Demon Possession in 2016

Faith & Science Conversation
103

Well said. And since you’ve invited the discussion, here’s the abstract from a recent paper of mine on the wilderness temptation of Christ.

“Supportive of the observation that Second Temple Period Judaism lacked standardized terminology for a specific satan figure, this study contributes a lexicographical review demonstrating there is no evidence that the satanological terminology used in the Synoptic temptation pericope normatively referred to a specific supernatural evil being in Second Temple Period literature, casting doubt on the common assumption that the Synoptic writers used these terms to identify such a being in the temptation pericope. Early Tannaitic descriptions of disputation with a personified ‘evil inclination’ (yetzer ha ra), are shown to be more relevant analogs than later Talmudic accounts of rabbis tempted by Satan. This provides strong support for a reading of the wilderness temptation as an account of Jesus’ internal struggle with his own desires, rather than a battle of will against a supernatural evil being.”

1 Like
104

Nice. I will try to take a look at it after I finish my Greek homework, which ironically and coincidentally is an analysis of the uses of the present tense in Mark 5:1-10. :tired_face:

105

My Greek is very poor now, since the last time I studied it formally was around 20 years ago during my classics degree. But it’s enough for most of what I do with the language these days. I just wish I hadn’t wasted a year and a half on Latin.

107

@OldTimer
@Eddie
@Dr.Ex-YEC
@beaglelady
@Henry
@Casper_Hesp
@Find_My_Way
@Tony
@Jonathan_Burke
@Christy

After (for some unknown reason) taking the time to read through all the posts in this column here are a few thoughts.

First, I’d recommend checking out this blog post on the topic of mental illness vs demonic possession:

The author of the blog (who is a Biblical Scholar) co-authored the book, “Paradigms on Pilgrimage,” from which the article “Atheistic Meteorology or Divine Rain” was taken and published online at Biologos. Check that out too! The article (about mental illness and demonic activity) is helpful in that it goes a little more in depth into the actual Greek words being used than any of the posts have in this column. The author knows over 6 languages and has served as a pastor for over 20 years and really knows what he is talking about. He answered one of my questions on that post and may still be answering questions in general if anyone asks.

From reading through everything, to me it seems clear that OldTimer, Eddie, Dr. Ex-YEC, and Casper_Hesp make the most persuasive case. In fact it doesn’t even seem like a contest. All the above provide eloquent statements with cogent arguments that back their reasoning on a theological, Biblical, and scientific basis. I particularly resonated with the logic and anecdotes provided by OldTimer and Dr. Ex-YEC as well as the theory Casper_Hesp advanced as to why there is less overt demonic activity in the West. I’ve long held a similar theory myself.

On the other hand, the tone, lack of substance, rudeness, and lack of response in many cases from beaglelady, Find_My_Way, Tony, and others pretty much makes it self-evident that if they have a case, it’s not all that convincing. (This isn’t to say anything about the above on a personal level. I also don’t want to take the time to substantiate these claims either. They are just my observations after reading everything.) Another thing is that while the first group seems to be positively trying to construct a worldview that can account for a complex interplay between science and the actual text of the Bible, the second group appears more bent on deconstruction and red herrings. And unfortunately, deconstruction isn’t all that persuasive even at it’s best.

It is somewhat discouraging, however, to see people more-or-less bickering and going for cheap shots based on poor wording and the like. If anyone taking part in discussions such as this is interested in truth and actually understanding the concerns and beliefs of others, petty back-and-forth rhetorical quips aren’t helpful or interesting. I think that in all these sorts of conversations, the best approach is to be charitable and to try piecing together the best possible argument your opponent (not that this is a debate per se) is making and respond to that. That way productive headway can be made. If we all make it a habit of responding not always to the exact words a person used, but instead to the best possible argument they could be taken as making, then and only then will there be any real progress in these types of conversations.

After reading through everything, these questions remained unanswered or barely touched upon as far as I could tell. (By those who don’t think the demonic exists).

  • If there is no demonic, what are Christians fighting against / for on earth? Just personal tendencies towards sinning? But if that’s all we are fighting against, why don’t those tendencies stop when we are made a “new man” in Christ? In theory if our only hindrance towards perfectly following God is our own nature, and God changes that nature when we are saved, why aren’t Christians immediately made perfect?
  • Also, what exactly is your reason for rejecting the existence of the demonic? Is it that you think that demons are simply unnecessary to account for what has been observed in the world? Is it that you categorize miracles and or the supernatural as somehow violating the laws of the universe and therefore impossible? Does the existence of demons freak you out or simply appear unlikely based on your person experiences? Etc.

Personally I was kind of on the fence about cessationism after having grown up Baptist and having gone to a Bible School that taught cessationism dogmatically, but after reading a book called “The Heavenly Man” I came to reject that teaching. That book powerfully relates the testimony of a Chinese missionary (who was born in China) and how God performed miracles in and around the work he was doing.

1 Like
108

For? The gospel. Against? Unfortunately, ourselves and other humans.

Paul explains this in detail in Romans 7; note that he doesn’t mention satan nor demons in any way, as an explanation for our sin. James also explains it in detail, and he doesn’t mention satan or demons as an explanation for our sin either.

God doesn’t change that nature when we are saved.

Theological. The Bible tells me so.

No.

No.

No.

I read the blog post to which you linked. These points stood out.

  1. Treatment of demonological terminology in the New Testament was superficial. Only three words were cited, and one of them was identified as a reference to mental illness, not demonic oppression. There was no attempt to synthesize the New Testament demonological data. There was no treatment of the Old Testament at all, or any attempt to explain how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other on this subject.

  2. There was no treatment of the Second Temple Period literature which provides the socio-historical context in which the New Testament should be read, nor was there any treatment of the early extra-Biblical Christian literature, such as the Apostolic Fathers.

  3. Despite the promising title of the article, there was no explanation of how to tell the difference between demonic possession and non-demonic illness. This immediately raises a red flag, since it’s very clear that people in the first century could do this reliably, and with ease.

  4. No mention is made of any instruction in the Bible as to how to address demonic oppression. This raises another red flag.

  5. The article’s recommended treatment of those suspected of demonic oppression bears no resemblance to what Christ and the apostles did. This raises another red flag, and a very large one.

I fully appreciate that a blog post is not the place to address some of these issues in detail, especially the Second Temple Period literature, and that the blog post was written for a specific audience. But for these issues not to be even mentioned, let alone described in even simple and accessible terms, is a serious deficiency.

Ultimately the blog post does not tell me how to differentiate reliably between demonic oppression and mental illness, nor does it provide instruction on how to identify and overcome demonic oppression reliably.

1 Like
110

Very obviously, I’m coming from a theological position which rejects the existence of supernatural evil beings, specifically satan and demons. My explicit declaration that such beings do not exist, made this abundantly clear. How was that opaque? What was opaque in my extremely direct answers to the questions posed by Charles Alexander? Absolutely nothing.

I don’t know what they come from (or you), and it doesn’t make any difference to me.

Of course it would, I self-identify as a member of the Christadelphian community. I am a monotheist, and I see you as a soft henotheist.

1 Like
112

Because those people did believe that demonic possession was a reality.

“I add that the words ’ the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.”

1 Like
115

So what?

Their unwarranted assumptions are not my problem. As you know, the policy of the Biologos forum is actually the opposite; people are not obligated or required to declare their personal theological identity or commitments.

When I said that I did not believe in demonic possession, that I did not believe in demons, and that I did not believe in satan as a supernatural being, that immediately demonstrated to people in the discussion that I was denying “important parts of the mainstream”. That’s precisely why I was asked why I hold those positions. You may have missed this, but other people definitely did not.

So what? Without knowing all the details of all my theological beliefs, he still understood me perfectly when we were discussing the topic at hand.

It was very obvious to others. That’s why they challenged me immediately on the subject.

On the contrary, your “tips” assume without evidence that people didn’t understand what I was saying. It is very obvious that people did understand what I was saying when I made these statements.

  • “What this shows is that only people who actually believe in demons, experience attacks from demons. So non-belief is an excellent defense against demons.”

  • “I believe there’s more Scriptural evidence that Adam is a historical figure than that satan is a literal supernatural being”

  • “And let’s remember that Jewish and Christian non-belief in a supernatural satan and demons actually dates to the Second Temple Period and early Christian era, whereas Jewish and Christian non-belief in Adam is a pretty modern conclusion (post-Enlightenment, I think)”

  • “The best disproof of demonic possession is the claims and actions of those who believe in it, as opposed to what the Bible says (and even as opposed to what such people believe).”

  • “And since you’ve invited the discussion, here’s the abstract from a recent paper of mine on the wilderness temptation of Christ.” (that paper argued that for Jesus and the gospel writers, “satan” was not a supernatural evil being)

That’s precisely why I was asked why I don’t believe in demonic possession or the existence of demons. Note that Charles Alexandre asked “Also, what exactly is your reason for rejecting the existence of the demonic?”, so he understood me very well. I replied “Theological. The Bible tells me so”. What was unclear to you about that?

2 Likes
116

While I believe that evil spiritual forces do exist, I agree with the statements above and believe they have no power to take away our free will Today. If they did, we would be warned extensively in the Bible. However it appears that Demonic influence ceased at Christ’s death on the cross and we are given no further warning or information on the subject.

If a person’s free will can be taken from them then how can we truly be in control of our actions and choices? How can we be held responsible? The Bible is clear however that we can choose to follow or reject Christ freely.

117

Deliberately.

It does answer your question. It demonstrates that you, like Cardinal Bellarmine (who made the statement), are making specific assumptions about the text which are leading you to ask the wrong questions. You are making exactly the same argument as Cardinal Bellarmine did.

  • Bellarmine: “Why would one doubt that the sun orbits the earth, when Solomon (a man with divinely gifted wisdom), tells us emphatically that the sun orbits the earth? Especially if one believes that Solomon was divinely inspired, and therefore not likely to make a mistake or say something which he knew was untrue?”

  • You: "why would one doubt the New Testament narrators (who were also “people in the first century”) when they indicate that demonic possession has sometimes taken place? Especially if one believes the New Testament narrators are divinely inspired and therefore not likely to make a mistake regarding spiritual truths?

And in case that’s still not clear to you, let’s go here.

No I do not believe the New Testament writers made any errors at all in their statements about demons. If you had the familiarity with my beliefs that you claim, you would not even have asked such a question. My community holds an extremely high view of Scripture and inspiration, and I am no exception to that.

1 Like
118

I’m sure the Calvinists here will have some comments on that for you.

119

Well, the Calvinists are a whole other problem who also need to be opposed. Calvinism denies the concept of free will. Christ died on the cross for all Men so that all may believe, repent and turn to God of their own choosing.

121

You say that, but you deliberately challenged me to disclose my religious beliefs. Additionally, I have already demonstrated that no one was disadvantaged in the discussion as a result of knowing all my theological convictions. I didn’t know George was a Unitarian Universalist until today, and I don’t know what most of you believe, but that doesn’t stop me interacting meaningfully with your comments.

I haven’t just been implying it, I’ve been stating it, and I have been stating it very deliberately on the grounds of Scripture.

Then please read my posts. I explained I had a Biblical basis, and I linked to a multi-page article of mine in which I also demonstrated a Biblical basis.

Such a statement communicates very clearly exactly what the question was asking. I am not mistaken about that. A simple question was asked and I answered it with perfect clarity. The only person here who is expressing any confusion about what I’ve written is you.

I see no evidence for this. No one here has even remotely suggested any such thing.

Actually I don’t need to do that myself, since there’s a wealth of scholarly literature on the subject. I can provide you with a convenient reading list if you wish. If you had read the paper of mine to which I linked earlier, you would have seen some of that literature quoted.

We don’t actually need to, since these arguments have already been made for years in the peer reviewed scholarly literature. However, as it happens I have an relevant article currently undergoing peer review in Svensk exegetisk årsbok; you can read it here. I submitted another relevant article recently to Themelios; I linked to it previously in this thread, and you can read it here. But of course the case I make in those papers is not new, you can find the same arguments made in the peer reviewed scholarly literature over the last 30 years or so. I am however presenting a new synthesis of evidence for the arguments.

1 Like