Byron, I’m sorry that I didn’t explain my context. Paul referred to spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. For example, Ephesians 6:12 NIV, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Likewise, evil or unclean spirits inhabit the heavenly realms in some way, as arid as it may be… And at this point, I’m also interested in your view the will or lack of will in good heavenly agents. I’ll recast my question:
Do you imply that all evil spirits and good heavenly agents are intrinsically incapable of making decisions?
And how could a spirit of infirmity or uncleanness ever be reconciled to God?
Forgive me Byron, but I’m getting a little confused.
Are you still talking about personal beings?
( You know–like the ones who begged Jesus not to torment them before the time, and asked Him not to cast them into the abysse , before they entered the pigs and sent them over the cliff. )
Do you still accept the 100% accuracy of scripture ( for the purpose of this discussion )?
Do you still deny that you have any personal presuppositions to the contrary?
Please clarify these issues for me so I don’t get a headache while I’m reading along here.
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being ; also : the body and clothing
5: the personality of a human being : self
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
— per·son·hood Listen to the pronunciation of personhood -ˌhu̇d\ noun
— in person
: in one’s bodily presence
The point of this thread is to discover if the bible says that the ‘devil’ was a former archangel in ‘heaven’. You stated (through the gift of suspicion) that maybe I didn’t WANT there to be personal demons.
It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want them to be. It doesn’t matter - not to me, not to them, not to you, right?
What I want are some answers.
The NT refers to demons in these categories:
Spirits of infirmity
Spirits of deaf/dumbness
Spirits of uncleaness
Jesus said the woman with a 'spirit of infirmity" had been “bound by Satan lo these 18 years”
I was asked (basically) if these spirits had free control over their thought lives or not. I asked in return:
Jesus had a conversation with them. I have had conversations with them.
So now lets talk about their free will and what quality of people they are:
I’m fifty years old, and I have a bachelor’s degree, so don’t call me “young man.”
How old are you Byron?
I noticed that you didn’t just highlight definition 5 a ( “being rational and self-conscious” ), but the example given of how one author used the word in a sentence.
The problem is that that author wasn’t using the word literally in that sentence.
The government personnel who make decisions may be rational and self-conscious ( and will hopefully be responsive ), but government itself is an abstraction–a thing.
Now take a closer look at definition 5 b.
"having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction "
I believe you’ve been arguing against a personal devil since you started this thread, and I thank you for clarifying the fact that one of your personal presuppositions is a devil who’s no more personal ( or aware of his own existence ) than human governments are.
Thank you Byron.
I believe it matters to all three of us ( the demons, who I believe to be personal beings, included. )
And I thought you started this thread to prove that the idea of Satan falling from some high place was pure myth ( and could not be reasonably inferred from scripture )?
I’m 52 and am uneducated. That’s why I have to look up definitions in dictionaries. Is it improper for an older uneducated man to call a younger educated man “young man”? I guess I should look up some info on proper etiquette. Till we resolve this issue you can keep rolling your eyes
Well, you kept saying ‘personal’ and harping on that over and over so I decided to look it up. I highlighted the part which was in your definitions favor (even using the term ‘personal devil’) but also saw that the government example was there in the same sentence. I’m trying to understand all the terms.
The OP shows reasons why the “Lucifer” passage isn’t about ‘Satan’ at all. The falls applied to Satan in scripture are falls from his authority from evil dominion over men, not a fall from a place of an angel of God’s light and as the one in charge of worship in God’s throne room (and all the other traditions about this). The focus on ‘personal’ or ‘non-personal’ is your focus and I see how it relates to the subject of satan and even how we view demons. I guess it’s very important in your view (for whatever reason) to see them as people who are just making bad choices. That’s why I have so many questions about demon spirits of infirmity etc. Do you have any answers for me about that?
An overseer ( appointed by Timothy ) wouldn’t have “evil dominion” over anyone.
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ( 1 Tim. 3:6. )
And neither would the created Cherub spoken of in Ezekiel 28 ( before he fell. )
It’s important because scripture portrays Satan ( and his demons ) as rational beings, and rational beings have wills of their own.
If we deny that, there’s no sin ( and no reason for the cross. )
As to your questions regarding “demon spirits of infirmity,” it’s like asking how an adulterer, a liar, or a thief can have a good thought.
Adulterers ( as such ) think only of adultery, thieves ( as such ) think only of stealing, and liars ( as such ) think only of lying.
Can we conclude from that that an individual who has stolen, lied, or committed adultery has never had a good thought, never can have a good thought, and never will have a good thought?
Okay that’s clear then (as to your view). A spirit living inside of a person making them ill and going by the name of “spirit of infirmity” is just another free moral person having (mostly?) evil thoughts and maybe some good thoughts too. To help me understand - if they have good thoughts does the inflicted person feel better for a while during that time, that is, does the spirit of infirmity feel guilty and back off the symptoms a bit?
I mean, I really am having a hard time grasping how this works under your scenario here.
You don’t believe that there are people so evil that they go for some time without ever having a good thought?
I doubt Hitler ( as an adult ) ever had a good thought, and I’m certain he had none in the last days ( in the bunker, when he was implementing the scorched earth policy, dictating his last notes, marrying Eva Braun, and planing to kill her before he killed himself. )
He was a busy little bee that last week, and not a good thought crossed his mind ( and if it did, it didn’t move him to back off of exterminating the Jews–or destroying himself, his country, and his bride. )
Does that mean he could never have a good thought?
If so, we’re all wrong about UR here.
And btw: I just heard about a man who hired someone on Craig’s list to rape his wife ( while his kids were home ) so he could watch.
How long do you think it’s been since that man had a good thought?
P.S. William Peter Blatty used a historical study of Demonic possession as the main source for his novel “The Exorcist.” The original work goes back to 1921, and was done by a Dr. Traugott Oesterreich.
You might find this quote interesting.
Oesterreich, T. Possession and Exorcism among primitive races: in antiquity, the middle ages, and modern times. Causeway Books: New York. 1974. ( pgs. 62-63 )
What do you think about the guy who leads the demons to Christ before he casts them out? Did you see my post about that? He claims a very high success rate when evangelizing demons.
I wish I could remember who it was - I think someone at tentmaker, I’ll see if I can find the posts.
Also curious to know what we are to do in being Christlike and casting these demons out. Or is God just ‘letting them be’ for now? If so, why? If not, why aren’t most Christians doing anything about them?
Unless you have the gift of discerning spirits, I doubt you’d be able to recognize true demonic possession from an environmentally or bio-chemically based disorder–and if you do have the gift ( and can cast out demons ), and know someone who’s demoniacally possessed ( all of which I doubt ), I’d concentrate on relieving the human suffering.
My advice is to leave the demons, their correction, and their reconciliation to God ( and His time plan. )
No.
I’d rather roam the border of Pakistan trying to convert the Taliban fighters.
Not necessarily. I don’t think they make decisions which contradict their main purpose or assignment though. Every biblical account of a Godly spiritual agent has them fulfilling their task and every account of an evil spirit, the same. (Unlike Taliban fighters - who are occasionally known to retire).
You mentioned cunning trickery (or something to that effect) and of course the serpent planned the attack carefully and still does (as in eph. 6:11 “stand against the ‘wiles’ (schemes/cunning trickery) of the devil”).
So you don’t take the admonition literally “These signs shall follow them which believe; In my name shall they cast out devils” etc. ?
Also - it appears the infirmities and deafness etc attributed to demons don’t necessarily involve the full possession of those afflicted, correct? And you’re saying “Leave them alone except in special circumstances” (ie if you have the gift and can discern etc). This sounds like possibly more church tradition and seems to directly contradict Jesus’ admonition for believers.
I assume this means that you believe that God assigned the devil to do nothing but sin such as murdering and lying. Is that correct?
And I assume that you believe that good heavenly angels, sometimes called “sons of God”, cannot decide to sin. Is that correct?
And I assume that you believe that humans can make decisions that contradict their main purpose or assignment while good heavenly angels and demons cannot. Is that correct?
Remember, we are talking about scripture - not my beliefs. We have ‘messengers that sinned’ as a reference so my ideas on this could be wrong. However it doesn’t say God’s heavenly spiritual agents ever missed the mark. And we have every example of God’s messengers (Gabriel, Michael, “the angel of the Lord” etc etc) always completing their task and Satan and his demons always about their dark deeds. It’s not up to me to decide why they do this - these are the biblical examples. We have the earliest references to satan and the serpent doing what their names imply.
There are scholars who address the ‘angels that sinned’ as those ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came, but that seems like a bit of a stretch and I hate to reference material that is over my head. I can look it up for you if you are interested.
Also there are explanations about Adam the “Son of God” and the godly linage of Seth (sons of God) and the ‘sons of men’ referring to the ungodly linage of Cain, but that gets into more controversial waters as well. And it doesn’t address why the kids were so large. (I’m not sure that being the physical offspring of God’s fallen messengers explains their size either!)
PS “sons of God” is another can of worms but obviously if the traditional interpretation of “God’s heavenly angels” is invoked then my theory is shot down. Since you believe in this, do you think there is a prohibition on God’s horny agents mating with pretty chicks now? (Just to put it in modern vernacular)
“Those who believe in my name” as a group ( corporately, i.e. The Church. )
There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. Unity and Diversity in One Body. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. ( 1 Cor. 12:5-25. )
If you think that every ( individual ) believer has the gifts “of healings” and “the working of miracles,” you have an argument with scripture.
I knew a kid who was shot in the ear with a Bee-Bee gun, and he was deaf in that ear–do you think he was possesed with a spirit of deafness?
What I said was that there may be environmentally and bio-chemically based disorders, and that without the gift of discerning spirits ( which Paul said only some believers had, even in the Apostolic age ) it would be difficult for you to distinguish this kind of disorder from genuine demonic possession.
Does Pentecoustalist “Church Tradition” count?
Only ignorance of scripture ( and the influence of that tradition ) could cause you to think that what I said contradicted “Jesus’ admonition for believers.”
)?
