Greetings and welcome to this new forum.  I decided to create this forum as a vehicle for people to be able to freely express views on topics relating to Christian theology and doctrine without unfair or unjust shackles from biased administrators.  I believe in a free exchange of views and ideas, as long as we can keep things civil and refrain from name-calling and personal attacks (ad hominems). 

The issue of whether or not Christians can be invaded by demons is an important topic.  Who would not want to know what demonic forces can and cannot do to him?  In fact, one of the glaring problems with those who believe this doctrine is that many of them want us to believe that the Bible does not make clear that either Christians can or cannot be demonized, and therefore we must let the experience of people using  "clinical studies" to determine the truth in this matter.  However, the problem is, if we allow experience to somehow determine doctrine, we can end up believing all kinds of false teachings based on that methodology.

For example, what are we to make of the experiences of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon cult, or Muhammad, the founder of the religion of Islam?  They had experiences as well.  An angel is said to have come and revealed things to both of these men.  What they experienced convinced them that God had sent angels to them.  Yet we have clear Scripture in Galatians 1:8,9 saying that even if an angel from heaven comes and preaches another gospel, we let him be "accursed."  Why?  Because such would be going against the true Gospel that has already been delivered "once for all" to the saints (Jude 3).

So what are we to do when our experiences conflict with the Bible, or when our experiences are at the very least problematic Biblically?  It may be much clearer to us that Joseph Smith and Muhammad and others have been deceived, but obviously it was not the case for them and all those who follow Mormonism and Islam today.  So this shows that people will believe what they want despite clear evidence against what they believe.  As i have been examining this doctrine that Christians can be "demonized" or have inhabiting demons that must be cast out, I have noticed how similar the cultic pattern of belief is among those who hold to this view. 

Like Joe Smith and Muhammad and their followers, they will not be persuaded by Scripture because what they have experienced takes precedence over the Bible.  They will deny this, but ultimately it is the truth because NONE of them was convinced of this doctrine from the Bible.  They started believing this doctrine because of experience.  But as I have said time and again, experiences can have very valid and alternate explanations.  And it behooves us to be very discerning in this area.  It is all too easy to be deceived by what you think you experience and then begin to teach as truth what the Bible doesn't say is truth.

And I would add that it is no wonder that these people find it easy to believe this doctrine when Scripture is not overtly dogmatic about the issue of whether or not Christians can be demonized.  If people like Joe Smith and the Mormons can accept false teaching when we have clear warnings in Scripture, it is no surprise to me that those in the "deliverance" ministry have no problem accepting their doctrine when Scripture isn't as clear.    

I will be revealing more as time goes on, but for the purpose of this forum I want to present my case against this doctrine as I had done in a prior forum, demonstrating that this doctrine rests on very unstable ground.  Here is the analysis I wrote:

Why I Can't Believe in "Deliverance"

It is simply not supported by the Bible and good reasoning.

Let me explain. I have read a few web articles and some books purporting to demonstrate that Christians can have demons within them causing what is known as demonization. Ok, fine. I have no problem believing and accepting what the Bible teaches. So I look for Biblical support for this doctrine and what do I find? I find people reading this doctrine into passages (eisegesis), people taking the Bible wayyyy out of context, and people making various assumptions about what particular texts mean.

Now I'm not the kind of person who says that a passage must say something explicitly in order for it to be true or Biblical. I know from the Bible and good reasoning that this view doesn't work. There is plenty of implicit or implied truth in the Bible. For example, nowhere does the Bible ever say that Jesus and the disciples ever went to the bathroom; yet we read of them eating and drinking all the time. Why was this not recorded if they were truly human, some could speculate. This kind of thing has been done so don't think it is so far-fetched.

I've already dispensed with some alleged Bible proofs that Christians can be demonized, and now I want to deal with two things. First, I want to critically examine a website that was posted which tries to prove from the Bible that Christians can be demonized. As a Christian I want to accept what the Bible says, not what people twist it or misread it to say. Experiences are only as valid as they are clearly backed by the Bible. And so that is where I stand. Others like to say they stand there, but in reality they stand elsewhere. And next, I want to critically evaluate what has been called a "case" for deliverance.

The website http://www.pioneerbooks.com/demon.htm was posted in the past on another thread. It tries to establish from the Bible that Christians can be demonized. Let's have a look at the examples given, one by one. And hopefully, when I am done, even those who believe this doctrine will be able to honestly admit the flaws in the arguments.

1. Under the heading "The Scriptural Evidence," the writer of the article starts with Job and says "Scripture has a number of illustrations of believers who were demonized." But does the book of Job say, either in the Hebrew or the Septuagint, that Job was "daimonizomai" or demonized? Yes, satan was allowed to afflict Job's body, but this was merely a physical affliction from outside of Job. This is another case of eisegesis, or interpreting into the text what isn't there. This is NOT a case of a believer being demonized.

2. The next alleged example is king Saul. He is said to be a true believer but was later demonized. I have a few problems with that idea, however. First, it is not all that clear that Saul was truly in a heart relationship with God. Being anointed king and being able to prophesy doesn't prove you are a believer. Even pagan rulers were used by God according to Scripture (see Isaiah 45:1 and Cyrus). So that argument doesn't get very far.

Second, the text in 1 Samuel 16 says that the "evil spirit" (curiously "from the LORD," not from satan) would come upon (not within) Saul, that the playing of music would cause this "spirit" to go away. Where else in the Bible are we taught that music casts demons out or from around people? The fact is, this text doesn't say that the spirit entered and demonized Saul. In fact, I would argue that this "spirit" was not a demonic being at all, but that the use of the word "spirit" has in this context an idiomatic meaning, much like saying "That guy is not in good spirits." Saul was simply distressed when God's Spirit left from upon him, and his sin nature would take over so that Saul began to be jealous of David and wanted to kill him. Jesus said that murder and other sin comes from within the sinful heart (Matthew 15:19). So Saul did NOT have to be demonized in order to want to murder David or to experience anger, fear, or depression leading to suicide. This passage also does not prove Christians can be demonized.

3. The next example given is the woman bent double in Luke 13:10-16. But the fact that it is said she had a "spirit of infirmity" does not necessarily mean she was demonized. There was no "manifestation" of a demon in this passage, and the alleged demon did not cry out as in other cases. Jesus did not "cast out" anything. It says He laid His hands on her (as He would do to heal of a sickness), and she was immediately made straight.

That this affliction was a work of satan is clear by what Jesus said in verse 16. But what is not clear, suspiciously unclear, is that there was a demon inside of her causing the problem. To argue otherwise would be to dishonestly read more into the text than what is there.

Furthermore, the fact that she is called a "daughter of Abraham" does not necessarily prove she was a believer. This kind of wording is also used to specify ethnicity. And needless to say, just because she was in a synogogue (equal to "church" today) does not mean she had to be a believer. So this passage fails to prove the case for those who think Christians can be demonized.

4. Next the author pulls out Mark 7:25-30. It is said that the "children's bread" of deliverance belongs to the "children of the covenant" and therefore they must presumably need deliverance occasionally. Aside from the fact that the text doesn't call "deliverance" the children's bread, the fact remains that all Israel was not saved and needed Jesus, along with the Gentiles! Some Jews had accepted Jesus, and other had not. Those who did accept Him didn't need Him, per se. Some Jews were not in right relationship with God, and it is not a surprise that some Jews were also in need of having demons removed from them. But this doesn't prove that those who needed this deliverance were true believers. This is another passage that has to have things read INTO it so that it appears to prove Christians can be demonized. This passage also doesn't prove what the author supposes.

5. This next argument relies on faulty logic and grand assumption. It argues: "On several other occasions in the Gospels, Jesus cast spirits out of believers. He 'rebuked' the fever in Peter's mother-in-law, obviously addressing the spirit behind the sickness." Oh really? Let's take a look at why this reasoning is flawed.

Is the author trying to argue that because this woman was Peter's mother-in-law that she somehow had to be a believer? That does not follow. I am saved, but does this prove my dad is? No, it doesn't. My dad belongs to the cult of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Moreover, it is clear from parallel passages that Peter's mother-in-law was sick with a fever (see Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). It says she was SICK, not that she was demonized or that the sickness was caused by demonic forces. But the clear text of Scripture is ignored. And this is only part of the danger of this doctrine and how it makes you see things that are not there.

And finally, the author tries to make some kind of point about how Jesus "rebuked" the fever, suggesting that this means he was clearly rebuking a demon spirit behind the sickness. Really? How is that? By that flawed reasoning, we may now presume that the wind also had a demon behind it when Jesus "rebuked" the wind in Luke 8:24. This kind of silliness is supposed to prove this doctrine? Can you blame me for questioning it when I see nonsense like this? This again is another weak attempt to "prove" Christians can be demonized that fails miserably.

6. Next we read this: "Furthermore, Jesus delivered a man in a synagogue from an unclean spirit in Mark 1:23-26. We have no reason to doubt that this man was a believer who had come to worship God there." I would counter by saying, "Yes, we do." Being in a synogogue does not make you a believer, any more than going to a church makes one a Christian. The fact that he had a demon proves to me that he was in agreement in his being with the demon and therefore was not a believer. This kind of flawed reasoning does not and cannot prove Christians can be demonized.

7. Next we have the old argument about Judas. We read that "Presumably Judas was a believer at one time, and yet Satan himself 'entered...into him (Luke 22:3; cf. John 13:2). The problem here is, the author forgot to mention the fact of what Jesus said about Judas in John 6:70, calling him a "devil" despite the fact that Jesus chose him. Not that Judas "became" a devil, but that he was one. Judas is called the "son of perdition" (John 17:12). He is shown to be a person of false pretence in John 12:4-6. This is a record of a man who never was a true believer. So we have no Biblical grounds to "presume" that he was a believer at one time.

Now it is clear that Judas was not a believer, and it is also clear that satan "entered" Judas to control him. Now if the Bible had made it clear that a true believer like Peter or Paul had satan "enter" them, then I would be inclined to accept this heresy. But we don't have that, and trying to argue from silence as some do will not prove anything here. Using Judas doesn't prove Christians can have demons. It effectively proves unbelievers can be entered by satan himself.

8. The website next tries to throw Ananias and Sapphira at us, claiming that they were true believers but had satan "fill" their hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit. But can we absolutely equate the phrase "filled your heart to lie" to mean demonization? I don't think so. It says satan filled their hearts TO LIE, not that he simply "filled" their hearts, as if he entered them like he did Judas. Satan may have influenced them to lie, but the text nowhere says he entered them to do so.

The term "filled your heart" is most likely an idiomatic expression like when we say someone is "filled with joy." We don't mean some spirit being named "joy" has entered the person. That is just another way of saying the person is joyful. Nothing more. Also, we seem to have this idiomatic use of the word "filled" confirmed in Scripture, as another text says that people were "filled" with "indignation," which simply means they were angry (Acts 5:17).

So, once again, this text fails to prove that a true Christian can be demonized.

9. We now come to 2 Corinthians 11:3,4. Of this passage it is said, "Paul exhorts the believers at Corinth to remain true to the gospel and he sets forth the possibility that they could, if they were not careful, 'receive another spirit' which was presumably a spirit of error and deception..."

But Paul doesn't set forth a possibility that they could "receive another spirit" in the sense of being demonized. He doesn't even say that it is possible to "receive" another spirit per se, but goes on to say "you may well put up with it." Paul in context is talking about false teaching, receiving and accepting false teaching from false teachers.

The context of "receiving" also applies to a "different gospel." Are we now to believe that a "different gospel" can demonize us now? The author of this article seems to think that every time the word "spirit" is used, it must mean a spirit being of some kind, and that is simply not the case. The author simply assumes that the phrase "receive another spirit" means demonization of some kind, when the context doesn't warrant it. This, I believe, is another case of having "deliverance" glasses on, and then those glasses coloring how you read the Bible. This passage cannot prove to me or any other reasonable person that Christians can be demonized.

10. The author of the website then goes on to mention passages like 1 Timothy 4:1, Galatians 3:1, Ephesians 4:27, and 1 Peter 5:8.

But 1 Timothy 4:1 talks about people being deceived, not being demonized. Galatians 3:1 is an admonition against going back to the works of the law as a means to somehow complete salvation as the Galatians were doing (see Galatians 2:11-3:2). It has nothing to do with being "bewitched" in some demonization fashion.

I've already dealt with Ephesians 4:27 and 1 Peter 5:8 in another thread, but for the sake of this one I will briefly expound. Ephesians 4:27 does say that we should not give place to the devil. But in what context? The possibility of demonizaton? NO! It is in the context of not giving in to unjust anger, as verse 26 clearly indicates.

And when it comes to 1 Peter 5:8, it is interesting to note that it nowhere says satan actually devours anyone. It says he SEEKS to devour LIKE a roaring lion. So what? No weapon formed against us shall prosper, unless, of course, this excludes satan and the weapons he might use.

Another interesting point is that the word translated "devour" speaks of swallowing, not demonization, unless people want to somehow equate this word with demonization without any Biblical justification. And if that is the case, we once again do not have good exegesis proving a doctrine but speculation, assumption, and eisegesis attempting to prove what people have already made up in their minds must be true and somehow supported by the Bible.

The author asks the question: "if the believers were automatically delivered and protected from Satan's influence and oppression what sense could we make of Paul's command, in Ephesians 4:27, to 'Neither give place to the devil?'"

The problem within the question asked is that it assumes that the only thing we are warned against must be demonization. Satan and demons have power and can influence all people, but this does not mean that this influence and oppression must come from within. They are usually outside of people by nature and it seems they have the ability to afflict people this way as well.

I do not disagree that satan can seriously oppress or influence Christians. That much is clear from the Bible. But to go beyond that and argue that we can be inhabited so that we need them "cast out" of us is something entirely different; and it is something entirely without Biblical support, as we have seen here.

So if the Bible, once again, does not teach this doctrine, where does it come from? Should we as Christians accept it? I say NO! The Bible is the final authority on morals and doctrine, and the minute we start allowing our perceptions of reality to cloud our discernment of what the Bible says, we fall into dangerous error. This is the main reason I cannot believe in the kind of "deliverance" some are teaching today.

This ends the post I made in another forum.  Any thoughts or comments regarding this? 

I will be posting more on this topic so that people can better understand what's going on with this doctrine and how deadly deceptive it is.