The deeper I move into traditional realms of theological thought, the more I am convinced that one of the biggest dangers in the teachings of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) is that it teaches a subtle form of superstitious determinism. Rather than being free to live our lives without fear, we are taught that any small compromise with “the world” — even an unintentional or innocent one — may put us in danger of losing our salvation or of being overcome by demonic influence. Hundreds of children had their beloved dolls taken away — some of them had to watch them being destroyed — because Bill Gothard told their families that Cabbage Patch dolls were evil and opened their children to demonic influence. Other people found themselves compelled to divest their homes of family heirlooms because the figurines, masks, or other items, even though used purely for decoration, were focal points for demonic influence, according to Gothard’s teachings.
I do not doubt that some people found relief from fears and problems after removing such things from their homes. Because the human mind has remarkable, frightening power. But I am coming to believe that things do not have power unless I give them power. If I fear that the Cabbage Patch doll, ancient Indian artifact, or African tribal mask on my wall might harbour evil spirits, then I am giving those things power over me. I believe that this is why God was so clear that He had “not given [us] a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Timothy 1:7) Anyone with a sound mind who is confident in their God-given power knows that a carved piece of rock or wood or an ugly baby doll is not going to harm them.
That is not to say that I think it is appropriate for Christians to have statues of Kali, or Buddha, or other foreign gods adorning our homes. I do think God was serious when He told His people “You shall have no other gods in front of my face.” (That is a loose translation from the Hebrew, in which the words על־פני are translated “before me” in Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7, but as “upon/over the face of” in Genesis 1:2.)
So no, I don’t think we need to start decorating our homes with Buddha statues, but I also think that we need not be afraid of those kinds of things, 
because He who indwells us is greater than those idols. If you have a statue that has been passed down in your family, I don’t think you need to get rid of it just because you unexpectedly learn that it is a fertility god statue from ancient Mesopotamia. I have known people who have done just that, and I have known yet others who would not visit other believers because of a particular piece of decor in that person’s home. That is legalistic bondage, not freedom.
To teach, as Bill Gothard does, that toys and statues and masks and the like can somehow have a malign influence upon your family seems just as superstitious to me as does the idea that breaking a mirror will land you with seven years’ bad luck. And God seems to be pretty clear that superstition is one of the burdens that Christians should be free from.
Thank you. It was a drastic shift in mindframe for me when it was brought to my attention that in the OT God's concern with Israel's idols wasn't the fierce competition they posed to His power and authority, but that Israel had replaced Him with junk.
Thanks for this! And yes, Cabbage Patch dolls are ugly, if nothing else, haha!
Excellent!! Very well said! Some of the teachings do lead to much superstition and fear that any small misstep will put one under Satan's influence. When we replace that with a desire to follow the Lord, instead of a man's rules, we can experience great freedom and joy!
" Rather than being free to live our lives without fear, we are taught that any small compromise with “the world” — even an unintentional or innocent one — may put us in danger of losing our salvation or of being overcome by demonic influence."
YES!
Wendy, this is so very much on target - and not only for Gothard, but for many conservative fundamentalists who buy into Gothard and other systems to protect themselves.
A Christmas tree is - a tree.
A Narnia book with a picture of a faun in it is - a book.
A Christian song with drums prominently featured is - a song.
These things only have any influence over us to the extent that we ourselves allow, and only have what power we ourselves ascribe to them. They have no intrinsic capacity to attack, influence, or control us.
In and of themselves they CANNOT be more powerful than the risen Christ and the indwelling Spirit. To claim otherwise is blasphemous.
I have known yet others who would not visit other believers because of a particular piece of decor in that person’s home. That is legalistic bondage, not freedom.
____________________
It would also seem to go against the teaching that we are to esteem others higher than ourselves. To not visit our fellow believer like that could really hurt their feelings and cause an unnecessary rift in the relationship.
When I deployed with ALERT for a service-project in Colorado, I remember being forbidden by the staff from buying anything kokopelli related. I had no idea what it was, I just thought it was a cool South Western design.
Though I am completely against legalism and the general point of this article, I think sometimes we also have to be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. Yes, it's completely legalistic and over the top to consider a cabbage patch doll to have some type of demonic influence. And even Paul addressed these same basic principles when he basically said that it's not wrong to eat meat offered to idols (though we shouldn't judge those who eat or don't eat based on their consciences).
However, this article goes one step too far to assume any material object cannot possibly have power unless the author gives it power. The idea that nothing physical can have any real spiritual power associated with it (and is a mere superstition) is a result of Western "Enlightenment." Real physical objects can still have a possible spiritual good or evil influence. It's not legalistic to believe as such.
I used to be heavy into IBLP of my own free will but ultimately became an Orthodox Christian. Yes - I kiss icons, venerate saints and objects, and believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Unfortunately, evangelical Christianity is rooted in legalistic thought and it's almost impossible to avoid legalism within a Western Christian construct. But the idea that nothing physical can be spiritual unfortunately is a result of the Reformation and Western "Enlightenment" thinking. Let us not forget that "God in the flesh" is what Christianity is rooted on. The physical can most certainly possess the spiritual. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But this article is totally spot on that we should not live in fear. Unfortunately, IBLP leads one to believe that any misstep could lead to doom.
And I don't mean to overuse or offend with the "baby and bathwater" cliche. It's clear Gothard is out of balance my taking the good news of Christ and turning it into a list of rules.
I can appreciate the desire to avoid overcorrection. One can, after all, overcorrect from legalism into more legalism — often committing the same sin as the legalist by "discerning" that "if something even looks like legalism, it is legalism, so avoid it at all costs!"
However, I must challenge the claim that:
My challenge rests not on a case akin to "Western Christianity is too secular and not mindful of the miraculous," which may be true, but rather a Biblical basis of how God conveys His power: through the Holy Spirit Who redeems human hearts who in turn redeem aspects of creation, such a Things.
Scripture itself clearly says only humans, not Things, are moral beings.
1. Jesus was clear in Mark 7 that exterior Things have no real sinful influence; sin arises solely in the human heart.
2. "Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.'" (1 Cor. 8:4) This alone refutes the Gothard notion of demons possessing idols, or the popular Christian notion that "behind every idol is a demon," or even the converse notion that certain objects can be inherently more "spiritual" than others. (I do not believe this rules out using icons in worship, but if this is permitted, it is the practice of the Thing's user, not the Thing itself, that aids in worship.)
3. After explaining that false teachers will deceive and ban certain foods and even marriage, Paul gives his basis: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:4-5)
Stephen, good points. I mostly agree actually. I'll try to respond more fully by the end of this week or this next weekend.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. Orthodox perspective is great.
Fwiw though, just so you know, the "baby and bathwater" phrase is pretty close to a swear word for many of us. ;)
It has been misused countless times to defend Gothard's abuse of scripture and the lifestyle that results from living The Gothard Way.
Cheers! =o)
Thanks Will. Sorry about the swear cliche. There's always a challenge to find the right balance, but I certainly don't mean to offend. Clearly Gothard is out of balance in his approach and turns the good news into a bunch of rules.
And I understand the challenge of going through a process of healing after being entrenched in legalistic ideology. I remember the first time I listened to a song with a rock beat after leaving the Oklahoma City Training Center. (I lived and worked there for a year and even helped run part of the place.) That was a stretch for me as I used to tell everyone how wrong it was. It takes a while to unlearn that which you have learned.
Hi Michael, I was not offended by your statement, and found your perspective interesting. I do believe that SOME physical objects can certainly house evil spirits, but I'm not so paranoid now. I used to think that nurses' uniforms that had Chinese calligraphy on the print, were probably possessed by demons. Rather absurd really. I've got some Irish heritage, so I'm naturally a little superstitious, haha, I'd always try to err on the side of caution.
I understand. In my Gothard days, I threw away many things that now I wish I had kept. :-) All because I wanted to cleanse my home as best I could. I'm grateful to the grace of God who showed me the error of Gothard's teachings. I used to make many of my decisions out of some fear that if I didn't choose the best or most holy decision, my life was ruined. Good to know God's grace is bigger than all of that. Happy St Patrick's Day!
I agree that some objects can harbor evil spirits, but not all. And as Christians, we do have power over them.
a African tribal mask made in China, is quite different then an African tribal mask used in tribal worship to the devil; BUT also the same mask used in the tribal worship could or could not also have demonic spirits 'attached'.
We need to use discernment in any situation, but we should not be afraid!
A true idol is a representative symbol of the entity that you look to for a moral code to live by. For most Americans that would be the flag, and most IBLP families tend to be firmly in that camp.
^^^^ THIS!!!!
This is going in my book of quotes. Thanks for that, Dean.
symbol of the entity that you look for a moral code to live by. Why that could be the little red book itself!
I'll be in Ukraine myself later this year visiting family. You'll have to tell me sometime about your ministry there.
Michael, look me up on FB. =)
Great article thanks for sharing WendyA. :)
My Cabbage Patch doll was burned, as was my handmade Care Bear. I think some Pound Purrries were burned, too? I refused to watch. It made me sad then - now it makes me sick to my stomach, especially the Care Bear. I **SO** wish I had that bear now!
And yes, Cabbage Patch Dolls are ugly..... :) but it was a special doll to me so I really wish I had it to share with my daughter.
To help show the mindset one gets into, when I first heard about the American Girl doll company, I was suspicious of them. What was "wrong" with them? Every popular toy had *something* wrong with it, so what was the deal with American Girl??? (My daughter now owns and loves an AG doll.) Ditto with Thomas the Tank Engine, or Beanie Babies! In some toys, the "demonic" influence was easy to find..... Care Bears with their magic, My Little Pony with their tattoos and magic, and on it goes. In our family, "evil" gifts from friends or relatives were quietly discarded later, but in my friend's family, such gifts were returned to the giver with a note explaining why! This mindset definitely leads to a holier-than-thou attitude, as well as a self-righteous distrust of *everything* and *everyone* outside of the approved circle!!!
It's SO WONDERFUL to be free from that superstition! Now my kids & I are free to enjoy things and take them at face value. There are still some things I don't allow in our home for various reasons, but most toys, as well as age-appropriate movies & music, *are* allowed and ENJOYED.
I remember all those toys you mentioned too. :) Also, I remember when my parents came home sharing about what they'd heard about some of these toys. I remember gathering my toys together and praying with my parents over my toys. I think I did get rid of my cabbage patch doll(s) - I wasn't too attached to them anyway. But I kept my large collection of My Little Ponies. :) What memories and heavy, fearful thoughts for a little girl to think about her toys being demon-possessed or cursed!
Thanks so much for this Wendy. It has been so freeing to me to realize just what you said, objects have no spiritual power. I didn't realize how much I focused on the negative - and that in doing so I gave Satan so much more power than he actually has. Not only that, but God was robbed of power and worship. In a broad sense, this reminds me of Screwtape Letters. Instead of trying to get the Christian to not believe in God - Screwtape was advised to keep his subject busy with unimportant things.
I love that my kids live in freedom. They have various toys, watch Disney movies and read Calvin and Hobbes. All with no fear.
So bg thought there was something demonic about Calvin and Hobbs? Didn't know about that one,,,,,,
Yes, the little boy had an imaginary friend. I'm guessing that was the demonic part. I remember my parents mentioning something about that in church years ago, when they were giving testimony, and a young couple close to the front chuckled and looked confused. Mom and dad later said they were, 'scoffing'. Who knows? I never read Calvin and Hobbes, so I'm pretty much clueless what they're really about.
ditto what Rachel said....I have been under this thing for my whole life, walk right and God will bless, go off the path and its the wrath of God upon you...I saw every bad thing that happened to me as punishment because I did not love God with my whole heart, or had failed somewhere along the line, etc...this one article has been most freeing in many ways.
to add to above---this twisted superstitious way of thinking did not come from Mr. Bill, it was a combination of childhood events, parents, catholic religion and many other influences...attending the one Mr. Bill seminar just cemented it all together in a way that trapped my thinking, being, actions that are only starting to come into correct alignment from reading this site.
It was referenced by Michael already, but this article addresses the same issue Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 8:4-8: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."
Paul goes on to talk about how to behave around weaker consciences. That's worth noting. Some call them 'higher standards' but Paul calls them 'weaker consciences.' Behold the weaker brother.
I think Christians too often want someone to give them their marching orders, an approved 'Good-and-Bad' list. To quote Derek Webb, "Don't teach me about politics and government, just tell me who to vote for... Don't teach me how to live like a free man, just give me a new law..." My personal favorite example of this was a conversation I had with a former roommate of mine. We had just finished watching 'The Mummy Returns' (no doubt NOT an ATI-approved flick, I assume!?) and as we turned off the DVD player, the TV came on to a commercial of the latest Harry Potter movie. My roommate said, "Oh, I don't want to watch that one; you know, that movie's full of witchcraft and stuff." I laughed out loud. "Really? For the last two hours we've been watching THE MUMMY? And you were OK with THAT?" But The Mummy franchise hadn't made it onto the cultural-Christianese blacklist. Harry Potter had. My roommate had his marching orders... 'Don't watch THAT movie.' No act of personal discernment required. I expect that's a lot of what many of you experienced in ATI: "Here's a list of approved and non-approved toys, music, knick-knacks, etc. Don't ask questions or look for patterns of consistency. Just throw it on the fire."
I think you are right on, Kevin. There can be a strong pressure among individuals and among parents as well to obey those lists. It may not be apparent at first but soon you discover that violating even the unwritten lists will begin to result in you being frozen out. Neither The Mummy nor Harry Potter should be consumed uncritically, nor should they be used as markers for those who are "us" and "them."
There is a backward dynamic when it becomes the order of the day to invent more and more "higher standards" when Paul actually said that was the "weaker brother." Paul was not advocating anything-goes, but neither did he advocate written and unwritten lists of "higher standards."
Wendy, I so relate to what you wrote. Years ago, I was in bondage to this kind of thinking, and destroyed a cd I know wish I still had - Gustav Holtz "The Planets." Upon learning he based his music on mythology, I thought it was an evil influence and got rid of the cd after cutting it up. And it is really beautiful music, so I regret what I did, now. Funny thing as an aside, I would never think of pitching anything by CS Lewis, but that is probably because Mere Christianity strengthened my faith in who Jesus is, when in college. And for that, I remain eternally grateful.
However, I do not believe Bill Gothard teaches you can lose your salvation. What he teaches is that if you are saved, and violate these extra-biblical rules is you may get to heaven sooner, may suffer lots of bad temporal consequences, and so on, but I have never heard him teach that a person, once saved, can lose his or her salvation. Once, on the Yahoo board, we were having a discussion about this. I called the institute and was told Bill believes in eternal security as far as true believers go. While he does teach an Arminian conception of prevenient grace, it appears he believes once you are saved, you are always saved.
I don't know if anybody from the Institute has threatened believers with losing their salvation, but that is what I recall from years ago when I directly called IBLP. Perhaps others may have heard different teaching . . . if so, I would be interested in hearing from them . . . I know that families shun children who don't toe all the extra-biblical lines, and perhaps call their salvation into question. While that is not what I had in mind, I can see why that would cause one to think the institute teaches that you can lose your salvation.
I know I shall be bludgeoned. For the record, I have researched Cabbage Patch dolls . . . and have yet to find the occultic connection. So far that seems to be a black eye that won't resolve. I reserve the right to be wrong, but I have approached staff directly on that.
But . . . what do you make of this statement:
"19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" (1 Cor. 10:19-22)
That sounds a lot like things offered to demons have a way of "fellowshipping" with the demons. I think of it like living with a gang in the neighborhood (which I have). They are there, you know they are there, they largely ignore you. One day you take up with something that they are focused on, like removing a gang sign from a wall. They put it there, they like it, and you took it down. Suddenly they are thinking about you instead of the rival gang or the next drug party. They may yell at you . . . they may threaten you . . . they may taunt you . . . they may even attack you. You are on their "friends and family and enemies" list.
Demons are real. They like certain things and hang around them. Things offered to them in worship they like . . . maybe they hang around, liking them, admiring them. One day you buy that thing that Joe Demon likes and is admiring. You are now on his list of friends, family, and enemies.
I am not afraid of the gang down the street . . . because I trust in Jesus. I go to the authorities for as much help as makes sense. Maybe I will move if things get too exciting. I also do not fear demons, for they have no authority over me. But . . . they can make my life interesting, distracting . . . to the point that I might want to get rid of Joe Demon's favorite toy and move on.
It has often behooved me to look at the entire section of verses when someone mentions one or two. And, for me, the use of other versions for comparison/understanding is also vital. Here is the section where the two verses you quote come from:
15-18 I assume I’m addressing believers now who are mature. Draw your own conclusions: When we drink the cup of blessing, aren’t we taking into ourselves the blood, the very life, of Christ? And isn’t it the same with the loaf of bread we break and eat? Don’t we take into ourselves the body, the very life, of Christ? Because there is one loaf, our many-ness becomes one-ness — Christ doesn’t become fragmented in us. Rather, we become unified in him. We don’t reduce Christ to what we are; he raises us to what he is. That’s basically what happened even in old Israel — those who ate the sacrifices offered on God’s altar entered into God’s action at the altar.
19-22 Do you see the difference? Sacrifices offered to idols are offered to nothing, for what’s the idol but a nothing? Or worse than nothing, a minus, a demon! I don’t want you to become part of something that reduces you to less than yourself. And you can’t have it both ways, banqueting with the Master one day and slumming with demons the next. Besides, the Master won’t put up with it. He wants us — all or nothing. Do you think you can get off with anything less?
23-24 Looking at it one way, you could say, “Anything goes. Because of God’s immense generosity and grace, we don’t have to dissect and scrutinize every action to see if it will pass muster.” But the point is not to just get by. We want to live well, but our foremost efforts should be to help others live well.
25-28 With that as a base to work from, common sense can take you the rest of the way. Eat anything sold at the butcher shop, for instance; you don’t have to run an “idolatry test” on every item. “The earth,” after all, “is God’s, and everything in it.” That “everything” certainly includes the leg of lamb in the butcher shop. If a nonbeliever invites you to dinner and you feel like going, go ahead and enjoy yourself; eat everything placed before you. It would be both bad manners and bad spirituality to cross-examine your host on the ethical purity of each course as it is served. On the other hand, if he goes out of his way to tell you that this or that was sacrificed to god or goddess so-and-so, you should pass. Even though you may be indifferent as to where it came from, he isn’t, and you don’t want to send mixed messages to him about who you are worshiping.
No need to "bludgeon" you, man (that's a bit of self-flattery, isn't it? ;-) ). You're just incorrect, that's all.
[Biblical citation required.]
In advance, just in case: personal anecdotes or tales told by "spiritual warfare" advocates (such as Bondage Breaker author Neil Anderson) do not count as proof. In fact contradict clear Biblical evidence that the Earth and all that is in it is the Lord's. Among Gothard's many wrong teachings, superstitious practice of plain mysticism -- including fear of physical objects -- is among the worst. In fact, this itself is the same kind of occult practice and un-Godly fear that Scripture forbids.
Still, I am glad you concede the point about Cabbage Patch dolls. I could try to say that I was wounded personally by the dolls or bans on them, but that would be pushing my own anecdotal evidence too far. :-)
Finally, have you ever heard or used the phrase "that looks demonic"? Yes what "looks demonic" according to Scripture? Only one text actually describes an appearance of the Devil and his minions: 1 Cor. 11:14. Yet Christians often act as though "a picture of something in red tights" is what we should fear — rather than something that appears very Spiritual.
Amendment: that reference is actually 2 Cor. 11:14.
Also, the phrase "a picture of something in red tights" comes from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters.
Anne: You have cited an interesting paraphrase. For example, the key difference - calling demons "nothing" doesn't seem to be brought out in any translation I have consulted. So I don't really think that is a very good translation. If I am missing something let me know.
Stephen:
How about this section:
"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. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Eph. 6:12-13)
Take a second to really read this. We . . . are wrestling . . . with demons. Sounds pretty up close and personal. They have positions, they have names . . . they have opinions, feelings. Scripturally I understand them to be angels, fallen . . . right? They have differing appearances, beauty . . . We see different appearances of them in Scripture. I can trot out the verses if you want.
What are you exactly objecting to? Are angels more or less stupid than we are? Or . . . are you into virtual beings?
Basically, if you don't like my perception of demons - which I think is Scriptural - what do you know about them?
This is the NASB version, pretty much says the same thing. I checked a couple of commentaries and actually discovered that these verses seem to be directed at the fact you shouldn't take the Lord's Supper and also attend an idol feast. Which really has nothing to do with what the article discusses.
19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?
Bottom line, the chapter has to do with not having fellowship with the devil, because the Lord is jealous. This has to do with the object of the feast, not the feast. Fellowship with demons. I don't know how else to take that.
Greetings, brother,
You've done what many people do when I challenge the belief that "Demons can do X" -- in your case, "demons can attach to objects and make them evil."
Your reply can be summarized by: "Well, Scripture proves demons are real."
Fair?
But what I asked was specifically to prove this:
Evidently you chose only to prove that "demons are real."
I believe they're real, brother. That's not at issue. That's not what I challenge. And it seems anytime someone says something like "demons are real and they possessed my step-cousin's cow and then lifted the entire silo off the ground in a raging electrical storm," and then I say something like, "What in the Bible supports the notion that demons can do this?" and then the other person says, "Nuh-uh! Demons are real!"
I believe they're real. I don't believe they can do every amazing supernatural thing people claim they can do, or attach to objects and make them evil even apart from human sinful motive. I believe the first, and doubt the second, based solely on what Scripture alone says.
So there's some clarification, brother. What in Scripture indicates, not that demons are real (we agree that they are), and not that demons have ranks and are dangerous to our spiritual health, but whether demons can attach to objects and make them evil even apart from human sinful motive? From whence comes this belief that they have this power?
At the risk of giving away the ending: anecdotes and superstition. :-)
(Not that anything is wrong with that. Yet Scripture comes first.)
Thank you for bringing this to light; the ironic twist to all of this is that it is actually occultic practicies and occutic thought that gives credence to the belief that demons can possess inanimate objects (i.e. animism) - but I suppose thats the whole purpose of this website, is it not...
Although it is kind of spooky and fun - anyone seen "Poltergeist"? - not ATI approved (and I would not let my kids watch it today :))
Stephen:
1) I never said objects are made evil by demons. You followed a perspective and prejudice to a conclusion you have heard from others. The meat offered at idol temples is never implied to be evil. Having fellowship with demons IS evil. If eating the meat makes me have something in common with beings I am supposed to be wrestling, that is . . . no good.
2) You are not thinking this through . . . making me document things you should be acknowledging. What DO we know about demons? In the following, if you need the references, just say . . . I am taking a quick break from work)
They live in people . . .
They have positions of authority relative to one another and jurisdictions over specific countries . . .
They have names . . .
They have feelings . . .
They wander through the earth looking at things . . .
They seem to dislike harp playing . . .
They make your hair stand on end when they show up . . .
They work individually, or in coordinated groups . . .
They are angels, so they have the power and intelligence of an angel . . .
They contaminate things so badly that if you find an object of veneration you can't just destroy it and keep the gold and jewels, you have to destroy them as well . . .
We have literal fights with them . . .
Angels have literal wrestling matches with them as well . . .
If the Jews brought an object dedicated to a demon into their houses, they and their house would become cursed . . .
Anyway . . . if you have any problem with any of that, please let me know. I have specific Scripture for each one. My point is that we do know a lot more than you had indicated.
Just a thought and a question. Alfred, are you Jewish? Because the laws about destroying idols and such are all part of the OLD covenant. The one God made with the JEWS. So unless you are a JEW, they do not apply to you.
The apostles made this VERY clear in the ruling of the Council at Jerusalem which is reported in Acts 15, where they write to the Gentile churches (Gentiles being, of course, anyone who is not a Jew by birth or formal conversion), and tell them that the decision of the Council is that the Gentile believers in Christ are not "to be troubled" by the minutiae of the Mosaic Law.
The ONLY restrictions that the Council at Jerusalem placed on Gentile believers were:
1) abstain from the immoral, polluting behaviours practiced in worshipping idols (primarily sexual in nature)
2) abstain from fornication
3) abstain from eating things that were strangled
4) abstain from eating blood.
As I said in the article, I don't think that means we start putting idol statues in our homes as decorations, but I DO think it makes it clear that the idols, themselves, were a lot less of a concern to the apostles than were the appalling rituals that went on in the temples as "worship" of those idols.
All that destruction in the Old Testament? You don't see the apostles of the New Testament repeating it as they went through the world spreading the gospel. Gideon tore down idol groves in the OT, but Paul didn't tear down the Temple of Athena at Ephesus --- he just TOLD people that Athena was NOT God. BIG difference. New Covenant, New Rules.
Wendy, hello.
Just a thought and a question. Alfred, are you Jewish? Because the laws about destroying idols and such are all part of the OLD covenant. The one God made with the JEWS. So unless you are a JEW, they do not apply to you.
I don't know where you are coming from these days . . . but that statement seems a bit strange, coming from you. Or . . . are you saying that those laws still apply if you are Jewish?
My point - as always - is finding out more about how things work by the way God deals with them. Here is the command:
"The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." (Deut 7:25-26)
The only wise God does not do nor tell people He loves to do stupid things. Nor does God ever change. The point of the covenant was that it NEVER could save . . . and the people - who obeyed these commandments - were never saved by keeping them. Are we clear on that? That were saved by faith, through the blood of Jesus, same as us.
So . . . if this got God excited then, there may be something for us to learn. At least that is how I see it. Funny how we find certain of those commands "universal", part of creation, preceding the law, like the relationship between husband and wife (sex sins in general), murder, stealing, tithing . . . but not others. I have always wondered how we get to decide which ones encapsulated in the law of Moses are "universal", and which one are "for Jews". Where I go, we invented "dispensationalism", which is an extreme version of "No Jew, No Way" (which I do obviously not hold to, BTW). Our teachers have concluded that the entire book of Matthew is for Jews (in the Millennium), never written for us. I guess we have to come to a conclusion in the fear of the Lord. But I, for one, think that God may have been talking about the general nature of devils and how He feels if we start admiring them and "having fellowship" with them.
I am most uncomfortable with the "magic" side of things. The talisman, the evil object . . . I know God cleanses things for us. But it becomes more practical for me . . . I sometimes am very happy to attract the attention of the devil and his angels . . . other times I want to be left alone.
Alfred, I also want to make sure we’re communicating clearly.
First a brief note on the “meat sacrificed to idols” issue. As others here have noted, the Apostle Paul clearly drew a line between active desire to sin (which amounts to “participating with demons,” real and nasty idolatry) and personal freedom vs. doing your best not to enable someone’s temptation.
But how that applies in casual interactions, such as ours, is different from how it applies in personal discipleship interactions in a local church. For example, I feel free to say here that I enjoy certain fantasy book and film series (psst — I mean “Harry Potter” :-) ). Yet at my church I am more careful, lest someone (with a wrong idea about what’s actually in these stories) legitimately stumbles into sin.
Now for the main point. What I challenged was your statement:
And your statement:
Later on you also wrote:
That sounds very much like equating objects with demons’ evils. So far it sounds like my interpretations of your views have been fair.
If you actually do not agree with these views, as you indicate here:
… Then that is contrary to what much of what you’ve said, and further say below when you mentions objects that demons supposedly “contaminate.” However, we definitely agree here:
Amen. And I doubt anyone here would say that true desires not to participate with evil influences is somehow “legalistic.” I’ve not seen that (so far) from anyone here at RG.
Agreed again. However, the Apostle Paul indicated that it wasn’t enjoying the meat itself that makes one share something with demons; it was the participation in evil pagan “worship.”
As for your demon checklist, again, I’m not sure why you felt the need to present that, as I agree with much of that — well, almost. :-)
As perhaps connoted by the term “possession.” I’m not sure, though, that we can say “demons live in people” with Biblical defense. All we know is that demons can influence people, particularly those who don’t have the Holy Spirit. Often I fear (this may not be true of you, Brother Alfred, but I’m after all saying this in a public venue!) that people assume “demon possession” means something like they’ve seen in Star Trek: The Original Series or Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, in which alien (really demon-like) incorporeal entities literally “take over” a person’s body, and likely against his/her will. But as theologian Wayne Grudem notes:
Now for a few other challenges or clarifications:
Evidently true, given the angel’s reasons for delay in Daniel 10:13.
Not sure about this one, though it has long precedent in mythology. (If they do have names, I wonder if they’re like Slumtrimpet, from C.S. Lewis’s brilliant and truth-based spiritual-warfare satire The Screwtape Letters.)
Not sure about that one either. What passage were you thinking of?
Satan does, anyway (Job 2:7). (I wonder if, after Christ defeated the Devil at the cross, he’s still allowed to “come into” Heaven like that.)
This one threw me for a moment, until I realized you were likely thinking of 1 Sam. 16. However, that text says nothing about the harp’s effect on the evil spirit (which the Lord sent and managed), only that it helped Saul relax and not be so tense. This would be a fascinating study on the effects of one’s intrinsic mental/spiritual health and how any demons may exploit that for any additional tormenting. But we can say for sure that the text does not say harp-playing > evil spirit, but rather, harp-playing —> calmed refreshed human —> evil spirit departing.
Scripture gives no evidence of this.
Not sure about this one either — though that’s how they do it in those fun Frank Peretti novels. :-)
Agreed.
As mentioned before, here you say it again: “[Demons] contaminate things.” That’s a helpful word, “contaminate,” but the only source I’ve found for this notion, that demons operate this way or have this power, comes from evangelical “spiritual warfare” anecdotes and even pagan beliefs about evil spirits. Nothing in Scripture supports the notion.
Ephesians 6:12. Not sure if that fight counts as “literal,” though. When I read “literal fight,” I think of a physical wrestling match.
More of this “evil object contamination” notion. But where is this in Scripture?
Perhaps a more-vital question: Do you believe a Christian household, in which everyone within is redeemed by the blood of Christ, could also fall under such a “curse”? I don’t want to impute such a belief to you, but I know it’s common among some Christians — and I believe it’s that false notion itself, among many others, through which the Devil wields so much of his illusory power over us.
the Apostle Paul clearly drew a line between active desire to sin (which amounts to “participating with demons,” real and nasty idolatry) and personal freedom vs. doing your best not to enable someone’s temptation.
I agree. The minor question at hand is whether "fellowship" gets demons excited while definitely exciting (in a negative way) the Lord.
If you actually do not agree with these views, as you indicate here:
1) I never said objects are made evil by demons. You followed a perspective and prejudice to a conclusion you have heard from others.
… Then that is contrary to what much of what you’ve said, and further say below when you mentions objects that demons supposedly “contaminate.”
Right. You just highlighted a personal inconsistency. I believe objects are cleansed from "whatever" as they are received with thanksgiving and prayer (1Tim 4:3-4). Yet I see this commandment to Jews that tells me that certain items were so nauseating to the Lord that they "cursed" the whole house. SO . . . Just like "unclean" food can have real problems from which God protects his children by "cleansing" the food, so He protects them from "curses" the that He might otherwise have honored. Fair enough? 1 Timothy 4:5
"For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
Note that Paul highlights not that "unclean" things don't have problems, but that the believer is protected "by the word of God and prayer". IF we suffer occasionally from "uncleanness" from, say, pork or shellfish, we start to wonder what happened. We might think we didn't pray properly . . . Or weren't thankful enough. Then we might eliminate that food for very practical reasons (red tided shellfish, for example). Any chance that that "curse" might cause us unexplained problems from time to time for similar reasons? I don't know. I stay away from fortune tellers . . . I suspect the Lord could cleanse that experience for me if I ask, but . . . I just feel better eliminating that as something to think about.
As for your demon checklist, again, I’m not sure why you felt the need to present that, as I agree with much of that — well, almost. :-)
They live in people . . .
As perhaps connoted by the term “possession.”
I have said the same thing . . . "possession" is not how the Greek should translate. But dwelling? What do you make of this?
Matthew 12:43-45
-- When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there:and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
This talks about a man like a house. I say the demon lives there. Which also is a reference to feelings (tired) and working in packs . . .
They have names . . .
Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion:for we are many.
They seem to dislike harp playing . . .
This one threw me for a moment, until I realized you were likely thinking of 1 Sam. 16. However, that text says nothing about the harp’s effect on the evil spirit (which the Lord sent and managed), only that it helped Saul relax and not be so tense.
This one I will fight you over. :-). 1 Samuel 16:23 "And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand:so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him."
The spirit "departed".
They make your hair stand on end when they show up . . .
Scripture gives no evidence of this.
Job 4:15 "Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:"
As mentioned before, here you say it again: “[Demons] contaminate things.” That’s a helpful word, “contaminate,” but the only source I’ve found for this notion, that demons operate this way or have this power, comes from evangelical “spiritual warfare” anecdotes and even pagan beliefs about evil spirits. Nothing in Scripture supports the notion.
Deuteronomy 7:25-26
The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire:thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein:for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it:but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
We have literal fights with them . . .
Ephesians 6:12. Not sure if that fight counts as “literal,” though. When I read “literal fight,” I think of a physical wrestling match.
Me too. How else do you read it? We know what it is to wrestle flesh and blood . . . Paul says its the same exercise, only in spiritual realms.
Perhaps a more-vital question: Do you believe a Christian household, in which everyone within is redeemed by the blood of Christ, could also fall under such a “curse”?
Depends on what you call a curse. Jesus bore our curse, but trouble still comes in lots of forms -we are not immune. I have an official story from my ultra-conservative Plymouth Brethren writers about renting a building for church . . . In Wales . . . And having stuff sailing around the room poltergeistish. Did that make them fear the devil? No . . . Did it make them move? Yes, again. Because, well, the devil is the same as he always was and really can levitate things around to freak people out. Sometimes he gets permission from God to be freaky . . . Making pigs commit suicide. Why does he sometimes and not others? You tell me. I don't know . . . I certainly am not on a witch hunt through the house. We did the smashing party years ago . . . Don't have the same motivations on the same things these day, although some things remain unwelcome (sorry, young Potter remains on my list)
I had really horrid " night terrors" as a young fellow, not to be confused with nightmares. I can't describe them . . . They were more an experience than a dream, like being in another dimension, and continued for some time after I awoke shaking and crying. "Hell" was all I could think of. After the third or so time my Mom noticed I had taken a new herbal sleep aid each time . . . A "homeopathic" preparation. I never took it again, and I never had another episode. Was there a link? I have no idea, but those episodes remain yet the most horrifying experiences I have ever had. Now that I know that homeopathy is non-scientific, sort of like "spells" ( it is the "magic" in a substance) , I wonder. My Mom still takes it . . . Go figure. But I superstitiously avoid all homeopathic products.
My point? Really weird things occasionally happen to really good people. When they do, and science fails to help, you desperately start looking for reasons . . . And you might find an answer consistent with Scripture that "works". I leave it to you to declare that demons have no influence in real life today. I am not scared of them, but I-again- have no special desire to encourage them. Like trusting in Jesus to keep certain mushrooms from killing me because I received them with thanksgiving and prayer. I know He can and someday I might have to. But for now I don't need the distraction of checking it out.
I failed to italicize some of your quotes . . . Sorry . . . Confusing
Alfred you are as wacko as Gothard. You stretch things until I feel I am reading straight from someone who just loves to argue, rabbit trails, and just trying to sound smart with big words. You make no sense.
Wendy, I've been realizing how much fear simple superstitions have created in my life. Thank you for writing this.
I'm curious, did you still get spiritual brownie points if you sold it and didn't burn it?
I burned most of my old toys because I was a pyromaniac, not out of conviction :) probably burned up $1000 worth of GI Joe stuff .....
Garetful, no, definitely not.
The demonic influence was to be destroyed, not passed on to others.
I personally regret that I destroyed a few completely harmless objects that would have been valuable collector's items by now. :(
All our Calvin & Hobbes books, our Tolkien books, and a hardback set of Narnia were lost to this superstition. Good thing there wasn't Harry Potter back then, good heavens.
Thanks for the article, Wendy.
Have any of you Bible scholars out there studied as to why in the Epistles, eating meat sacrificed to idols was ok (or seems to be), but then in Revelation, Jesus rebukes several of the churches for eating meat sacrificed to idols. Don't mean to get sidetracked here, but I have always found that curious, and since we're kind of on the topic.....
Remember what Paul actually said was that it was not meaningful in the sense that the meat was evil, but don’t do it if someone would be offended. This is aligned with the decision of the Jerusalem council in Acts where they gave the gentiles minimal rules to avoid conflict between Jewish & gentile believers. The implication of the Revelation passage is they were not observing that principle but just flaunting it. Or worse, perhaps participating in the whole idol feast etc. Notice the context in Revelation, it mentions Balaam. What he did in the OT was advise Balak to get the Israelites to participate in the idol culture which included sexual immorality knowing that God would judge them. Which in fact did happen. AND he did it for money.
Thank you for that, quite interesting. I'll have to study more on that.
Another article where one particular poster seems to derail the topic. Majoring on the minors. And distracting from the actual purpose of this post. It's unfortunate. {sigh}
Again, great article Wendy.
Just from my point of view, I find Alfred's comments helpful in illustrating, if nothing else, the tendency Christians have to believe Biblical truths and plain myths about discernment and spiritual warfare, all in the same brain. They seem hopelessly tangled, and it takes patience to start pulling apart those tight knots — if we want to try.
I hope I haven't been detracting from the main point of this excellent piece.
Personally, I've been impressed with the irenic tone and content of your dialogue. I noticed the same thing you did, that Alfred focused on the "demons are real" part of his trio of assertions. I know that Alfred is being encouraged to focus on the Scripture passages but I didn't see your comments here as being a problem. LOL'd at the levitating cows and silos, btw.
Several years ago when we first moved back to the US after being on the mission field for several years we became friends with an ATI family. Our children were close in age and they enjoyed playing together. Our son received a small Star Wars figure for his birthday. During a visit the father of this family saw the figurine and that was the last visit or contact we ever received from this family. It didn't matter that we loved the same Jesus they could no longer have any association with us. At the time it was devastating to my children but now looking back I am grateful it happened as this family was unable to influence us or introduce us to Gothard beliefs.
Jesus told us to not be afraid of the devil. So . . . If my actions are motivated by fear, I am out of line. That was way out of line. Luke 10:19 "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy:and nothing shall by any means hurt you.". Includes Star Wars figurines.
But your earlier post implies that you are afraid of homeopathic remedies because of your own bad experience that may or may not have been caused by them.
(And I am not trying to mock your experience. I have had those waking dreams as well and they are really scary)
I am not afraid of the gang down the street either, because Jesus commanded me not to be. Not sure what to call the emotion I feel when I see them (places I used to live). Can't help the emotion . . . don't like the emotion, so I tend to avoid the gang down the street. But if my business in following Jesus takes me into the middle, there I will go, with a smile.
So . . . I don't like the dreams, see no benefit to them, my human flesh was at the time devastated by them, so if avoiding homeopathy clears it up, I am there. I deliberately used the "superstitious" term, because frankly, I don't know.
One thing I do know is that demons are real, have names and personalities . . . and an agenda that runs counter to Jesus (and mine). I know they have to obey the Lord, and also that I have to wrestle with them . . . and win. When armies go to war they tend to be very careful with their preparations in the face of mortal conflict, hence the armor. Some of God's armies did that . . . some sent singers or priests on ahead to prove that the weapons ultimately didn't matter in God's war. Both were blessed of God . . . the latter just requires more faith, I suppose.
In any case, we are to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) when it comes to evil, so Jesus says. Serpents are agents of the devil, so to have their wisdom means - I suppose - to see the things they see and understand the things they understand, and then act smarter. If it doesn't mean that, You tell me what you think it means.
Stephen, random question. Do you believe that it's possible for a house to be haunted (possessed by evil spirits) or is that also superstition or something else?
On that question I'm not sure. But consider this new thought (for me) ...
One thing that has occurred to me is that most Christians who disbelieve the Devil is so powerful as to move objects, enhance fears of him or his demons, or "possess" people against their will often have not seen such things manifest in their presence. This is just me thinking out loud, but I wonder if some Christians who've made progress in getting rid of their lingering Devil fears don't see or experience such phenomena because they don't have those kinds of latent fears for the Devil or his servants to work with. Instead they must contend with less-"spectacular" evil activity: temptations to sin, be discouraged, or doubt God's goodness.
Conversely, I have to ask: for folks (including professing Christians) who keep finding weird haunted-house style evidence to freak out over Satan's lingering power, why do they keep being confonted with this stuff? Could it be that Satan and his demons is able to "get" to them, to spook and scare them, more than he's able to get to other Christians?
Please understand, I'm only here thinking out loud. I would not want to set up some kind of Keswick-style divide between "standard" Christians and supposed "super-Christians." Yet I do know that many believers do imbue the Devil with more power than he has, according to Scripture alone.
Well, I do believe in hauntings and such things, but I do not believe we have to be afraid of them. We have been given all authority through Jesus, and the demons are just as subject to us as they were to Him!
Your second question is intriguing. I had to think about it for a minute. I believe my mother is one of the kind of people you're talking about. She has seen demons, had prophetic dreams, heard a ghost, etc. I always thought she was just more spiritually in-tune than a lot of people. But I also see fear in her life. I know she worries about cursed objects, and there are some things she takes pretty far (like she won't eat fortune cookies). And I wonder if that fear is what opens up that doorway sometimes in her life.
It's something I've only recently begun to realize, that maybe I've grown up with some superstitions and fears that accomplish nothing and maybe even hold me back a bit, spiritually. It's an interesting topic and I'm glad we can discuss it without fear here.
I DO believe that Satan and his minions can attack even Christians in varying ways. I have been in direct spiritual warfare ... and it's terrifying. Even if you have the confidence to use the spiritual weapons at your disposal, actually grappling with the powers of evil is a frightening experience.
I believe that hauntings are real, but I cannot explain them. My best guess is that they are most likely places where Satan has been given a foothold of some sort. And I believe that there ARE people who are more attuned to that sort of thing than others are.
So I hope that no one misunderstood my point in the article --- spiritual warfare IS real. But it can be taken too far, to the point that we see a devil behind every bush, imbue innocent objects with sinister intentions, and go to ridiculous lengths to avoid risk. (Kind of like Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter books ...)
Burning tarot cards and ouija boards and other implements of divination is one thing. Burning ugly baby dolls and science-fiction action figures is completely different. And let's not even get into the atrocities committed in Mediaeval Europe and the early American colonies in the attempt to eradicate "witches" in the name of Christianity. Burning people is even more appalling than burning baby dolls.
Hi, Wendy!
I do appreciate your article about spiritual superstition. Yes, there is a certain determinism in ATI/IBLP that left a person feeling that, one misstep and you could miss God's "best" for you and thus end up living a life that was smaller, sadder, and less-effective for Christ than if you had made all the "right" decisions. Definitely a fear-generator. As if God was a juke-box rather than a Person.
I'm genuinely sad for all those who lost treasured toys as children because of that superstition. SO grateful my parents didn't do that. A kid shouldn't have to go through that because "God" is against those things, unless of course, we're actually talking about Satanic worship. (Obviously not the case for all those who've weighed in.)
I appreciate your comment above, because it does help "complete" your article, in that I can better understand your perspective, and I definitely agree: No to living in fear, and yes, to the reality of spiritual warfare.
Here's the irony: Bill Gothard's radical claims about this sort of thing actually did help wake up Christians from rather sleepy theological backgrounds who never, ever talked about spiritual warfare or thought it could be real. For that, I'm personally very grateful.
To put it another way, I would gladly throw one of Frank Peretti's books into the middle of a stuffy congregation that never talks about the devil, and let them stay up all night reading it and peering into the shadows, realizing that there's no danger they'll believe it all, but it may end up bringing some much-needed balance into their spiritual lives. (Fiction though it be.)
Sadly, I can only imagine the danger these teachings would pose to those who come from theological backgrounds that already emphasize the spiritual world, exorcism of demons, etc. Or who are simply convinced that you have to follow the ATI/IBLP thing to be successful in life. No doubt my family was a "lukewarm" ATI family, because we didn't burn anything! But I can see how BG's teaching would be something that fanned the flames of fear in so many families. Things were taught as "truth" that in fact might have made excellent fiction... and done more good than harm.
"God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of love, power, and a sound mind."
Agreed with everything you said, dreamer. Such as this:
It depends on what we're "yes butting." I think many Christians say this:
When instead that order should be exactly reversed:
For Christ's people, Satan is disarmed. For us the only "weapons" he wields are the ones we hand him, forged in our own sinful hearts. And for non-Christians, perhaps he can only wield "weapons" made from Pop-Tarts he's chewed into vaguely gun-like shapes. (For the unsaved, however, that is just enough danger because they are not Christ's own.)
One of my favorite articles about the paradox — that Christ made demons "riddikulus," but that they can remain scary by lingering in the shadows — is linked here. (The original writer did something new by saying, "I actually believe that ['Harry Potter' series author J.K.] Rowling can help us arrive at a more Christian view of witchcraft," and then goes on to make a persuasive case.
More from dreamer:
This makes me slowly nod. I think we all know people like this, whom we do think are more "spiritual" because they've had all these Experiences. Those seem not only to validate their spiritual-warfare notions, but their faith altogether. But inevitably, what's the fruit? More fears. More emphasis on Satan and his powers, more "yesbutting" truths such as in Colossians 2, and less emphasis on Biblical confirmation of spiritual realities in exchange for emphasizing subjective "experiential" "proof."
Now I'm curious to ask other RG readers who've either had those same views, or know people who still are: Which came first: the "chicken" (e.g., oh no, the Devil can still get me through even "contaminated" objects) or the "egg" (e.g., Satan or demons themselves doing something crazy and scarily supernatural?).
I think you may have misunderstood me a bit, and I may have given you the wrong impression. I do not think that my mom is somehow more "spiritual" than other Christians. Nor do I think that she thinks she is. What I mean is, there is a spiritual realm. No question about that. And maybe some Christians are more in-tune with this realm than others? Not because they are "better" Christians. Maybe it is because they have studied it out more, or maybe it is a spiritual gift from God. Like prophetic or meaningful dreams....there are examples of people who have these kinds of dreams in the Bible, and there also those who are gifted with the interpretation of dreams. I think my mom may be one of those people. But I don't want to give the impression that she is some sort of "Super-Christian," as you pointed out in another post.
Again, this is something I'm still sorting out myself. I believe my mom has seen and experienced things that others haven't, not because she is a better or a worse Christian, but just because...well, I don't exactly know why. I just know she has.
Glad to find we’re agreeing on some things, Alfred. That’s the point of my exercise. But what’s the most annoying part of this discussion is that I keep thinking of this gentleman.
Again I’m glad we agree that this is a minor question. The Apostle Paul doesn’t talk about whether demons get “excited” by people “fellowshipping with …” or “being participants with demons” (1 Cor. 10:20). Paul leaves the exact nature of this “participation” un-explored — in fact, he leaves a lot of “demon science” untouched, not out of fear but apparently lack of feeling the need to emphasize this. Demon-participation is pagan stuff. If you’re of Christ, you are not pagans. So move on.
Unfortunately many Christians seem not to want to move on. Wait, wait! Tell us about the demons! How exactly would this be participating with them? Speculation I don’t mind. That’s what Frank Peretti’s fantastic and fun spiritual-warfare novels did: speculate on whether, say, demons feel a “back rub” effect from Satanic rituals. I love fantasy. But let’s keep it in perspective.
Agreed again. I am presently enjoying this (despite some challenges to come below). My thanks.
It occurs to me that some false or questionable beliefs about demonic object-“contamination” result from, simply, a lack of good teaching about the Bible’s view of physical creation. This lack allows beliefs about demons and their abilities and role in things to fill in the gap. But instead Scripture teaches that in some sense creation “fell” after Adam fell, and that now creation “groans” just as we do (Romans 8), awaiting its own coming redemption.
The Devil does not own the physical universe. God still owns it (1 Cor. 10:26). The only disputed matter is whether mankind, to whom was given dominion over creation as a sort of governor under the King, will finally recognize that right. In the New Heavens and New Earth, Christ’s redeemed people will return to their rightful roles — kings and queens over creation, with Himself as King over all.
In that light, I would read the “it is made holy” from 1 Tim. 4:4 like this: it’s not being cleansed by some infestation by evil spirits, but being snatched from creation-abuse (Romans 1-style) and redeemed in turn to be used for Christ’s purpose — just as He Himself has redeemed us.
So it’s not a beat-back of evil spirits’ contamination, but a micro-restoration per redemption’s reality.
Fair enough?
This is a different issue, and I’m not sure where you’re going with it. Admittedly you seem to be describing a hypothetical, but under the New Covenant such a scenario can’t even happen hypothetically. Even the “meat sacrificed to idols” issue had less to do with Jewish dietary law and more to do with specific pagan ceremonies (for all we know, the meat could have been Jew-allowed beef). For all believers from the first century on, the old laws against eating pork and shellfish and other things have been fulfilled in Christ. How could God get any clearer about this than by having Peter’s vision of animals in the sheet repeated twice in the book of Acts (Acts 10-11)?
Brief thought on that topic: God did not set up those diet laws arbitrarily. He wanted the idea of “uncleanness” to be so embedded in Jewish culture that later Christ’s words about personal impurity would resonate. Christ, however, upended the false perception of God’s Law in Mark 7, reminding listeners that what they ate wasn’t “cursed,” but their sinful hearts were. That was the whole point of that Law. Now, per Peter’s vision and supporting epistles’ theology, we are now no longer under that dietary restriction. Not even a bit. And no “conviction” over it upends Scripture.
Brother, why avoid this issue and not ask God for this good gift? Is it a spirit of fear, or of power and love and self-control (2 Tim. 1:7)?
I would also “stay away from fortune tellers,” but that’s not a temptation I struggle with. I roll my eyes at that whole thing. God in Deut. 18 forbade that stuff for His original-covenant people, and plenty of Epistles theology carries that over to the present day. Just in case (as this is a public forum and many are reading this, with different latent notions about this issue) I’ll say more: God’s and the Apostles’ given reasons, however, are not because soothsayers could actually predict the future thanks to advance knowledge given by demons. (How exactly would they know the future anyway?) A careful reading of a passage like Deut. 18 instead shows a contrast: God Himself is our only sovereign ruler of the future, Who reveals what He wants when and how He wants to reveal it. Trying to bypass Him and get a prediction or life-control assurance from some other quack is a direct defiance of His right and love.
Now let’s talk about “demon possession,” or perhaps more-rightly rendered “demonic influence.”
Upon further thought, I can live with the word “live.” Jesus here does endorse the concept of evil spirits gathering up a gang and going back to inhabit someone who thought he’d cleaned up his life (apart from genuine heart change). Just now I noticed this, thought — that Jesus grabs a day-in-the-spiritual-life example of evil spirits not to teach spiritual warfare, but on the way to making His point about “this evil generation.” Again we see His priorities: tangling with demons is secondary to His ultimate mission.
This is where things get a little uncertain. We have here only one example of a demon giving his “name” (this amazing scene makes me think of a petrified group of wimpy teenagers just being pulled over for speeding and asked for ID by the world’s most awesome and bad--- cop). Does that mean every demon has a name? We don’t know that any more than we know every angel has a name. (We’re only given two in Scripture, and those for archangels appearing to humans.) Furthermore, the demon’s or demons’ “name” is a common-noun word, likely meant as a lame attempt to intimidate Jesus. An individual demon’s name could not be “Legion.” If anything that was the name of the gang. It’s more like saying, “we are the Crips.”
If demons do have names, though, maybe they’re like “Rafar” (a very good Peretti speculative-fiction demon name) or “Destroyer” (also a good all-purpose demon name), or even Azazel (from Hebrew mythology, or else the bad teleportation mutant from X-Men).
I agree the spirit departed. But what I wrote originally was a careful evaluation of the process:
David played the harp, and evidently played it well and soothingly.
”Saul was refreshed, and was well.”
Then the evil spirit departed.
The demon departed only after Saul “was refreshed, and was well.” The author here makes no mention of the harp’s effect on the demon, only on Saul. With the king refreshed, the spirit had nothing to “use.”
I think this would fit fascinatingly into a study of how spiritual influences might respond and use people’s troubled mental conditions or illness — giving credence to the fact that people often suffer from both mental illness, which may be cured by physical things such as pleasant music or even medications, and spiritual tormenting. But that’s another issue.
This is your weakest point.
First, Job (or Eliphaz, possibly quoting Job?) is only describing his physical response to one incident. Nothing in here indicates that a sure sign of demons’ arrival is always a goosebump effect.
Second, Job’s poetry and metaphoric language (though likely describing a real incident here) is not intended to serve as a “demon science” manual. To treat it otherwise wrests away the author’s (and Author’s) intent.
Third, and most importantly, this text describes a good spirit sent by God. After all, starting in verse 16, what does this spirit say?
No mention of demonic contamination here. The clear context is that these things are contaminated by humans from surrounding nations, whom God has already destined to immediate physical judgment. God, not demons, has cursed all their possessions. So bringing objects into one’s house has nothing to do with buying into some “demonic” contamination, but rather is wrong because it directly defies His commands that they and all their things are abominations and must be wiped out.
Application: God does redeem people things, but when He withdraws His mercy, it’s torching time.
I would say, “We have spiritual fights with them.” And then I’d “yesbut” that statement by saying, “Christ has already waged the spiritual fight and disarmed the Devil. Now live in that reality.”
Assuming this anecdote is true, here I’ll refer to my question in the above comment: which came first, the belief that the Devil can do such things to Christians saved by Christ’s blood, or the Devil doing these things? Either way, why would Scripture not tell us about such phenomena? Do we by accepting these tales (or any kind of fear-based “solution”) not undermine the Word’s sufficiency?
Cool. I’d assumed so, given your lingering curiosity about RG and willingness to engage here.
This is not necessary, not for spiritual reasons anyway. (Some folks just don’t like the books or the films, or don’t care for fantasy altogether. I’d argue about the fantasy preference, but not any specific story series.) Many Christians, despite good intentions, have frankly done more to make the father of lies happy by repeating lies about this series (in my view) than they would have by not thinking about it at all. It all comes down to what “magic” God truly forbids, why He forbids that, and whether folklore magic is really the same as this sinful magic. For more, see Harry Potter and How We Learn to Discern. This issue matters, not just because it’s about one series, but because this series is a “litmus test” for whether we actually practice Biblical discernment — rather than repeating false “discernment” or outsourcing discernment to others.
Oddly enough, plenty of Gothard-ish homeschooley folks take the exact opposite approach: scientific medicine is at best suspect, at worst the works of the Devil, and homeopathic products are the solution.
But brother, have you not here given more credence to “magic” than Scripture itself gives?
Why then shun the “Harry Potter” series? I enjoy stories about Hogwarts, a “wizarding” training school (training in folklore, nonexistent magic), but I know that this is fantasy. Brother, here you sound like you’ve graduated from it! :-)
Seeing as how you already know this is superstition — and who does that glorify? — I’ll end with this:
Thank You, E. Stephen Burnett, for elaborating on a truly Christ-centered position on this topic. =)
I preached a sermon on this subject last Sunday night. If you want to listen, go to http://www.bancroftbaptist.com/sermons.php and click on the message titled "Superstitions" under the Evening Services side. You might also be interested in the message titled "Dangerous Pride" under the Morning Services. It too deals with some of the problems of the Gothard mindset as does the message "Christ vs Asceticism." I am finding out that the Gothard influences can have a big impact on a church even if the pastor does not promote it and he may have to confront it before it spreads.
Reply to E. Stephen Burnett:
Glad to find we’re agreeing on some things, Alfred. That’s the point of my exercise. But what’s the most annoying part of this discussion is that I keep thinking of this gentleman.
My hero. You could have confused me with this gentleman
In that light, I would read the “it is made holy” from 1 Tim. 4:4 like this: it’s not being cleansed by some infestation by evil spirits, but being snatched from creation-abuse (Romans 1-style) and redeemed in turn to be used for Christ’s purpose — just as He Himself has redeemed us.
What do you make of this? “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” (Luke 10:19) Parallel section: “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark 16:18) That seems to link the bad aspect of things that can hurt us to the “power of the enemy”.
IF we suffer occasionally from "uncleanness" from, say, pork or shellfish, we start to wonder what happened.
This is a different issue, and I’m not sure where you’re going with it. Admittedly you seem to be describing a hypothetical, but under the New Covenant such a scenario can’t even happen hypothetically.
You aren’t denying that there is real uncleanness in pork and shellfish, are you? Think red tide, mercury, trichinosis . . . Does the New Covenant protect us from that uncleanness? See my point? Some of that “uncleanness” is very real, not ceremonial . . . and the new covenant hasn’t done a thing to protect us . . . except in the sense of a miracle, like drinking strychnine and walking away scot free. Like Paul being bitten by a venomous snake and acting like nothing happened. Tell me . . . what part of that applies to us today?
“I stay away from fortune tellers . . . I suspect the Lord could cleanse that experience for me if I ask, but . . . I just feel better eliminating that as something to think about.
Brother, why avoid this issue and not ask God for this good gift? Is it a spirit of fear, or of power and love and self-control (2 Tim. 1:7)?”
Honestly, it is fear. Same fear I feel when I think about those night terrors or that I feel when gang-bangers are congregating in my neighborhood, laughing and pointing. “Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.” (Proverbs 28:14) Hopefully that fear will keep me from doing stupid things . . . but never keep me from obeying the Lord, who owns my life.
If I have a “healthy fear” of the gangs or mob or of guns or heights, why would I not have such a fear of real demons that are way more powerful than any man or earthly weapon? If you say, “Because God controls them” . . . well . . . in what way does He control the gangbangers any less?
As mentioned before, here you say it again: “[Demons] contaminate things.” That’s a helpful word, “contaminate,” but the only source I’ve found for this notion, that demons operate this way or have this power, comes from evangelical “spiritual warfare” anecdotes and even pagan beliefs about evil spirits. Nothing in Scripture supports the notion.
How about this? “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.” (Revelation 16:13) . . . also called “foul spirits” in 18:2. They are here – and elsewhere repeatedly – called “unclean”, filthy. Unclean things contaminate other things . . . right? I suppose you can spiritualize this . . . but it is not inconsistent with taking a “cursed because of a demon” thing into your house, and as a result your whole house becoming “cursed”. I don’t want to make too much of this, but there is more support for “contamination” than you just allowed.
Me too. How else do you read it? We know what it is to wrestle flesh and blood . . . Paul says its the same exercise, only in spiritual realms.
I would say, “We have spiritual fights with them.” And then I’d “yesbut” that statement by saying, “Christ has already waged the spiritual fight and disarmed the Devil. Now live in that reality.”
Why then talk about our wrestling as a present tense thing “we” do? Why get the armor going, meticulously applied, piece by piece, if there is no war for us? ”Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) That DOES sound like a bit of effort required on our part, eh?
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:3-5)
I definitely see a current, real fight in here . . . do you?
although some things remain unwelcome (sorry, young Potter remains on my list)
This is not necessary, not for spiritual reasons anyway.
The whole point of squashing the idols – and their gold – was given to eliminate curiosity. You undoubtedly have read the Alexander Pope poem:
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."
That is the biggest issue for me. My kids could go to the library and read books by real people talking about (to them) real spells, real magic. Just don’t want the interest. Same reason I eliminate movies that appear to treat drug use lightly, even encouraging, “fun to try”.
But I superstitiously avoid all homeopathic products.
Seeing as how you already know this is superstition — and who does that glorify? — I’ll end with this:
God is bigger than the boogieman
He’s bigger than Godzilla or the monsters on TV
Oh, God is bigger than the boogieman
And He’s watching out for you and me …
I gotcha . . . thanks for that Veggietales refrain. All I can say is . . . may the Lord keep you from your own horror that defies reason and that doesn’t get better with prayer. One thing God does with unexplained and intense suffering is get us to start thinking and asking “Why”. If what you just said is enough to get you through, great. I have a multitude of stories from reliable people regarding demonic garbage against Christians that takes your breath away. At some point all the easy answers, i.e. “Jesus owns me, so the boogieman demons can’t hurt me”, come up short. You start checking your theology to see what you might have missed.
Again, I do not fear them, i.e. I won’t stop doing what Jesus tells me to because a demon spooks me. They can’t touch me without permission . . . but Jesus sometimes gives permission. Why He does so becomes the point to consider. Maybe He is offended by certain things and wants to let us know.
"Again, I do not fear them, i.e. I won’t stop doing what Jesus tells me to because a demon spooks me. They can’t touch me without permission . . . but Jesus sometimes gives permission. Why He does so becomes the point to consider. Maybe He is offended by certain things and wants to let us know."
Chapter and Verse, Alfred? New testament letters to the churches specifically...? ;)
Better late than never, brother. Hope to include further challenges below, starting with this hard line:
Which gentleman would that be? Your attempted link didn’t take.
Nope, that’s not how I roll. What do you think about the passage I cited? Let’s discuss that first. If my perspective drawn from that passage is Biblical, then it will at least lead to an alternate view of your verse. But without dealing with that text, you’ve incidentally done the common internet-debate method of “I’ll just duck whatever he just said. And now for something completely different!” :-P
Any risk of these comes from either genuinely unhealthful meat-packaging or just plain conspiracy theory, brother, not Scripture. God didn’t forbid His people from eating things because they were unhealthful or had germs — that is, any germs that could have been cooked out of them. You seem to misunderstand the intent behind His Old-Covenant commands.
Over the weekend I had an egg-and-sausage sandwich for breakfast, and last week I enjoyed shrimp from Long John Silver’s. This was not a sin for me. And unless you have some genuine “stumbling block” issue with such things (which is not likely, given your reasons here), then it’s not a sin for you either.
“What God has made clean, do not call common,” or “unclean.” That’s from Acts 10:15. God makes this point to Peter as a given, on His way to a greater point about the Gospel now going to the Gentiles. If you deny this passage, especially based on reasons founded in modern concerns that have no correlation at all to the intent of God’s Law, isn’t that denying the clear Word of God?
Based on this text, brother, none of the dietary law applies to us today.
And as I like to say when such issues come up, you can go on all you like about holiness and obedience and such, and none of the stuff you post will apply. :-) You have indirectly said, “Christians can’t enjoy these things and please the Lord.” I have said, “Actually, I can.” Now what can you do? Holiness verses won’t apply. You need to reconsider your view, or call me a liar. Those are your only options! :-P
I submit that fears of things like childhood night terrors is exactly the fear God condemns.
Brother, there’s no indirect way to say this: you have horribly misapplied this text. Is it to justify a sinful fear? Clearly Prov. 28:14 is discussing the fear of the Lord. You’ve applied it to “fear of childhood night terrors” and even “fear of man.” I’m not a peacenik. If your neighborhood is bad, I would suggest yes, avoiding right-wing militia-style fear, but also going out and legally buying a gun and learning how to use it (if you don’t change neighborhoods entirely). But don’t mangle Scripture like that.
I’m not saying “don’t fear the Devil.” I’m saying, “Be wary of Satan, but know that he is a defeated foe.” I’m also saying, again, you must reject and mortify some of the nonsense you still believe about what Satan can do or what demons can do. God’s Word, not man-made myths or experience, defines reality.
I’ve said more than that. God in His Word doesn’t go on about demons the way some Christians do. He has also assured us they are a defeated foe. He says about the Devil, simply, “resist him.” He never says “fear him” to the level you take it. He never says that they can make objects float or do other fantastic haunted-house-type things to freak out believers. He has also not outlined what powers demons have — your previous “support” for plain mysticism about spirits stands refuted.
Fear the gangbangers, yes, but buy a gun, call the police, move away, anything common-sense. Take action. Protect your family. Practice caution, but stop fearing as if you have no options.
Similarly, fear the demons, but blow away your own myths about them — not according to my word, but God’s Word. And while you’re at it, I would highly suggest picking up a good book about rightful reading of Scripture. I’ve found a little book called How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth to be a fantastic resource.
Again, you’re really stretching. At best this is a Semantic Range Fallacy. With a similar stretch I could say, “Pooh, it’s clear from this text that only these three ‘unclean spirits’ can specifically contaminate objects.” I must ask: why are you so eager to hold onto this view? What benefit does it give you? Clearly they’ve done nothing to alleviate your fear or change things so far. So why hold onto them anyway?
If so, I’m still waiting for you to present it — from Scripture, not anecdote or it’s-just-so statements.
There’s no need to go through the whole “fight the Devil” subtopic because we agree, at least on the surface. You seem to suspect I don’t take this foe seriously — mainly because I challenge your myths about this foe. I point instead to two Biblical truths: 1) Christ has destroyed the works of the Devil; it’s an “already/not yet” truth, and you need to hear more of the “already.” 2) When the Devil does act, he is far more dangerous operating as an “angel of light.” So why exactly do you, and evidently others, insist on fighting only an imaginary devil who operates on overt spiritual fear and “contamination”? Is not the Devil far more dangerous when he look so spiritual and loving and decent and even Biblical — polluting the church through legalism and license, or “prosperity” teaching, or myths about his power?
[Biblical citation required.]
Interesting. You quote a “pagan poet” and translator of “pagan” Greek literature for support. I was about to rant about that, but then I realized you’ve fallen into a trap I didn’t even set. :-)
You yourself believe truth can be found in non-Christian literature.
How come you immediately assume I was talking about The Kids?
Briefly here: as an advocate of God-exploring stories, this a major gripe with me. Adults assume these stories are only for The Kids. This is a kind of arrogance, even though it is “caught, not taught.” :-P
By all means, Protect the Kids. Biblically. But actually I was talking about you (Alfred).
Yet you believe a pagan writer can have something positive to say to Christians, despite his other work.
My point is not “Alfred is a hypocrite.” My point is: “Alfred doesn’t really practice this ‘just avoid the bad stuff and bad writers’ view consistently, and he shouldn’t, and no Christian does. So he should double-check whether his view of discernment is actually Biblical.” Toward that end — though this is a related topic — did you read the article to which I linked in my last response? Here it is again: Harry Potter and How We Learn to Discern. Another piece I feel would be helpful is this: Ten Wrong Ways to Discern a Story.
Happy to oblige — especially if it gets stuck in your head.
I’m sorry to hear this. Truly I am. It may be that the Spirit doesn’t want to fix this yet.
At the risk of seeming to apply a cheap “just read a Bible verse and call me in the morning” “fix,” it may also be that you should re-evaluate how you justify some of your fears, or sources for those fears, based on Scripture. Are you reading the text rightly? Do you really believe that Biblical wisdom of a Christian t-shirt that “Jesus beat the Devil with a great big stick [i.e., the Cross]”? Or do you lean toward accepting as truth the testimonies of “spiritual warfare” gurus or anecdotes, or even pagans, about what Satan can do and how he operates, over and against the clear Word of God and Christ’s victory?
This will sound cruel: versus Scripture, such stories may themselves be “demonic garbage.”
Also, I’m not the one with any of those horrifying stories. Other RG readers who reject this fear-based approach to “spiritual warfare” and discernment can confirm the same. So, even according to your own apparent reliance on anecdotes, doesn’t that make you curious about them? “Here are 49 people who repeatedly struggle with crippling fears of the Devil and demons, but over there are 21 who have not seen all that scary spiritual stuff.” (Pause) “I’m going to go talk to the people who encountered more demons and learn their secrets!” What exactly is wrong with such a response? It’s insanity.
But Alfred, you’re the one who in your comment-before-last made such an amateur effort that you quoted a verse from Job about his reaction to a good spirit, and from that verse drew the belief that “when demons show up, your hair stands on end.” And in your most recent comment, you applied a verse about fearing God to justify fears of demons and man. That’s — just not right.
Doesn’t this reveal that you are not taking God’s Word nearly as seriously as your other fears and perceptions? In that case, it’s your theology here that is flawed and needs re-evaluation, not mine.
Again, how come, by your own admission, you are the one who is struggling with spiritual fears and demon fears and other fears, and though I am not struggling with such fears, you want to say to me that I’m the one who has the life or theology problem and needs to change? That’s just plain ol’ silly.
Understand: I’m not claiming a “prosperity gospel.” I struggle with besetting sins, temptations, doubts, all that. But not “contaminated objects” or objects floating off the floor. Must be doing something right.
Doesn’t this insult the Savior?
Yes, He often lets bad things happen to us for His own purpose, to teach us and glorify Him.
But why do you imply that He hasn’t even told us about some things we may do that offend Him? Why do you say that in this area He has left us to stumble around in the dark and run headfirst into spiritual traps and hot pokers? Isn’t that a rejection of His Word’s sufficiency? Isn’t that a slander against Him?
Will: How are you? :-)
Chapter and Verse, Alfred? New testament letters to the churches specifically...? ;)
Gospels OK?
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22:31)
Letters:
"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor 5:5) OK . . . this says we give Satan permission over a person . . . doesn't say he asked first. But . . . still implies a controlled access situation, kind of like a legal contract.
Then there is Job, OT:
"Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord." (Job 1:9-13)
E. Stephen Burnett - You are not one for short replies! :-)
My hero. You could have confused me with this gentleman
Which gentleman would that be? Your attempted link didn’t take.
*sigh* How about THIS gentleman?
Nope, that’s not how I roll. What do you think about the passage I cited? Let’s discuss that first.
You suggested that it was a creation-fall-redeeming sort of thing . . . we already looked at 1 Tim. 4:4 . . . I am countering with references by Jesus in Luke 10:19 and Mark 16:18 . . . and say, “That seems to link the bad aspect of things that can hurt us to the “power of the enemy”.” As opposed to undoing a creation curse. So . . . I did :-)
God didn’t forbid His people from eating things because they were unhealthful or had germs — that is, any germs that could have been cooked out of them. You seem to misunderstand the intent behind His Old-Covenant commands.
And so we differ. They knew nothing of vitamins or germs . . . but He did. Shellfish collect toxins from red tide . . . that is reality. Pork collects parasites from who knows where. There is a reason Pork is not part of sushi, brother . . . “tar tar” dishes. Shellfish? There is something inherently “unclean” about those particular meats that requires special handling . . . just ask your local Sushi chef.
“What God has made clean, do not call common,” or “unclean.” That’s from Acts 10:15. God makes this point to Peter as a given, on His way to a greater point about the Gospel now going to the Gentiles. If you deny this passage, especially based on reasons founded in modern concerns that have no correlation at all to the intent of God’s Law, isn’t that denying the clear Word of God?
And I say: If God has cleansed the unclean shellfish, then I dare you to ignore the “red tide” warnings and go, collect, and enjoy them to your heart’s content. Paul could walk away from that . . . ordinary pagans will get very sick and possibly die. Same voice that tells us that all things are cleansed – applied to snake bites for him. So . . . how big is your faith?
You have indirectly said, “Christians can’t enjoy these things and please the Lord.” I have said, “Actually, I can.”
Boy, the prejudices rise up :-) Never said that . . . never implied it. I too have enjoyed a sausage egg McDelight from McDonald’s as well as shrimp . . . and all kinds of other such sinful delights in the last week. What I did imply . . . God is no fool. He does not waste His breath. I am convinced that OT dietary laws are just plumb healthier. If I had time and money to pursue all of that, I would be healthier. But . . . I have neither. I honor some of those things, and take a rain check on others. It may be that I will pass into eternity a few days, weeks, months, or years earlier, or suffer more than I needed to, perhaps. I believe that a life dedicated to Jesus with joy and thankfulness beats the benefits of a healthy lifestyle without that every time.
I submit that fears of things like childhood night terrors is exactly the fear God condemns.
Again we part ways. Read up on “psychotic dreams”, like what people who eat sea cucumber or take too much quinine endure. Bad LSD trips. I imagine you coming at folks like that and say, “God condemns your fear of repeating those experiences.”
“Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.” (Proverbs 28:14)
Brother, there’s no indirect way to say this: you have horribly misapplied this text. Is it to justify a sinful fear? Clearly Prov. 28:14 is discussing the fear of the Lord.
At the risk of incurring your wrath, tell me about this verse, then (if the cited verse can only apply to the fear of the Lord):
“Then there came some that told Jehoshaphat, saying, There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea on this side Syria; and, behold, they be in Hazazontamar, which is Engedi. And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” (2 Chron. 20:2-3)
Or
“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” (Heb. 11:7)
Sounds like a fear of what was going to happen in both places . . . doesn’t it?
“ you must reject and mortify some of the nonsense you still believe about what Satan can do or what demons can do. God’s Word, not man-made myths or experience, defines reality.
Amen. But . . . Don’t commit the opposite error of spiritualizing away some very real Scriptures. We have the “warfare addicts” on the one hand, and the “the devil is dead” folk on the other side. He is a wolf, he is ruthless, pitiless . . . he really roars . . . his only objective is to steal, destroy . . . he is eying your children, he is eying you. He clearly stole and destroyed in other households . . . of Christians. Maybe they weren’t as saved as you are? Some things at time appear to defy explanation – would you disagree?
I know that whatever the devil’s plots are, the Lord’s are stronger and deeper. But, again, when you see children snatched from a solid Christian home, beguiled and destroyed by the devil, you reach a point where you do want to take this conflict as seriously as any war on earth.
I’ve said more than that. God in His Word doesn’t go on about demons the way some Christians do. He has also assured us they are a defeated foe. He says about the Devil, simply, “resist him.” He never says “fear him” to the level you take it.
Back to my analogy. Are you saying that the gangbangers are NOT a defeated foe? Less defeated than the devil?
Practice caution, but stop fearing as if you have no options.
But . . . do I have less options with the gangbangers than I do the demons? Let’s be real, here. Are you saying that I should buy a gun for the gangbangers (who will universally out-weapon me, no matter what I buy, but that is beside the point), and are thus implying that I also procure a “gun” for the devil?
You said that I must but “resist” him. Can I overcome the gang the same way? Or . . . can I resist the gang with a gun, then? What happens if I forget to buy a gun or to carry it? Do I get a pass from the gang because I stand and say, “I resist you in the name of the law” or whatever? Or . . . is the gun somewhat significant in my ability to “resist” them? If I walk into a fight with the devil half cocked, having forgotten my weapons, so I escape because I “resist him” . . . somehow . . . weaponless?
Tell me how I can be more effective overcoming the devil than the gang, with less or even no effort. Somehow . . . it just doesn’t make sense, does it. You see, Jesus also resisted evil authorities by His word . . . they fell backwards, etc. Tell me . . . if you do not have that power with the gang wanting to throw you over the cliff, what makes you think you have that power over the devil, who wants to do far worse?
I just want to know wherein your great confidence lies. I know of a lot of very confident people who are very able to say what they would do in a war in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan . . . Viet Nam . . . armchair warriors. Armchair quarterbacks. The real deal looks and feels and hurts so much different. Have you ever tangled with the devil in any comparable way to our brave soldiers over there? Or . . . that just isn’t a fight you accept as real?
“ 1) Christ has destroyed the works of the Devil; it’s an “already/not yet” truth, and you need to hear more of the “already.”
Interesting. Why then do we get such instructions on our weapons and defenses? I have quoted a number. If he is that defeated . . . why carry a sword? Or . . . is it like the inhabitants of Canaan . . . who were also “defeated” . . . but, in fact, still had to be ejected out of the homeland with swords and arrows. Or . . . like David said, “The battle is the Lord’s” . . . yet he still had to be courageous and chop the giant’s head off, then chase the Philistines around for several days. The Lord has already won . . . but we still have to fight to claim it.
2) When the Devil does act, he is far more dangerous operating as an “angel of light.” So why exactly do you, and evidently others, insist on fighting only an imaginary devil who operates on overt spiritual fear and “contamination”?
Sneaky devil is far more dangerous . . . including the one who appears to “go away” when we say “Boo” in Jesus name. Lions and other predators in the jungle do the same, disappearing when discovered, when we say “Boo”. When contesting with him about something he really cares about, though, suddenly we discover he is no paper tiger. The one who cleverly stalks his prey silently for years before pouncing, springing his trap, destroying our lives. Resisting him takes a lot more effort than we realize.
The whole point of squashing the idols – and their gold – was given to eliminate curiosity.
[Biblical citation required.]
“Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut 12:30-32)
“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 7:25)
“You yourself believe truth can be found in non-Christian literature.”>
Pope was far from “non-Christian” . . . Catholic, philosophized deeply about morals, man’s relationship to God. I think he hit the nail on the head on this one, don’t you?
By all means, Protect the Kids. Biblically. But actually I was talking about you (Alfred).
“Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom. 14:19-21) Lots of things Paul would not do, not because they were wrong, but because they had the potential of snaring others. Including eating meat offered to idols . . . maybe even drinking wine?
I have a multitude of stories from reliable people regarding demonic garbage against Christians that takes your breath away.
This will sound cruel: versus Scripture, such stories may themselves be “demonic garbage.”
Yup, they may. Or they may not. More garbage than not, in this we agree.
“You start checking your theology to see what you might have missed.”
But Alfred, you’re the one who in your comment-before-last made such an amateur effort that you quoted a verse from Job about his reaction to a good spirit, and from that verse drew the belief that “when demons show up, your hair stands on end.” And in your most recent comment, you applied a verse about fearing God to justify fears of demons and man. That’s — just not right.
Boy . . . if good spirits make our hair stand on end when they appear – think of Jesus, walking on water, looking like a phantom (Greed word in Mark 6:49) – do you suppose a real phantom would make our hair stand on end less? You draw your own conclusion as to what kind of spirit it was that Job’s friend beheld . . . not quite as clear to me as you. Really doesn’t matter . . . unless you believe that only good spirits manifest themselves to people? Or . . . that that sort of thing doesn’t happen in modern day?
Understand: I’m not claiming a “prosperity gospel.” I struggle with besetting sins, temptations, doubts, all that. But not “contaminated objects” or objects floating off the floor. Must be doing something right.
That deserves a bit of a comment. Where you live seems to have something to do with it. People living in “dark lands” seem to run into these from time to time. In fact, the early settlers of this nation had their stories . . . those serving with the Gospel in overtly occultic areas today. There is nothing that will convince you that they are not all insane or deceived . . . so . . . we end our discussion on that point.
But why do you imply that He hasn’t even told us about some things we may do that offend Him?
Yes, He really does operate that way.
“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.” (2 Samuel 21:1)
3 years . . . David and company had to get desperate before He explained why He was spanking them.
How about Ai? Same deal.
1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel. . . . (5) And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them from before the gate even unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water. And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads. . . . . (10) And the Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned . . . “ (Joshua 7:1-11)
There exists 2 kingdoms in the spiritual plane, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the Evil One.
Man is born a slave into the kingdom of darkness. There is nothing he can do to change his spiritual state. Rituals, magick and outright devil worship have been practiced by men since the beginning of time in an attempt to gain freedom from the yoke of bondage.
But it is all for naught. Nothing can change the spiritual state of man. Some men realize this, and embrace the darkness. They yield themselves fully to the king of this world, and work to extend the power of the dark kingdom across the ages.
But some men hear the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the good news of Christ!! They hear, understand and through grace and faith are SET FREE!!
Their spiritual state is Changed! They are born again into the new Kingdom of light, they no longer live in darkness. Thanks to our Father who rescued, redeemed and adopted us. Now being set free, we share the Gospel of the Kingdom with other men in order that they too may become children of light.
And we are made heirs of the Kingdom! We inherit the power through the Spirit living and moving through us! Christ abiding in us is the true life.
Sadly, some of God's Children still live as if they are subjects of the dark kingdom. Perhaps out of habit, or lack of belief, or superstition, they think the dark kingdom has power over them.
And that is the lie!! The dark kingdom only has power over a child of God if that child believes so!
If you are a child of God, and you fully believe that an evil spirit can have influence over you... it therefore does! Why so? Because that belief is actually unbelief in the promises our Father has made to us throughout His Word! He has to the power to keep His Children in the Kingdom!
But if you believe otherwise and act on that belief, you contradict the promises of God, and DENY THE POWER OF CHRIST UNTO SALVATION!!! PLEASE understand this - to live as if you are a child of darkness while you are a child of the light is to actively DENY your birthright and yield yourself back a servant of evil.
So instead of setting people free, Gothard has enslaved many people by telling them to believe that demons can influence their lives, and in return these people start to LIVE this lie. And to the degree they live this lie, they yeild themselves to the influence of the dark kingdom.
What great wrong is this??? "My people die for lack of wisdom"
These Gothard people on this web site really don't know what it meant to be in a " Real Old School " Gothard church. Central Florida in the 70's, in the pre mega church era, in a church that was becoming a mega church.
Gothard comes in and creates " Systems Of Destruction " , and brainwashes the male leadership in the church to become monsters and drill sargents.
I wonder if there are other folks who had a "Real Hard Core Gothard " life like I did for 15 or so years. Let's hear some stories about real pain and discipline with the dowling rod. Let's hear about being a child and getting absolutely terrified every day, and then having to " Have a good Attitude " afterward, or get more pain and fear. All justified and sanctified by God.
I laugh at folks who had their dolls taken, and am glad they never really experienced old school 70's style, early days of Gothard.
Cmon folks, let's get real.
Hi Scott, I'm so sorry to hear of your experiences. :-( I was also raised in Central Florida, but not in a Gothard church. We started ATI in 1989, so I know a lot of the families in the Orlando area from that era. What church/school were you a part of that went off the deep end? Just curious if it's the one I'm thinking of...