Demonic Games
By Phil Scovell
I am going to try my best not to belabor all the aspects of
the article on the demon possession of a Christian. I could
easily get carried away and write fifty pages on all the things
that jumped out at me as I read. I will try and limit my
comments to the most obvious errors I feel are important to note
and if you believe that one, you are definitely easily fooled.
Let's back up first so I can clearly state what I have said
on here before. I have never believed, nor do I now believe, a
Christian can be demon possessed. It is literally an
impossibility. So, I am in agreement with the article I posted in
that regard. It is the other remarks he made which concern me.
For example, he begins by saying this.
" The question has been forced upon us: Can a born again
Christian be possessed by a demon?"
Forced upon us? Holy cow. I remember this being debated
when I was a little kid in the Baptist church. I never got the
idea it was forced upon anybody. In fact, in my 47 years of
walking with the Lord, I have talked to literally thousands of
Christian people. I have never once, in my entire life, ever
heard any born again Christian say they believed, as a Christian,
you could be demon possessed. I'm not saying that some Christian
some place doesn't truly think Christian demonic possession is
possible, but I personally have never met one. I've heard over
40,000 sermons preached in my life time and I have never even
heard the weirdest of Charismatic Christians say they believed a
truly born again Christian could be demon possessed. Again, I am
sure there has got to be some Charismatic maniacs out there who,
no doubt, believe a Christian can be demon possessed but I have
never met one and God as my witness, I have met some pretty weird
Charismatics in my day. Furthermore, I would venture to guess
that I have personally heard preach, witnessed them minister,
studied other writings and Biblical teachings, and been around
more people who claimed to be called to the deliverance ministry
than anybody reading these remarks, and I have never known any of
even those people to say they believe, as a Christian, you could
be demon possessed. So, this guy confuses me right off the bat in
the first sentence. I just question anybody who starts out on the
wrong foot as if he has an axe to grind because they usually do,
in fact, have an axe to grind. Perhaps I'm being overly
sensitive but things like his opening statement always catch my
attention and make me suspicious.
Then he says the following.
"The answer based on the Scriptures and logic is an
unequivocal NO! The proponents of this unscriptural
doctrine use such terms as Christians being "invaded by demons"
rather than demon possessed. This is nothing more than word
games and a smoke screen to hide the Scriptural weakness of their
position."
Hold the phone right there. Read that again. "The answer
based on the Scriptures and logic..." Sorry, it is either based
upon Scripture or it isn't. Logic has absolutely nothing to do
with faith. If you want to be logical, that's fine. When it
comes to the interpretation and application of God's eternal word,
there ain't no need for logic because you either believe it by
faith or you don't. So which is it going to be?
Let's continue.
He says, "The proponents of this unscriptural doctrine
use such terms as Christians being "invaded by demons" rather
than demon possessed. This is nothing more than word games and
a smoke screen to hide the Scriptural weakness of their position."
Once again, he has an inside track on who these people are
whom he calls the "proponents of this unscriptural doctrine. I
would love to meet one of these screw balls he is talking about
some day. He, furthermore claims that these weird Bible nuts are
semantically dishonest. Well, if you keep reading, I'll show you
some pretty fancy semantical footwork which he uses himself that
is right down misleading and, for that matter, contradictory.
From this point, he starts getting down to brass tax when he
says the following.
"They also present an illogical supposition that the demons
can invade or control the mind or body, but not the spirit."
Already, we are apparently back to using logic to interpret
the spiritual application of God's word because he accuses these
people of being guilty of using "illogical supposition."
Now, I hate to say this, but we could spend a month of
Sundays right here. I am not going to quote all the text and
Scriptures to which he refers to back up this claim because it all
boils down to one thing and he says it pretty well. The Bible
confirms that our bodies are the temple of God. What he fails to
point out is that the physical body and the mind and emotions of a
Christian are not regenerated. That's a good old Bible seminary
term which means, theologically speaking, your body and your mind
and emotions, are not saved. We know this, dare I use the term
logically, because the body is dying every day. The mind isn't
exactly too holy either. If our emotions were saved, born again,
or regenerated, then we would never get mad or lose our temper,
now would we. James 1:21 confirms that these areas of our
unregenerate lives are saved, disciplined, brought under
subjection, by the Word of God. I wonder why James, if, according
to the article, demons are apparently unable to have anything to
do with the mind, or the emotions, or the body, would be bothered
even teaching on the importance of discipline of these areas of
our physical makeup. Especially if they could not be tampered
with by demons in the life of a Christian.
During his attempt to get you to believe that the Bible
doesn't teach anything about demonic activity being possible in
your mind or your body, he says the following.
"To say that a Christian's body or mind can be possessed or
invaded by demons is to contradict the Word of God and
declare that there is a communion of light and darkness, that God
and Satan are dwelling together."
I am still at a loss here because I have yet to find someone
who believes the mind or the body can be possessed by a demon if
they are a Christian. Oppressed? Sure. Influenced? You bet.
Tempted? Sure thing. Possessed? I've never heard it said by
anyone that such was possible. Not of a Christian at any rate.
According to this article however, none of this is even possible.
Why? Because, we are the temple of God. Apparently we are,
therefore, immune from the demonics? Boy, I wish he was right.
He isn't, though, and that is why some of his teaching is
dangerous to the Christian.
I won't quote all of what he says next but he attempts to use
Scripture to confirm that we are seated in the heavenly places
with Christ Jesus. In this spiritual state, we are at war with
Satan. His logic is, if we are at war with the Enemy, how can he
possess us or do anything to us as we war against him. Sounds
mighty good. It's just simply wrong.
Now, here is another statement that should generate some
concern. If not concern, then confusion.
"We need the help of God to stand, for these rulers of the
darkness can and do attack us in a variety of ways. But they
cannot come in and take control of our lives."
Earlier he seems to imply, at least to me, that, since we are
seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus, that we are at war
with the demonic realm. Of course, his argument is, the demonic
realm is below us, and so that's why, since we are seated in
heavenly places, the demons cannot come to where we are seated
with Christ. If this is true, why does he say "for these rulers
of the darkness can and do attack us in a variety of ways." My
question is, how and where do they attack us? According to Chuck
Smith, the author of the article to which I am referring, our
body, soul, and spirit are somehow protected, shielded, from such
demonic influence.
This statement also concerns me.
"But they cannot come in and take control of our lives."
Now, I know he means this in light of actual possession so
I'll cut him some slack and just let this one go for now. I'll
comment on it again later.
The following likewise concerns me.
"Christ said concerning Satan, "The ruler of this world is
coming, and he has nothing in Me" (John 14:30). If I am in
Christ and Satan has nothing in Him, Satan can have nothing in me
- praise the Lord!"
Is this true? Do you believe what he just said?
Then he asks the following question and provides his own
answer.
"What about these experiences of Christians having demons
cast out of them? What are the voices that name themselves,
the writhing on the floor, and the regurgitation? I do not know.
I am thankful that since I do not engage in these unscriptural
practices, I do not have to explain them."
First how does he know these people are not truly lost
unbelievers who are demon possessed? If they are, doesn't he have
an obligation as one of our Lord's disciples, if they have come
for help, to assist them? Perhaps, I'm guessing, he would just
get them to ask Jesus to come into their heart and bingo, the
demons would flee? Good idea. So, how would he go about getting
these people to stop their unscriptural practices as they writhed
and regurgitated on the floor in order that he might witness to
them?
Secondly, if they are Christians, writhing around on the
floor, as he suggests, practicing their unscriptural practices,
what is wrong with them? Are they mentally ill and in need of a
doctor instead of a pastor? If so, wouldn't he feel he should get
them, at least, some medical help?
Thirdly, when he says, "I am thankful that since I do not
engage in these unscriptural practices, I do not have to explain
them," what does he mean? What is he responsible for in such a
case? Does he think these people are doing it on purpose? Does
he believe they love doing this sort of thing? Does he believe
they choose to allow these things to happen which he refuses to
explain?
Now, here is a very curious statement he makes about demons
and their names which puzzles me.
"Some of the names given by these supposed demons which are
more popular are: lust, hatred, liar, gluttony, envy, fear and
jealously. These things are classified in Galatians 5:19-21 as
works of the flesh. We are to "put off all these," (Colossians
3:8) or by the Spirit to "mortify the deeds of the body"
(Romans 8:13, 6:3-14). Not once are we commanded to have them
cast out."
I wonder what names he would prefer demons call themselves.
Does he prefer more graphic names or more common names such as
Joe, Harry, Melissa, or Philip? I'm confused by why demon names
bothers him at all. Obviously he doesn't even believe they are
demons. At least he refuses to explain it to anybody so why would
their names even remotely be of interest to him? After all, he
says, "Not once are we commanded to have them cast out." If they
don't need to be cast out, who cares what their names are?
Here is a curious statement.
"It seems to me that this whole demon trip is a cop-out for
the flesh."
I thought he just said he wasn't obligated to explain these
unscriptural practices. That sounds like a personal opinion and
an explanation to me. Does it to you? If I am not mistaken, I
believe we just found his axe to grind.
Consider the following statement he now makes.
"In the Scriptures there does not exist one piece of
evidence that Jesus Christ, His apostles, or the early Church
once sought to cast demons of the flesh out of anyone in the
body of Christ."
How would he know this to be 100 percent positive when we
are not always told when a person is a Christian or not? I am
really tempted to start quoting all sorts of passages about this
time, which clearly illustrate what I just said, but if I did, I
would have to quote a lot of the New Testament record concerning
demonology so I'll save that for a book. It is something worth
considering, however, because we might just have to explain it to
somebody some day.
Continued in next message.
I Flew Kites With Jesus
www.SafePlaceFellowship.com
|
