by a woman visiting my home because she apparently saw a demon clinging onto me. My mother used to beat us under the impression that pain drove out demons. My hunch is that Satan is at least as pleased with that turn of events as he ever was with unbelief.

People who live in fear see all kinds of things. Ever since I became a Calvinist and no longer believed that demons could operate outside the will of God, I stopped seeing demons anywhere. I believe now that they are all figments of fear-addled imagination. As previously noted on the thread, there is no Scriptural basis to suppose they are common sights. Sightings of "ghosts" and "aliens" are also likely mostly fear-addled imagination. The threat in my former church was that as soon as I denied such things, demons would show up in person to prove the point. I issued a challenge for that to go ahead as scheduled. I have no particular interest in the whereabouts of demons, as I believe in the protection of God. The greater threat is not from without but from within--the temptations Satan sets before us and the sin into which we fall. 

People prefer to believe in a completely externalized threat because it absolves them of responsibility, but alas, that is wishful thinking. I knew of more than one person who committed grievous sin and claimed that they were possessed by spirits and thus not responsible for their actions. It made a victim out of a villain in the eyes of others, who were just all the more spooked about "the power of the enemy to take over the body of Brother M and force him to do these things." All a lot of nonsense, really--excuses and blame-shifting. I don't much care what ghosts or aliens are, and if anyone says, "They forced me to commit adultery," I just don't believe it.

PS For the record--although I issued my challenge twenty years ago, the demons have yet to materialize and prove their power in the manner I was told they would. I have not seen one. Nor a ghost nor an alien. I have seen some pretty scary people, though.


----------



## One Little Nail

> 2 Cor 12:7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me,



*Buffeted*

noun
1.a blow, as with the hand or fist.
2.a violent shock or concussion.

verb (used with object), buffeted, buffeting.
3.to strike, as with the hand or fist.
4.to strike against or push repeatedly:The wind buffeted the house.
5.to contend against; battle.

Earl your belief on the topic of devils is most humourous, you would make the Apostle Paul to be in a struggle with his own
imagination, to be a most _superstitious_ man, deceived, deluded, a fool & a crackpot.


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> You seem to be saying that what is given to false prophets is "given to man by God." In which case you have removed the medium of demons altogether. Besides the confusing nature of your statement, I fail to see how this relates to the question under discussion.



You brought up foreknowledge, not I; so, I responded with my thoughts on that (though perhaps I should amend what I said to read that foreknowledge is only ever given by God to men *or angels*).

I would still appreciate a clear response to my earlier question: "are you arguing that the subjects of their [the gospel authors'] narratives were, in fact, *not* possessed by demons/spirits and that they employed this terminology simply so that "the people of that time could identify a specific phenomenon"? You agreed that the narratives were accurate, but then you seem to take back the substance of what they wrote by denying that the people were *really* possessed by demons [moving, as you did, from "accurate" to not "an attribution of reality"].

If that is not your position, forgive me, but then I do not know why we are having this conversation! I entered this discussion simply to ask whether folks here believe 1) that demons exist, 2) that they are in our midst, and then - most significantly to me: 3) what is it that they do and how do they do it? I think we can dispense with 1 and 2. I would love to hear your thoughts (and anybody else's) on #3.


----------



## Logan

Robert. Webster's 1828 adds this definition:
1. To beat in contention; to contend against; as, to buffet the billows.

I don't know if there is any commentator that thinks Paul was physically beaten, and I doubt that is what the KJV translators meant.


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> Robert. Webster's 1828 adds this definition:
> 1. To beat in contention; to contend against; as, to buffet the billows.
> 
> I don't know if there is any commentator that thinks Paul was physically beaten, and I doubt that is what the KJV translators meant.



Logan I'm not saying that he received physical beatings, though he was spiritually buffeted by a devil. I think when a person is buffeted in the physical, he is generally on the receiving end, Paul had some heavy handed spiritual oppression dished out to him by some messenger of satan or fallen angel, he was not being superstitious as some have suggested, it seems even to have manifested itself physically, as Paul describes it as a "_thorn in the flesh_".


----------



## earl40

One Little Nail said:


> 2 Cor 12:7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Buffeted*
> 
> noun
> 1.a blow, as with the hand or fist.
> 2.a violent shock or concussion.
> 
> verb (used with object), buffeted, buffeting.
> 3.to strike, as with the hand or fist.
> 4.to strike against or push repeatedly:The wind buffeted the house.
> 5.to contend against; battle.
> 
> Earl your belief on the topic of devils is most humourous, you would make the Apostle Paul to be in a struggle with his own
> imagination, to be a most _superstitious_ man, deceived, deluded, a fool & a crackpot.
Click to expand...


The messenger was human. I think it probably was that coppersmith.


----------



## earl40

kainos01 said:


> 3) If they do exist, and they are 'amongst' us, what do they do?
> In response to #3, Matthew Henry notes, "The devils assault us in the things that belong to our souls, and labor to deface the heavenly image in our hearts."
> How, exactly, do they ('the devils') do this?



In my most humble opinion they do this mainly by the direct temptation of our first parents which gave us a fallen nature which many still "possess" (angels of satan) who are not in communion with The Lord. Now though we are children of Jesus we still "posses" a sinful nature and can be vexed in our soul by satan. I have no problem believing to the substance of what Matthew Henry said in his quote. Personally I do not listen for any devil and need not look any further to evil than myself and the remaining sinful flesh I still posses which was instlled by the fall.


----------



## Steve Curtis

earl40 said:


> they do this mainly by the direct temptation of our first parents which gave us a fallen nature



How big is that "mainly"? Do you mean to imply that that was the only work they *ever* have done? (also, by "they" are you saying that it was not only Satan but demons who tempted Adam and Eve?) Or do you give room for the biblical accounts of demon activity to be literal? If so (as I think you do from previous posts), what is your basis for arguing (as you seem to do) that there has been a full stop to that activity since the close of the canon? Is that basis eschatological?

[By the way, I am in agreement with you when you write "I do not listen for any devil and need not look any further to evil than myself and the remaining sinful flesh I still posses which was instilled by the fall." This is not about how we should respond, or how we should interpret evil in our own lives or the world at large; I only want to ascertain your response to *if* they do things in the world and *what* it is that they do.]


----------



## earl40

kainos01 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they do this mainly by the direct temptation of our first parents which gave us a fallen nature
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How big is that "mainly"? Do you mean to imply that that was the only work they *ever* have done? (also, by "they" are you saying that it was not only Satan but demons who tempted Adam and Eve?) Or do you give room for the biblical accounts of demon activity to be literal? If so (as I think you do from previous posts), what is your basis for arguing (as you seem to do) that there has been a full stop to that activity since the close of the canon? Is that basis eschatological?
> 
> [By the way, I am in agreement with you when you write "I do not listen for any devil and need not look any further to evil than myself and the remaining sinful flesh I still posses which was instilled by the fall." This is not about how we should respond, or how we should interpret evil in our own lives or the world at large; I only want to ascertain your response to *if* they do things in the world and *what* it is that they do.]
Click to expand...


This I do know. That the effects of the work of satan and his demons, who by the way can mean people being "demons", is apparent. I do not know for sure if any direct work is being done now though I stongly suspect I have never had any direct personal contact with any spirutal devil myself. What they are doing now I am not privy to in that I cannot see, taste, or smell them, like I cannot not see any angel which are the same being spirtual beings. I look inward to my own sinful nature first and outward to see the wicked world at work in the "angels" of satan. Of course when I do this it drives me to Jesus and not to some "priest" or pastor to exercise some demon out of me or any loved one as depicted in that horrible movie "The Exorcist".


----------



## Steve Curtis

Earl, I appreciate your conviction about our lingering proclivity toward sinfulness. I agree! I am certainly not trying to pull a "Flip Wilson" and claim that my sin is due to Satan or demons. I alone am responsible for every act in my life that dishonors God and violates His holy law. Let's set that issue aside, shall we? I am trying to get to what you (and others) think about the biblical evidence for demons (and angels, for that matter).

What, for instance, do you do with the biblical narratives about demon possession? Do you believe them to be *literally* true? Or do you think that the terminology is just either metaphorical or otherwise a condescension to the superstitions of the ignorant masses of the time? If the former, what leads you to believe that things have changed? Put another way, assuming you believe the biblical narratives about angels, do you dismiss their activity in the world today because you cannot see, taste, or smell them? 

The point of my pressing is that I find many in the contemporary (Western) church who readily admit to the reality and activity of good angels in the world, but have a different understanding of the "bad" ones (fallen angels, demons, whatever we call them). Are the "wiles of the devil" against which we are to stand merely our own sinful inclinations? Are the "principalities and powers" against which we are to wrestle merely projections of our own minds (Eph. 6:12)? Are we to be "sober and vigilant" against merely an internal disposition that somehow "roars," walks," and "seeks" (2 Peter 5:8)? Are we only to consider our own natures when we are cautioned against being ignorant of Satan's "devices" (2 Cor. 2:11). Is this all figurative language?


----------



## earl40

kainos01 said:


> Earl, I appreciate your conviction about our lingering proclivity toward sinfulness. I agree! I am certainly not trying to pull a "Flip Wilson" and claim that my sin is due to Satan or demons. I alone am responsible for every act in my life that dishonors God and violates His holy law. Let's set that issue aside, shall we?



I would love to leave this issue behind, but to do so would put a % of blame on satan for my sin which I rather take full %100 responsibility for.



kainos01 said:


> I am trying to get to what you (and others) think about the biblical evidence for demons (and angels, for that matter).
> 
> What, for instance, do you do with the biblical narratives about demon possession? Do you believe them to be *literally* true?



Rev. Winzer explained above that those "possessed" were indeed under the rule of the satan (who is as real as you or I) though while being under him they had nothing inside them controlling their thoughts, words, or deeds like a puppeteer controls Pinocchio. Now in stating this I also assert satan did indeed tempt Eve in the garden literally and the work that resulted in the fall is alive and present with us today as much as when Our Lord walked this earth. Thus I can say I am aware of satan's lies and deceptions.




kainos01 said:


> Or do you think that the terminology is just either metaphorical or otherwise a condescension to the superstitions of the ignorant masses of the time?



The terminology used was not metaphorical or a condensation but a narrative on how they understood (incorrectly I may add) of what was happening. These "possessions" were the result of satan's work though I believe in a totally different way they or most think today.



kainos01 said:


> If the former, what leads you to believe that things have changed?



Unfortunately the view today of possession is rapidly turning back to a superstitious mindset as was believed 2,000 years ago.



kainos01 said:


> Put another way, assuming you believe the biblical narratives about angels, do you dismiss their activity in the world today because you cannot see, taste, or smell them?



I see angels (Christians) and demons (unbelievers) every day...just kidding a tad. Now what the angels and demons (real spiritual beings) are up to directly I am not privy though I see the result of the work of God and satan in all our lives.



kainos01 said:


> The point of my pressing is that I find many in the contemporary (Western) church who readily admit to the reality and activity of good angels in the world, but have a different understanding of the "bad" ones (fallen angels, demons, whatever we call them). Are the "wiles of the devil" against which we are to stand merely our own sinful inclinations? Are the "principalities and powers" against which we are to wrestle merely projections of our own minds (Eph. 6:12)? Are we to be "sober and vigilant" against merely an internal disposition that somehow "roars," walks," and "seeks" (2 Peter 5:8)? Are we only to consider our own natures when we are cautioned against being ignorant of Satan's "devices" (2 Cor. 2:11). Is this all figurative language?



Oh I totally believe satan's devices are apparent for all to see though I do not think he works in they way most believe today. 

PS. If some of my "answers" are off I take full responsibility for them and do not blame any demon for them because my mind is not fully renewed as of yet.


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> [moving, as you did, from "accurate" to not "an attribution of reality"].



We have noted Calvin's position on accepting a nominalist description. That is accurate. It speaks in the language whereby people would have identified a certain phenomenon. If one desires to take it beyond the narrative to the normative he will need to bring the broader teaching of the Word to bear on the narrative.

I don't understand the use of the word "demon." It is not a translation; it is a transliteration. It presupposes people know what demons are, but the common person's use of "demon" is usually something they have learned from folk culture. Evangelicals tend to identify them with fallen angels, but the narratives themselves never make this connection. So when we are asked to simply take the narratives at face value, it is clear to me that we are being asked to simply accept the person's interpretation of these narratives, and not the narratives themselves.

A demon, in classical definition, is a divine medium between God and men. In Calvin's commentary on 1st Corinthians the editor has included the pertinent quotations from Plato. If one accepts that demons are real beings then he is basically accepting that there are divine mediums between God and men. Alternatively, Jewish fable taught that there were disembodied spirits. If one accepts this view it directly challenges the biblical teaching on final destiny.



kainos01 said:


> what is it that they do and how do they do it? I think we can dispense with 1 and 2. I would love to hear your thoughts (and anybody else's) on #3.



By "they" you mean "demons." I don't pretend to know such things but simply accept that all principality and power is spoiled and ruled by my Saviour Christ, the Head of all things. So far as fallen angels are concerned, I adhere to the teaching of the Larger Catechism on God's providence towards the angels. Anything beyond this is imagination, and serves the work of delusion whereby the Devil maintains his dominion.


----------



## MW

Matthew Poole's Commentary on Matthew 12:43-45.

The speech appeareth parabolical, the persons concerned in it are expressed in the last words, the men of that wicked generation. The text is thought to be well expounded by Peter, 2 Peter 2:20, If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. Our Lord here compares the Jews to a man out of whom the unclean spirit was gone. The devil is called the unclean spirit, both in regard of his own impure nature, and because his work is to tempt men to sin, which is spiritual filthiness. The Jews were a people holy to the Lord, a people distinguished from pagans by a visible profession; so as the devil in a great measure had left them. Now, saith he, the devil is an unquiet spirit, and findeth no rest if he cannot be doing mischief to men. For the phrase, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, we must know, that in parabolical speeches we must not make a severe scrutiny upon every phrase. Dry places are for the most part places least inhabited, for want of the conveniences of water. The devil cannot be at rest where he hath no mischief to do to men.


----------



## MW

David Dickson in loc.

The last answer serveth to shew them their own miserable condition, and that by a parable of a supposed case of Satan's being cast out of a man, in respect of one sort of possession, and coming back unto a worse and more dangerous sort of possession: The scope of the parable is, to shew, that this people by their refusing to receive the grace of God, and to believe in Christ, were in a seven-fold worse condition, than if the Gospel had never been preached unto them: for Christ by his doctrine had made them see the only true way of righteousness and eternal life, and so in regard of the refutation of their former error, and removing the ignorance wherein they did formerly lie, Satan was in some sort cast out: but in respect of their not receiving Jesus Christ, and his grace, to dwell in their hearts by faith, the devil had gotten a seven-fold stronger possession of them now than before.


----------



## MW

Matthew Henry in loc.

Now Christ represents the people of the Jews...

(3.) As a generation that were resolved to continue in the possession, and under the power, of Satan, notwithstanding all the methods that were used to dispossess him and rescue them. They are compared to one out of whom the devil is gone, but returns with double force, Matthew 12:43-45. The devil is here called the unclean spirit, for he has lost all his purity, and delights in and promotes all manner of impurity among men.


----------



## MW

The Westminster Annotation in loc.

V. 43. _When the unclean spirit_] Luke 11.24. He could as easily have said, The devil will more and more violently carry you into greater sins, until at last he destroy you: But he useth this parabolical admonition, that the penitent might learn caution, and the rest be less exasperated against him.


----------



## Matthew1344

Anybody have an opinion on the part in scripture:

"And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”

If there was no literal demon there, what did this human mean "before the time"?

I have a friend that DOES BELIEVE in demons, but says they are locked away in gloomy darkness (Jude and I think 2 Peter). So he believes the demons in the NT are forms of retardations. 

But if they are just normal people with mental/physical handicaps, then what does this person mean "before the time?"


----------



## MW

Matthew1344 said:


> If there was no literal demon there, what did this human mean "before the time"?



How could the one be many and the many be one at the same time? When there is the voice of one how can it be the voice of many, and when there is the voice of many how can it be the voice of one? The Gospels simply narrate; they do not explain the reality lying behind it.

I cannot see what is accomplished by distinguishing the man from the "demon," as it is clear from the Gospels that the "demon/s" were speaking through the man.


----------



## Matthew1344

That's what I am saying. I think it was the demon speaking through the man. So from what I understand of this topic. Demons do exist and they are present in the NT. And right here there was a real demon in this man. 

I was posing an objection to people that hold the view that the demons in the NT weren't really demons. Because if they aren't really demons but only mental/physical handicaps of men, then what does "before the time mean"?

My friend says that Legion was actually multiple personality disorder. And Jesus took all those personalities and put them in the pigs. He says it wasn't a real demon.


----------



## MW

Matthew1344 said:


> And right here there was a real demon in this man.



"Demon" is just a transliteration of the Greek word. What does "demon" mean?



Matthew1344 said:


> My friend says that Legion was actually multiple personality disorder.



That is a modern psychological theory which the Gospel writers would not have had in mind. In the Gospels "demons" are connected with sickness and they were cast out in connection with the ministry of healing. So the phenomenon was understood physiologically.


----------



## Steve Curtis

To call into question the received meaning of “demon” seems like a red herring. We all know what we mean, even if, in the Attic era, the word commonly meant a deity. With regard specifically to NT exegesis, Strong says that δαίμων means “a supernatural spirit (of a bad nature)” and Thayer simply says “bad spirit.” These are the only two lexicons I have access to at the moment; however, to suggest that this idea – that demons are not gods but rather fallen angels – is a novel one is a bit of a stretch. In their parallel accounts of the Gaderene demoniac, Matthew uses “demon” (δαίμων), while Mark uses “unclean spirit” (πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ). On this episode, Poole calls the demons "evil angels," commenting:

(On Matt. 8:28): Matthew saith he came out of the tombs, was exceeding fierce, so as none could pass that way. Divines agree, that the power of the evil angels was not abated by their fall, they were only depraved in their will. That the power of an angel is much more than is here mentioned is out of question. That the evil angels do not exert this power upon us is from the restraining power of God; we live in the air in which the devil hath a principality, Eph. 2:2;

(On Mark 5): Why the devils are called unclean spirits, in opposition to the Holy Spirit, &c., we have formerly showed; as also why they delight to be about tombs. We have also showed his power, which (by God’s permission) he exerciseth upon men: some he possesseth, and acteth the part of the soul in them (especially as to the locomotive faculty); these are properly called demoniacs, energoumenoi. Others he afflicts more as a foreign agent, offering violence to them. Others he more secretly influences, by impressions and suggestions: thus he still ordinarily _worketh in the children of disobedience_, Eph. 2:2; nor are the people of God free from this impetus, though, being succoured by Christ, they are not so ordinarily overcome. Of the mighty power of the evil angels to break chains and fetters we need not doubt, considering that though fallen from their first righteousness, they yet have their natural power as spirits.


_[The following is not directed to anyone in particular; more of a soliloquy… or a rant]_

I do find fascinating that theological dichotomy, which exists between those who principally inhabit Western academia or suburbia, on the one hand, and those of us who spend most of our time in the tribal and/or impoverished cultures of the rest of the world, on the other. I have been in both camps and, honestly, I am embarrassed about some of the positions I used to passionately embrace and defend.

Like most here, I reject the charismatic excesses that permeate the Christian world at the present time. However, they are just that: *excesses*. The knee-jerk reaction of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water is to err in the opposite direction. I *know* that there are activities of a demonic nature in the world today. I didn’t have to be taught that (in fact, I wasn’t) and I don’t have to defend it, either. In many places in the world where I have served, it is simply a reality that cannot be denied with any more credibility than denying the nose on one's face. Nevertheless, that this reality must in no way ever mitigate personal responsibility for sin is without question and my intent has never been to imply otherwise. 

With that, I think that I will excuse myself from this discussion; it seems to be bearing little fruit.


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> Strong says that δαίμων means “a supernatural spirit (of a bad nature)” and Thayer simply says “bad spirit.”



What has qualitatively been defined in using these terms? Nothing. You still require the imagination to conjure up some notion of what these things might be. If they are fallen angels, then let that be the definition, and call them "devils," as in the AV. But it must also be recognised that this is an interpretation of the word "demon" which is not actually defined by the narratives, and the broader biblical view restrains them under the Lordship of Christ.

Appealing to a non-western mindset will not serve the turn because the non-western mindset regards this kind of activity as operating in its own sphere of "divinity." The idea that it is to be traced to fallen angels grows out of a Christian framework, and in the Christian framework all supernatural activity functions under the moral government of the Almighty.


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> Appealing to a non-western mindset



I will come back in just long enough to correct your erroneous interpretation of my post. I am not appealing to a "non-Western mindset." I am relating what I (with a thoroughly Western, and Christian, mindset and perspective) have observed in non-Western cultures.


----------



## earl40

kainos01 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to a non-western mindset
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will come back in just long enough to correct your erroneous interpretation of my post. I am not appealing to a "non-Western mindset." I am relating what I (with a thoroughly Western, and Christian, mindset and perspective) have observed in non-Western cultures. I have witnessed activity in the non-Western world that I have never witnessed in the Western world - activity that is not merely the product of sinful humanity but which transcends anything that I know human beings to be capable of doing (much like the Gadarene, who broke his chains and fetters; as Poole says, "Of the mighty power of the evil angels to break chains and fetters we need not doubt, considering that though fallen from their first righteousness, they yet have their natural power as spirits"). While the indigenous people may well ascribe this activity to "gods" (demons) they consider divine, I do not.
Click to expand...


What exactly did you see where men are incapable of doing? I have seen "in the west" men break chains that seemed impossible.


----------



## whirlingmerc

Toward the end of Romans, Satan will be crushed under the feet of the church and the feet of the church are said in that book to carry good news.
In the evangelism of the Nations, Satan's head will eventually be crushed

I do believe demons might try to manipulate people by posing as deceased people, in contrast, the gospel frees people


----------



## Phil D.

[FONT=&amp]Just as an interesting historical side note on this topic, the church father Irenaeus wrote (c. AD 180):

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform miracles, so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. *For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe in Christ, and join themselves to the Church*.[/FONT] [FONT=&amp](_Against Heresie_s, 2:32.4; ANF 1:409) [/FONT]​


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> I will come back in just long enough to correct your erroneous interpretation of my post. I am not appealing to a "non-Western mindset." I am relating what I (with a thoroughly Western, and Christian, mindset and perspective) have observed in non-Western cultures.



And what does one observe in these non-Western cultures? "Devils" (fallen angels) deceiving unbelievers, as taught by the Bible, or "spirits" exercising control over events, as taught by heathenism? It is a matter of worldview, and buying into it only gives credence to the nonsense. One might go to India and observe sacred cows, and have to observe laws which reflect the values of the society. But it does not mean a cow is something more than a cow.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Classically "demons" are identified as deities. Christians worship one true God. If people in the Western world have stopped believing in other deities it could only be because Christianity has had a beneficial influence over the Western mindset.


 
This thread seems to be primarily revolving around two questions, namely 
1) what are demons?, and 
2) what can they do? 

What are demons (devils)? 
Although the NT uses the word “daimonion” to describe them, neither the religious Jews of the period, nor the Christians would have believed for one second in the classical Greek definition of demons as a


armourbearer said:


> divine medium between God and men


, for Scripture is at pains to deny any possibility that such beings exist. For the Jews, the exclusion rests on the basis of Deut 6:4 and similar passages: and the Christians add to the OT’s recognition of only one God, their recognition that there is only one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). It is worth noting that the KJV translators clearly took note of this difference: for whenever a malevolent spiritual being was intended by the writer, (apparently without exception) the KJV men translated the term daimonion as “devil” or “devils” rather than demons. It seems to me that importing the classical definition of demon into a Scriptural discussion is bringing an unnecessary straw man argument to the table, for whatever a “daimon” was to the Greeks, it was something else to the NT authors and religious Jews.



armourbearer said:


> The New Testament uses descriptions by which the people of that time could identify a specific phenomenon. E.g., Acts 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:19-20. At the same time, the phenomena are denied any claim to divine power and honour which men give to them, 1 Cor. 8:4-6. This requires the reader to understand some terms and descriptions in a nominalist sense, Gal. 4:8.


 


armourbearer said:


> The narratives are certainly accurate, but narrative is not normative and the descriptive is not prescriptive.


 
While narrative may not always be normative, sometimes it is. What determines whether narrative is normative or not is not an arbitrary principle, but whether the didactic portions of Scripture affirms the conclusions drawn from the narrative. For example, contrary to the Pentecostal claim that Scripture narratives establish the norm that all Christians must speak in tongues, Paul specifically denies that postulate with 1 Cor. 12:30 while norming the deductions that all Christians will have the Holy Spirit and must go on being filed with the Holy Spirit. In the matter here discussed, the proposition that biblical devils are personal spirits is shown by several narrative incidents which record the devils speaking, including Matt 8:31, and Mark 5:9, 15, Mark 7, 25, 26. The latter passages are particularly significant as they identify “unclean spirits” with “devils, from which one may draw the conclusion that the Scriptural “devils” are personal spirits. The personality of devils is confirmed didactically confirmed by James 2:19 in which the inspired author claims that they “believe and shudder” at the recognition that God is one. Anyone who wants to deny the reality of such personal evil spirits from Scripture will need to present a case from Scripture’s didactic material. 

No Christian reader of Acts 16:16 would ever propose that the slave girl had divine power or was worthy of divine honour. Calvin’s nominalism in his comments on this passage would appear to be limited to the word “fortunetelling.” I hope by “nominalist sense” you are not denying the reality of the “spirit of divination” that was afflicting the girl.

What can the devils do? 

Whatever they do is within God’s limits. 

Can they possess people? 



earl40 said:


> In the NT we see reports of "possession" written in a way as observed by the superstitious thinking of that time as we see in the testimonies of people today.


 
The NT accounts depict Christ, St. Paul and the inspired authors of the Gospels / Acts recognizing the reality of devil possession without a single sentence anywhere in the didactic portions of scripture calling the really of such possession into question. Absent a Scriptural case to the contrary, I think we have to take the possibility of demon possession of unbelievers as a given. (Which is not to say that the devils can “possess” Christians. 1 John 4:4 is enough to establish that they cannot do so although they might try to deceive an unwary believer into thinking that such a condition is possible.)

They can foretell to a limited extent, if Calvin is correct in stating that God grants “Satan so great liberty, as to suffer him to deceive miserable men, and to bewitch them with true divinations,” foretell part of the future although that knowledge is given by God. Please note that such Divine action if it occurs does not remove


armourbearer said:


> the medium of demons altogether


. Rather, this is another example where God uses the demon, by presenting the apparent foretelling from a non-Divine source, to accomplish his purpose, namely the hardening of men in sin. 

Can they tempt men and women?

While Scripture (James 1:14) makes it plain that the primary source of temptation is one’s own sinful nature, Scripture is also clear that secondary external sources of temptation exist (Prov. 1:10) and that we have to watch out for both. If devilish enticements are a reality, they in no way absolve us of our responsibility if we give in to them, just as the reality of human enticements does not absolve us of our responsibility to walk in God’s ways.


----------



## earl40

earl40 said:


> In the NT we see reports of "possession" written in a way as observed by the superstitious thinking of that time as we see in the testimonies of people today.





timmopussycat said:


> The NT accounts depict Christ, St. Paul and the inspired authors of the Gospels / Acts recognizing the reality of devil possession without a single sentence anywhere in the didactic portions of scripture calling the really of such possession into question. Absent a Scriptural case to the contrary, I think we have to take the possibility of demon possession of unbelievers as a given. (Which is not to say that the devils can “possess” Christians. 1 John 4:4 is enough to establish that they cannot do so although they might try to deceive an unwary believer into thinking that such a condition is possible.)



I believe Matthew did explain why we should not believe in possession, as many do today, or as those who were with when Jesus when He was incarnated, which said explanation was given in didactic portions of scripture. The problem arising here in this thread is NOT the denial of satan and his "angels" but how they work. Unbelievers are tossed to and fro by his (satan) work every second of the day and thus are "possessed". We as believers are "possessed" by satan work when we sin and are %100 responsible for that sin. No matter how you or anybody slices it there is a Flip Wilson side to ones belief if you think satan directly controls our immoral behavior. 

So I take it you think satan tempts us in a paranormal ways?


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the NT we see reports of "possession" written in a way as observed by the superstitious thinking of that time as we see in the testimonies of people today.
Click to expand...




earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NT accounts depict Christ, St. Paul and the inspired authors of the Gospels / Actsrecognizing the reality of devil possession without a single sentence anywherein the didactic portions of scripture calling the really of such possessioninto question. Absent a Scriptural case to the contrary, I think we have totake the possibility of demon possession of unbelievers as a given. (Which isnot to say that the devils can “possess” Christians. 1 John 4:4 is enough to establish that they cannot do so although they might try to deceive an unwary believer into thinking that such a condition is possible.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Matthew did explain why we should not believe in possession, as many do today, or as those who were with when Jesus when He was incarnated, which said explanation was given in didactic portions of scripture. The problem arising here in this thread is NOT the denial of satan and his "angels" but how they work. Unbelievers are tossed to and fro by his (satan) work every second of the day and thus are "possessed".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Rev. Winzer’s explanation doesn’t meet the standard of good and necessary consequence. Gal.4:8 doesn’t teach that Christ, his Apostles and the inspired writers of Scripture were all nominalists when speaking about evil spirits and their attacks on humanity. Paul in that verse does not deny the reality of evil spirits as such: when he affirms that they are “no gods,” he denies their divinity. 




earl40 said:


> We as believers are "possessed" by satan work when we sin.




I don't think Scripture goes as far as calling Christians “possessed” by the devil when we sin. That would seem to take the same erroneous road Flip Wilson went down. 




earl40 said:


> and are %100 responsible for that sin.



I agree, believers are 100% responsible whenever they sin, whether their own lust (James1:13) was or was not abetted by human or demon delivered external enticement. 



earl40 said:


> No matter how you oranybody slices it there is a Flip Wilson side to ones belief if you think satandirectly controls our immoral behavior.



An external influence is not direct control and I don’t believe the devil directly controls any human not “possessed.”



earl40 said:


> So I take it you thinksatan tempts us in a paranormal ways?



I don’t know about paranormal ways. The normal channels by which a human may be enticed from outside him or herself would seem to be enough.


----------



## Free Christian

[BIBLE][/BIBLE]


timmopussycat said:


> This thread seems to be primarily revolving around two questions, namely
> 1) what are demons?, and
> 2) what can they do?


Actually, it seems to have been lost along the way, the original question was can demons, evil spirits, call them what one may but I am sure one would know what was meant, materialise or appear visually! I personally believe "no" but for the sake of a conversation I heard and not considering myself an expert on much, and I do realise that at times I may be wrong, I asked that for clarification.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Although the NT uses the word “daimonion” to describe them, neither the religious Jews of the period, nor the Christians would have believed for one second in the classical Greek definition of demons as a
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> divine medium between God and men
> 
> 
> 
> , for Scripture is at pains to deny any possibility that such beings exist.
Click to expand...


The assumption that Jews and Christians understood the Scriptures as we understand them is not warranted from the evidence. Josephus: "those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive, and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them." The Editor notes, "We also may hence learn the true notion Josephus had of demons and demoniacs, exactly like that of the Jews and Christians in the New Testament and the first four centuries." Justin: "let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call dæmoniacs or madmen; and what you repute as oracles, both of Amphilochus, Dodana, Pytho, and as many other such as exist." Justin's Apology argues that the gods of the nations were the product of these demons. When the early church fathers spoke of casting out demons they meant the casting out of the spirits of the dead.

When it is accepted that "demons" are associated with fallen angels (devils), the ideas of "demon possession" and "casting out demons" are understood to be an accommodation to the way the people thought about these things. The Gospels must be understood to be speaking by way of accommodation. Otherwise one will be led to adopt all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions.


----------



## earl40

earl40 said:


> We as believers are "possessed" by satan work when we sin.





timmopussycat said:


> I don't think Scripture goes as far as calling Christians “possessed” by the devil when we sin. That would seem to take the same erroneous road Flip Wilson went down.



This would be an OK assessment if we agreed what possession is. The problem is we simply do not see "possession" through the same eyes. Take for instance this "23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Here is another narrative that follows what Calvin writes in Matthew 24:24 "Luke followeth the common custom of speaking, because he showeth the error of the common people". In other words, we have Peter acting under the influence of satan and was "possessed" in a biblical way and not a superstitious way. In my most humble opinion. 





earl40 said:


> and are %100 responsible for that sin.





timmopussycat said:


> I agree, believers are 100% responsible whenever they sin, whether their own lust (James1:13) was or was not abetted by human or demon delivered external enticement.



There would be no way man can be enticed directly by satan unless one is tempted paranormally. For satan is an invisible noncorporeal being.



earl40 said:


> No matter how you or anybody slices it there is a Flip Wilson side to ones belief if you think satan directly controls our immoral behavior.





timmopussycat said:


> An external influence is not direct control and I don’t believe the devil directly controls any human not “possessed.”



I rather go to James who lists the reasons one sins and interesting no mention of external temptations by demons here but only temptations arising from our own sinful nature. Ever wonder why he left that out? I think it is because satan works through normal rational immoral acting people.



earl40 said:


> So I take it you thinksatan tempts us in a paranormal ways?





timmopussycat said:


> I don’t know about paranormal ways. The normal channels by which a human may be enticed from outside him or herself would seem to be enough.



You say "I don't know" yet for satan to tempt directly in any way other than through normal means is paranormal.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the NT uses the word “daimonion” to describe them, neither the religious Jews of the period, nor the Christians would have believed for one second in the classical Greek definition of demons as a
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> divine medium between God and men
> 
> 
> 
> , for Scripture is at pains to deny any possibility that such beings exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assumption that Jews and Christians understood the Scriptures as we understand them is not warranted from the evidence. Josephus: "those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive, and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them." The Editor notes, "We also may hence learn the true notion Josephus had of demons and demoniacs, exactly like that of the Jews and Christians in the New Testament and the first four centuries." Justin: "let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call dæmoniacs or madmen; and what you repute as oracles, both of Amphilochus, Dodana, Pytho, and as many other such as exist." Justin's Apology argues that the gods of the nations were the product of these demons. When the early church fathers spoke of casting out demons they meant the casting out of the spirits of the dead.
> 
> When it is accepted that "demons" are associated with fallen angels (devils), the ideas of "demon possession" and "casting out demons" are understood to be an accommodation to the way the people thought about these things. The Gospels must be understood to be speaking by way of accommodation. Otherwise one will be led to adopt all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions.
Click to expand...


Whether Josephus and the early Christians correctly understood the "possessor" to be a deceased human spirit, they may or may not have been correct, but their errors do not affect the presentation of the matter in Scripture. The problem is that the NT tells us that the devil exists, that he has "his angels" however many of them there are and that there are "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. It also tells us that the devil's future destiny is an abyss (for a season) and most important, it seems to present "demonic possession" as real. 

So what we need to know is what NT evidence is there for assuming that Christ, his Apostles and the rest of the NT writers were accommodating to contemporary error on the point when a) As far as I know they never so accommodated their teaching to any other error b) Christ claims that the casting out of demons is a sign that the kingdom of God has arrived (Matt. 12:28) If Christ is not casting out demons by the finger of God, has the kingdom of God not arrived? c) after stating the reality of Christian sharing in the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, Paul then didactically draws a parallel to idol sacrifices and he gives as the reason for not joining in idol sacrifices, the consequence that he does not want the Corinthian Christians to become sharers in demons (1 Cor. 10:20 ) if we do not really become sharers in demons on one side of the parallel, is there no real share in Christ on the other? d) why, whatever the "possessor"'s were, did they so obligingly, and repeatedly, contribute to the accommodation by recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, (Matt. 8:29, Mark 1:34) and by asking Jesus not to send them to the abyss (Luke 8:31), and e) the accommodation has left most of the church down through Church history adopting "all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions" as a direct result. Unless solid NT evidence confirms that Christ, the Apostles and the NT writers were accommodating on the point, those advocating such an hypothesis will be begging the question.


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as believers are "possessed" by satan work when we sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Scripture goes as far as calling Christians “possessed” by the devil when we sin. That would seem to take the same erroneous road Flip Wilson went down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be an OK assessment if we agreed what possession is. The problem is we simply do not see "possession" through the same eyes. Take for instance this "23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Here is another narrative that follows what Calvin writes in Matthew 24:24 "Luke followeth the common custom of speaking, because he showeth the error of the common people". In other words, we have Peter acting under the influence of satan and was "possessed" in a biblical way and not a superstitious way. In my most humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and are %100 responsible for that sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, believers are 100% responsible whenever they sin, whether their own lust (James1:13) was or was not abetted by human or demon delivered external enticement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would be no way man can be enticed directly by satan unless one is tempted paranormally. For satan is an invisible noncorporeal being.
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you or anybody slices it there is a Flip Wilson side to ones belief if you think satan directly controls our immoral behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> An external influence is not direct control and I don’t believe the devil directly controls any human not “possessed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rather go to James who lists the reasons one sins and interesting no mention of external temptations by demons here but only temptations arising from our own sinful nature. Ever wonder why he left that out? I think it is because satan works through normal rational immoral acting people.
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it you thinksatan tempts us in a paranormal ways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know about paranormal ways. The normal channels by which a human may be enticed from outside him or herself would seem to be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say "I don't know" yet for satan to tempt directly in any way other than through normal means is paranormal.
Click to expand...


That "the devil" tempted Jesus is certain from Scripture. If he could tempt God's Christ there is no reason for thinking he or his angels cannot tempt humans by the same means he tempted Christ.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The problem is that the NT tells us that the devil exists, that he has "his angels" however many of them there are and that there are "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. It also tells us that the devil's future destiny is an abyss (for a season) and most important, it seems to present "demonic possession" as real.



The NT itself never connects the "demonic" with the devil and his angels. As far as the NT is concerned, the "demonic" refers to a physical and emotional evil, not to a moral one. A specific interpretation unites them and identifies them as one, but there is nothing in the Gospel accounts to warrant such a conclusion. The same false identification is often made in relation to Mary Magdalene and the harlot because of an unwarranted assumption that "demons" were connected with moral evil.



timmopussycat said:


> Christ claims that the casting out of demons is a sign that the kingdom of God has arrived (Matt. 12:28) If Christ is not casting out demons by the finger of God, has the kingdom of God not arrived?



Christ healed. Once He used spittle and clay and the Pool of Siloam. The reader is not required to believe there was any virtue in these things in order to believe that He healed by means of them. Sickness was identified with the "demonic" and healing therefore entailed the casting out of "demons." The reader is not required to believe that demons are anything in and of themselves. It suffices that the "demons" were a real part of the people's infirmities.

The kingdom is the present reign of God in Christ. God once suffered the nations to walk in their own ways and "demons" were part and parcel of the intermediary system which ignorance devised. God now commands all men every where to repent. Intermediaries have no place in the kingdom of God. Christ has shown Himself to be the head of all principality and power. Christians are warned against being enticed by a voluntary humility and worshipping of "angels."


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the NT tells us that the devil exists, that he has "his angels" however many of them there are and that there are "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. It also tells us that the devil's future destiny is an abyss (for a season) and most important, it seems to present "demonic possession" as real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NT itself never connects the "demonic" with the devil and his angels. As far as the NT is concerned, the "demonic" refers to a physical and emotional evil, not to a moral one.
Click to expand...


This answer overlooks the previously established NT link between the "demonic" and "unclean" a term the NT does not always reserve for ceremonials; in at least one instance it is specifically contrasted with "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). Whatever they are the "unclean spirits may not be arbitrarily presumed to be morally neutral. 



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ claims that the casting out of demons is a sign that the kingdom of God has arrived (Matt. 12:28) If Christ is not casting out demons by the finger of God, has the kingdom of God not arrived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ healed. Once He used spittle and clay and the Pool of Siloam. The reader is not required to believe there was any virtue in these things in order to believe that He healed by means of them. Sickness was identified with the "demonic" and healing therefore entailed the casting out of "demons." The reader is not required to believe that demons are anything in and of themselves. It suffices that the "demons" were a real part of the people's infirmities.
Click to expand...




armourbearer said:


> The kingdom is the present reign of God in Christ. God once suffered the nations to walk in their own ways and "demons" were part and parcel of the intermediary system which ignorance devised. God now commands all men every where to repent. Intermediaries have no place in the kingdom of God. Christ has shown Himself to be the head of all principality and power. Christians are warned against being enticed by a voluntary humility and worshipping of "angels."



And this is a straw man argument. Although there is no place for any intermediary between God and man other than the man Christ Jesus, the realities behind "daimonion" are not such intermediaries attempting to occupy such a place but are opposed to both man and God. And it is precisely because Christ is the head above all principalities and powers that Christians ultimately do not have to fear whatever unclean realities that are that oppose Him.


----------



## MW

Since these conjectures arise from a desire to justify a certain interpretation and have no basis in biblical exegesis, I I leave you to your guess-work.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> Since these conjectures arise from a desire to justify a certain interpretation and have no basis in biblical exegesis, I I leave you to your guess-work.



Tim was correct Matthew, in that you created a strawman argument as has Earl, Devils are real, they are under the Sovereignty Of God nonetheless, but they are given power at times over believers to tempt or even afflict (Job) & unbelievers as well, occasionally even possessing, the Texts on these are straight forward & self explanatory there is no need to call them 


> conjectures (that)arise from a desire to justify a certain interpretation and have no basis in biblical exegesis


Whatever the heathen thought, they were deluded by falsehood this doesn't disprove the truth that Ephesians 6:12


> For we
> wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> Devils are real



I haven't denied devils are real.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Devils are real
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't denied devils are real.
Click to expand...


Nor have I.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Since these conjectures arise from a desire to justify a certain interpretation and have no basis in biblical exegesis, I I leave you to your guess-work.



So logical conclusions from Scriptural statements have no basis in exegesis because some non-canonical writers have erred? Really? Anyone advocating such a view owes it to the rest of us to explain how non-existent "daimons," then "possessing" humans were repeatedly able to recognize Christ as the Son of God before Christ had told anybody else who He was (a question previously asked but yet to be answered.)

There is far more Scriptural evidence for the reality of "demonic possession," whatever the "demons" may be, than there is for assuming that the Christ, the Apostles and the NT writers were accommodating to contemporary beliefs. Simply ignoring the difficulties raised by the NT material,and simultaneously advancing an accommodation hypothesis without bothering to provide NT support for it has less basis in exegesis than taking the biblical accounts at face value.

And one other point concerning the accommodation hypothesis: since our age has largely rejected the gospel, spiritism is on the rise and similar phenomena to "demon possession" are now occurring and can be expected to continue. If therefore we see any Christian now performing an exorcism, how can we possibly object? For isn't our brother just following the Dominical, Apostolic and NT examples of accommodating to the cultural belief?


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> So I take it you think satan tempts us in a paranormal ways?



I should also have mentioned 1 Samuel 16: 14, 23 in which an "evil spirit" was tormenting Saul. Yes the spirit is from the Lord, but the adjective "evil" seems to rule out an unfallen angel as being meant here. Whatever this evil spirit was, it could influence Saul in some ways. Therefore we have to conclude that evil spirits can influence men in whatever ways Saul was influenced.


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it you think satan tempts us in a paranormal ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should also have mentioned 1 Samuel 16: 14, 23 in which an "evil spirit" was tormenting Saul. Yes the spirit is from the Lord, but the adjective "evil" seems to rule out an unfallen angel as being meant here. Whatever this evil spirit was, it could influence Saul in some ways. Therefore we have to conclude that evil spirits can influence men in whatever ways Saul was influenced.
Click to expand...


In paranormal ways?


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> And one other point concerning the accommodation hypothesis: since our age has largely rejected the gospel, spiritism is on the rise and similar phenomena to "demon possession" are now occurring and can be expected to continue. If therefore we see any Christian now performing an exorcism, how can we possibly object? For isn't our brother just following the Dominical, Apostolic and NT examples of accommodating to the cultural belief?



This may be my last time commenting on this topic. This last paragraph should be enough to give us all pause to think if we would not object to those performing exorcisms, as seen in many movies and other supercilious practices we hear about. In other words, I would object today since we have The Word in completion.


----------



## timmopussycat

*Accommodation and the Confession*

I somehow can't see the man who wrote ". . . we have renounced things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2) giving any place to accommodation, even for a moment, on any point. 

But suppose I am wrong. Suppose that Christ, the Apostles or the NT writers ever accommodated the truth behind "daimonic possession" (or any other accommodation on any other point for that matter) to the erroneous belief of unbelievers. Such an accommodation seems to raise a conflict with WLC 145's list of sins forbidden in the 9th commandment. How would anyone defend against a charge that by accommodating, one was "perverting [the truth] to a wrong meaning, [by means of] equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth?"


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> So logical conclusions from Scriptural statements have no basis in exegesis



Logical leaps have no place. It is a logical leap to jump from demons to devils and thereby ascribe demoniacal power to devils when the Scripture argues at length against it and convinces us that the power of life and death belongs to the Lord God alone.



timmopussycat said:


> There is far more Scriptural evidence for the reality of "demonic possession," whatever the "demons" may be



As soon as you say, "whatever that may be," you have affirmed accommodation and denied that the phenomenon is what it appears on the surface to be. But then you deny me the right to speak of accommodation because I do not conclude with you that devils have demoniacal power.



timmopussycat said:


> since our age has largely rejected the gospel, spiritism is on the rise and similar phenomena to "demon possession" are now occurring and can be expected to continue. If therefore we see any Christian now performing an exorcism, how can we possibly object? For isn't our brother just following the Dominical, Apostolic and NT examples of accommodating to the cultural belief?



I am not sure why a "brother" who confesses Jesus is Lord of all should feel the need to imitate a redemptive work of the only Saviour of sinners. I object to Romanists seeking to make satisfactions to divine justice. I should equally object to so-called Protestants seeking to bring the demons under subjection. Such belongs to the Lord of glory.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> How would anyone defend against a charge that by accommodating, one was "[/FONT][/SIZE]perverting [the truth] to a wrong meaning, [by means of] equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth?"




The prejudice of truth is all on the side of those who deny the Confession's teaching that Christ is "the only Mediator between God and man," and "the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head."


----------



## Free Christian

....................................ill take it as a no then!
Thanks all for taking the time to answer.


----------



## MW

Free Christian said:


> ....................................ill take it as a no then!



Brett, my answer is definitely no, although others clearly disagree. From my perspective, if there is any "wonder" in these things, it is a "lying wonder." It should only be attributable to the Devil as one of his lies by which he seeks to lead souls astray into ignorance and superstition.


----------



## MW

From Thomas Manton:

"The sum is this, then: that many things are pretended, not really done, -- impostures and forgeries, not miracles; other things, done by diabolical illusions, as there may be apparitions, visions, spectres, for Satan will bestir himself to keep up the credit of his ministers. Lastly, if we cannot otherwise disprove them, if they tend to false doctrine and worship, they are to be rejected, whatever extraordinary appearance there be in them."

"upon the ceasing of miracles, or their growing to be unnecessary, we have the more cause to suspect them who will revive this pretence of a power to work miracles; especially after we are cautioned against these delusions."

"The miracles wrought by Antichrist and his adherents are _mira_, but not _miracula_, some wonderful things, but no true and proper miracles; else, as Austin saith, _Figmenta mendacium hominum_, _portenta fallacium spirituum_ -- either the fictions of lying men, or the illusions of deceiving spirits. Many times the matter of fact is not true; at other times the thing done is but some illusion of the senses by the devil, or something taken for a miracle which doth not exceed the power of nature. Either way it is an imposture; and, indeed, the miracles of the legends are so false, so ridiculous, so light and trivial, that they expose Christianity to contempt; or else, if there be anything in it, it giveth suspicions of magical illusion and converse with the devil which, among their votaries and recluses, is no unusual thing."


----------



## Tirian

armourbearer said:


> at other times the thing done is but some illusion of the senses by the devil,



So, paranormally effecting someone's senses?


----------



## MW

Tirian said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> at other times the thing done is but some illusion of the senses by the devil,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, paranormally effecting someone's senses?
Click to expand...


What is sensory is normal. If it is a false perception it is an illusion. If it were paranormal it would not be an illusion but real.


----------



## Free Christian

Ok, now we are getting to it. So people who claim to have seen a ghost or demon are having their senses affected to believe they are seeing one but are not?
They are not really seeing one but their senses are so affected that they believe they are. This makes a lot of sense to me, no pun intended.


----------



## MW

Free Christian said:


> Ok, now we are getting to it. So people who claim to have seen a ghost or demon are having their senses affected to believe they are seeing one but are not?
> They are not really seeing one but their senses are so affected that they believe they are. This makes a lot of sense to me, no pun intended.



Yes, faith is the substance of things hoped for. If the faith is astray, then the substance will be also. Romanists, for example, believe they see Christ's body whereas Protestants know it is in heaven.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So logical conclusions from Scriptural statements have no basis in exegesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical leaps have no place. It is a logical leap to jump from demons to devils and thereby ascribe demoniacal power to devils when the Scripture argues at length against it and convinces us that the power of life and death belongs to the Lord God alone.
Click to expand...


The attempt to claim that those advocating the reality of demon possession attribute to Satan the divine attributes of life and death is another straw man argument: nobody has said that daimons have the power of life and death. As for myself I deny that claim utterly: what powers demons have they have by God's decree to serve his purposes. Nor is it an ungrounded logical leap to move from the recognition that the Lord God once delegated to "the devil" the power to afflict Job with the loss of his children and fortune to admit to the realm of possibility that God could similarly allow the devil or any of his angels to do likewise to any other believer in furtherance of his divine purposes. For it is certain that Christians are not guaranteed immunity from Satanic attacks: Paul saw both Satanic and Divine purposes behind his thorn in the flesh, whatever that thorn actually was.



timmopussycat said:


> There is far more Scriptural evidence for the reality of "demonic possession," whatever the "demons" may be





armourbearer said:


> As soon as you say, "whatever that may be," you have affirmed accommodation and denied that the phenomenon is what it appears on the surface to be. But then you deny me the right to speak of accommodation because I do not conclude with you that devils have demoniacal power.



You are correct that it was an unfortunate choice of words. There is enough Scriptural evidence to show that a) the "possessor" was inimical to the human host, b) had supernatural knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and c) had superhuman strength. Rather than using the words I did, I should have specifically asked you what the possessor was if not a devil. 



timmopussycat said:


> since our age has largely rejected the gospel, spiritism is on the rise and similar phenomena to "demon possession" are now occurring and can be expected to continue. If therefore we see any Christian now performing an exorcism, how can we possibly object? For isn't our brother just following the Dominical, Apostolic and NT examples of accommodating to the cultural belief?





armourbearer said:


> I am not sure why a "brother" who confesses Jesus is Lord of all should feel the need to imitate a redemptive work of the only Saviour of sinners. I object to Romanists seeking to make satisfactions to divine justice. I should equally object to so-called Protestants seeking to bring the demons under subjection. Such belongs to the Lord of glory.



First, If you object to today's Christians accommodating to the cultural prejudice as taking the prerogative that belongs to the Lord of glory, how do you clear the apostles from the same charge since on your hypothesis they were equally accommodating? 

Second, the question is not about "imitating a redemptive work of the only saviour" or Protestants bringing "the demons under subjection" instead of Christ doing so. These are also straw man arguments. The question is whether Christians who exorcise are used by Christ as his means of delivering those oppressed by them in the same way that the the godly reformed preacher whose preaching - the visible cause of the man's conversion - was being used by the Holy Spirit who actually regenerated the man.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....................................ill take it as a no then!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett, my answer is definitely no, although others clearly disagree. From my perspective, if there is any "wonder" in these things, it is a "lying wonder." It should only be attributable to the Devil as one of his lies by which he seeks to lead souls astray into ignorance and superstition.
Click to expand...


I would agree that if any evil spirit did appear visibly, it would be a "lying wonder" attempting to intimidate souls into ignorance and superstition.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The attempt to claim that those advocating the reality of demon possession attribute to Satan the divine attributes of life and death is another straw man argument: nobody has said that daimons have the power of life and death.



In Mark 9:22, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him."



timmopussycat said:


> You are correct that it was an unfortunate choice of words. There is enough Scriptural evidence to show that a) the "possessor" was inimical to the human host, b) had supernatural knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and c) had superhuman strength. Rather than using the words I did, I should have specifically asked you what the possessor was if not a devil.



If he was a devil he was not a "possessor," but a "deceiver." If he was a "possessor," he was a demon, not a devil; but you have set aside the proper meaning of "demon" as not possible within a biblical view of life. So I fail to see how you can make the connections you are making.



timmopussycat said:


> First the question is not about "imitating a redemptive work of the only saviour"



Of course it is. You yourself have quoted the passage concerning the coming of the kingdom in relation to the casting out of devils. This was unique to Christ who claims all power in heaven and earth as His. Any imitation of it is a rejection that the kingdom has come in the person of Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would anyone defend against a charge that by accommodating, one was "[/FONT][/SIZE]perverting [the truth] to a wrong meaning, [by means of] equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prejudice of truth is all on the side of those who deny the Confession's teaching that Christ is "the only Mediator between God and man," and "the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head."
Click to expand...



More straw man arguments. 

Nobody is claiming that the devil or his angels are a mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, or denies that he has bruised the serpent's head. We recognize with Paul that the devil is a spiritual being. and as noted in another post, if we affirm that Christians have authority today over evil spirits we only affirm that we are the means the Lord uses in the same way that we affirm the godly preaching of the Reformed preacher is the means used by the Holy Spirit to convert a new believer. We also recognize that the victory Christ won at the cross although full and complete in essence, will not be fully realized in earthly human experience so long as this age lasts.

So how do we clear the Apostles of the charge of violating WLC 145?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attempt to claim that those advocating the reality of demon possession attribute to Satan the divine attributes of life and death is another straw man argument: nobody has said that daimons have the power of life and death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Mark 9:22, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him."
Click to expand...


The attribute of life and death is the ability to destroy not the ability to attempt to destroy. (Luke 12:5) Your cited Scripture illustrates the latter not the former. 



timmopussycat said:


> You are correct that it was an unfortunate choice of words. There is enough Scriptural evidence to show that a) the "possessor" was inimical to the human host, b) had supernatural knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and c) had superhuman strength. Rather than using the words I did, I should have specifically asked you what the possessor was if not a devil.





armourbearer said:


> If he was a devil he was not a "possessor," but a "deceiver." If he was a "possessor," he was a demon, not a devil; but you have set aside the proper meaning of "demon" as not possible within a biblical view of life. So I fail to see how you can make the connections you are making. [/QUOTE[
> 
> I think Matthew set the Gk meaning of the term aside. For the NT knows examples of taking a word from the culture and importing to it a different scope of meaning than the surrounding culture gave it, e.g., the word "agape." In the same way, it appears Matthew did something similar when he used the word "daimonion." Since he would have rejected the notion of intermediate beings found in the Gk and the superstitious notions of Heb. folk religion, and since his usage of the term parallels Mark's and Luke's "unclean" spirit, we are left with a spiritual being morally opposed to God. If such a being is not one of the devil's angels, what is it?
> 
> Biblically the daimon is described as a possessor. Assuming the daimon was deceiving and had no right or power to so possess, the fact was that humans of the day had no power to dispossess the daimon as shown by the failure of their attempts to hold various possessed individuals in captivity or heal others so possessed by normal means.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> First the question is not about "imitating a redemptive work of the only saviour"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. You yourself have quoted the passage concerning the coming of the kingdom in relation to the casting out of devils. This was unique to Christ who claims all power in heaven and earth as His. Any imitation of it is a rejection that the kingdom has come in the person of Christ.
Click to expand...


Yes all power in heaven and earth is Christ's and that is not denied. What is at issue is how he exercises his power over the daimonions. Is it always immediately or is it not? Clearly he worked through others on occasion when he used Apostles to do so. The question we need answered is: what is he doing today?


----------



## Pilgrim

Free Christian said:


> Hi everyone. Recently I heard a discussion on ghosts and demons which is something I had not thought about too much in the past.
> I had always thought that demons were not visible and yet heard some say that what people see as ghosts are visible demons. Also that what some see as aliens are demons also.
> I read in the New Testament where Jesus convinces those who saw Him after the crucifixion that he was not a spirit, or as some may say today a ghost.
> So my questions are, can demons appear visually? Why if they appear to fool people into thinking the dead can appear as ghosts, don't they appear when requested by mediums who claim to be in contact with them? If they can appear when they want, then wouldn't them appearing on cue give greater power to their lies?
> As I see it, all who are asked to conjure them today fail (unlike that in 1 Samuel 28) so was it that in those days it was different? That they appeared back then but don't have the power to now?



For what it's worth, A former of pastor of mine, a man who was an itinerant evangelist and exorcist for a good many years, wrote a book on demonology. (Sovereign Grace Baptist as exorcist is rather rare, needless to say.) If I recall correctly he wrote that anyone who sees a demon has a demon himself! I don't remember if it was an absolute statement or not but I think he wrote always or almost always.

With regard to ghosts, some time ago I was listening to Dr. Erwin Lutzer's radio program. My recollection is that he said that a ghost is a "familiar spirit" that takes on the characteristics of the departed person it was "familiar" with. Thus, haunted buildings with the "ghost of John Smith" or whoever.

I simply relate this information in response to the questions raised by the OP and do not intend to enter the fray, much less affirm the beliefs of the men noted in this post.


----------



## Free Christian

Thanks Mathew. I get what is going on with them now in regards to peoples claims. In the West people claim to see Ghosts or Aliens, things that are popular with that culture. Even so far as Big Foots. Some claims are ridiculous and the person proven to be a hoaxer, but some have been put on lie detectors and passed with flying colours. To them what they believed they saw were real, but were not. Other cultures its other things and these cultural superstitions are what the evil forces, to use my words, are using to deceive and affect the senses into believing are real. So something is happening, yes, but that thing is an illusion. The greater the cultural superstitions and beliefs in creatures and spirits, the greater the illusions or attack on the senses created by these evil forces on those who believe in them. They prey on in a way the fears and superstitions. A culture that has few will have few of these illusions, but a culture with many will have many, such as countries where Voodoo and Witchcraft are part of the culture. So in a way I was wrong, and in a way right. They cannot appear which is what I would have told someone, which was right, but I was wrong in totally discounting all the claims as something may very well have taken place but it was an illusion, an attack on the senses. No fuel, superstition or erroneous belief, no fire, illusion.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> or denies that he has bruised the serpent's head.



According to your theory the serpent is exercising precisely the same power as he was before Christ came, and that the same power of casting out devils is needed today. That is a denial that Christ has effected anything in this regard.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The attribute of life and death is the ability to destroy not the ability to attempt to destroy. (Luke 12:5) Your cited Scripture illustrates the latter not the former.



It illustrates the man believed the devil itself had power to do harm. By your canon of interpretation you are bound to believe the phenomenon as described (although you reject the common notion of what a demon is because it doesn't suit your conjectures), which means you are bound to believe that the devil itself had the power the man ascribed to it.



timmopussycat said:


> If such a being is not one of the devil's angels, what is it?



As explained, it is a demon, a disembodied spirit afforded divine power and honour by the people. As you reject this view, and follow the Christian tradition in calling it a devil, the consistent thing to do would be to acknowledge the basic fact that accommodation is involved.



timmopussycat said:


> what is he doing today?



He is reigning according to the power given Him, not seeking to gain the power over all again.


----------



## Tirian

armourbearer said:


> Originally Posted by Tirian
> Originally Posted by armourbearer
> at other times the *thing done* is but some illusion of the senses by the devil,
> So, paranormally effecting someone's senses?
> What is sensory is normal. If it is a false perception it is an illusion. If it were paranormal it would not be an illusion but real.



A "thing done" then, is some falsely perceived wonder that is an illusion, generated in the mind of the perceiver by a being? If so, how? If not, what are we actually talking about if the illusion wasn't specifically generated contemporaneously with its perception? What is the "thing done" other than nothing?


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Devils are real
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't denied devils are real.
Click to expand...


Sorry Matthew, the emphasis was on the devil's workings not on there existence, didn't mean to make it sound as though you didn't believe in there existence.


----------



## MW

Tirian said:


> A "thing done" then, is some falsely perceived wonder that is an illusion, generated in the mind of the perceiver by a being? If so, how?



Unbelief. Ignorance. Superstition. Pride. Lust. The god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers, and this world in the here and now is the very thing that is used to blind them. Satan using Simon is directly connected with savouring of the things of men. There are social relations and customs. Some are said to be unable to believe while they receive honour one from another. There are authority structures. A vain conversation is received by tradition from one's fathers. In a word, Worldview.


----------



## Free Christian

timmopussycat said:


> The question we need answered is: what is he doing today?


Perhaps, creating the "illusion" that he has more power than he actually does!


----------



## earl40

I write this to clear up misconceptions that arose from this thread that have arisen. When scripture was written there were no words to describe epilepsy, or mental illness which are sometimes real physical conditions or a spiritual moral deficiency in a person. Our Lord healed these people either by directly curing the physical cause by divine fiat or giving them spiritual council which would cure them.

Take this case as an example.....

"14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

This boy was not possessed by any devil but suffered from in my opinion epilepsy which back then people had no medical term to describe his symptoms so they would say he had a demon. Yes they thought a devil was controlling his falling but other than this poor boy being physically sick from the result of the fall he was not possessed as many think happened then or today. Think about this for just a moment. If you brought your child to a Dr. and the Dr. said "He is possessed and needs an exorcist" I hope you would run to another Dr. to get him on some medication to help your child.

I write the above as a medical professional and in my 31 years of being around very sick people I have NEVER run across a "demon possessed" patient. Yes I have come across many people who appear to be "possessed" but what I have found is that if I love them the appearance of possession disappears almost all the time. The times the appearance of possession does not disappear is usually with patients with severe Alzheimer's or sever mental illness which may be handled by a combination of medicine and spiritual council.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I repeat an early admonition to seek to understand one another. Ask questions, show patience in seeking to show the defect in the others view. For now this thread will get a rest and one of the moderators can reopen it later if there is interest in continuing it.


----------

