|
| |
Why couldn't the sons of Sceva exorcise? |
|
|
|
Acts 19:16
|
| |
In Ephesus many engaged in exorcism and occult practices to make money. Sceva's son's were included in these. They were impressed by Paul's ability to cast out demons by the power God gave to them. They knew that Pauls power was much more powerful because it came from the Holy Spirit. They wanted this amount of power also. In verse 13 we notice that these exocists saod, "I adjure you through the Jesus that Paul proclaims". They did not believe in Jesus and therefore were not saved. Unless you are saved you can not have the power of the Holy Ghost at work within you. Therefore you do not have God's power to heal. prayon |
| |
Tim, Who did Paul call on (Acts 22:16)? |
|
|
|
Matt 7:13
|
| |
Good question, Steve: whose 'name' is Paul calling on?
I believe that the phrase "in the name of" carries the meaning "by the authority of". If you see it in this light, then it is not important whose 'name' (the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) that they are calling on, it is important to know by whose authority that Paul is baptizing in. And in this case, Paul is baptizing according to the authority of Jesus Christ. When demons are cast out, does Paul cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? He only uses the name of Jesus. But this is yet another example of using "in the name of" as a 'magic formula', thus misusing the name. By whose authority are people baptized and demons cast out? Jesus has been given authority by the Father, and that authority is distributed by the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:17, Acts 2:1-4). Therefore, the authority of Jesus not only encompasses that of the Father, but also that of the Holy Spirit. So I do not see any 'disobedience' on our part if we only mention "in the name of Jesus" in our liturgical practices of baptism or exorcism, and I do not believe that we are 'leaving out' the Father and Holy Spirit here, but the "authority of" (as seen in Matthew 28:19) that is referred to not only encompasses Jesus but also that of the Father and Holy Spirit.
Jesus spoke at length on the question of authority that was brought to Him by the chief priests and elders of the people in Matthew 21:23-27.. See also Mark 11:27-33 and Luke 20:1-8.
Blessings!
Nolan |
| |
Spiritual |
|
|
|
Matt 18:18
|
| |
Dear Appleseed,
Do you have some experiences in Spiritual Warfare that you would like to share or discuss? I have actually SEEN a 'demon' be bound, I have HEARD a 'demon' speak. I have seen and read about certain exorcisms.. Please let me know!
Your Brother in Christ,
Nolan |
| |
Tell me who unties them? |
|
|
|
Matt 18:18
|
| |
EdB, I agree with everything that you have stated here.. However, I have seen a demon exorcism! I have read about them, and I have one actually recorded on cassette tape! Can you explain these things without suggesting that the believer who is exorcising the demon has (maybe even in a limited capacity) some authority here that is given to them by Christ? Luke 10:17-19 seem to speak otherwise here. In my experience, the person who was afflicted with the demon actually accepted Christ, and that is what eventually helped the person and drove the demon away.
I am not disagreeing with you fully here, but this is something that is not totally addressed by the statement, "There is no Scriptural evidence for the binding/loosing of demons.."
Nolan |
| |
Tell me who unties them? |
|
|
|
Matt 18:18
|
| |
Nolan
I was not talking about exorcism, the freeing of someone of a demon. I was talking about the common practice of spiritual warfare of binding Satan. We can't bind Satan from doing anything. Now I can plead the blood of Jesus and I know Satan will not cross the blood line. But to say I bind you from this situation is nothing more to me than telling Satan where he can hurt you most. I would ask Jesus to place this situation under his blood, to loose angels to guard against the adversary, but trying to binding Satan is like calling to the wind, since we have never been given the authority to bind him.
If you feel we can bind Satan how does he then get loose?
Ed
|
| |
Tell me who unties them? |
|
|
|
Matt 18:18
|
| |
Dear EdB,
I agree, and I see where you and I and Appleseed are all misunderstanding each other here..
You stated, "I was talking about the common practice of spiritual warfare of binding Satan. We can't bind Satan from doing anything. Now I can plead the blood of Jesus and I know Satan will not cross the blood line. But to say I bind you from this situation is nothing more to me than telling Satan where he can hurt you most. I would ask Jesus to place this situation under his blood, to loose angels to guard against the adversary, but trying to binding Satan is like calling to the wind, since we have never been given the authority to bind him."
And I would agree! Yes, satan is the prince of this world, and only through the blood of Jesus can we pray for a fellow person to have freedom from demon possession. And it is only through His precious blood that He can work through us to help free those who are demon afflicted, which is what Appleseed is trying to say..
I think that Appleseed is referring to an actual exorcism. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here and hopefully I have worked to 'clear it up'..
Blessings!
Nolan |
| |
seven other spirits |
|
|
|
Matt 12:45
|
| |
Greetings ECARG,
"12:43-45 Once again an unusual parable is spoken by the Lord. Interpreting the significance of the saying, Jesus is not giving a lecture on demonology; rather He is casting a revealing light upon the nature of the Jewish religious life of His generation. Apparently, Jesus envisions a man who has undergone significant moral reformation (but not spiritual regeneration), including exorcism of the demon which formerly possessed him. However, since nothing of real spiritual significance has replaced the evil, the exorcised spirit eventually returns with seven (a number often symbolizing perfection or completeness) wicked cohorts, reinhabiting the empty chambers of moral reformation and bringing on a condition more reprehensible than the original state of the man. Jesus is, in effect, suggesting that the legalism of the Jewish faith had resulted in a worse state among the Jews than that which existed prior to the law." (Believer's Study Bible)
"12:43-45 The transformation that Jesus brings to a human life (swept, put in order) can be lost by the return of evil spirits. Cf. Lk 11:24-26." (Cambridge Annotated Study Bible)
"Even Again the rejected King announces judgment (cp. 11:20-24). Israel, in the center of the Pharisaic revival of outward religious strictness, was like a man out of whom a demon had come, i.e. of his own volition. He would come back and find an empty house, etc. The application is to those who are depending upon self-reformation. 'Spirits' Cp. Mark 7:25-26; see Matt 7:22, note 'Worse' 2 Pet 2:20; cp. Heb 6:4-6 'Generation' See Mat 24:34, note" (New Scofield Study Bible)
"12:43-45 unclean spirit is a demon. See note on 7:22. Self-reformation, without spiritual conversion, can lead to serious ramifications. Notice that some demons are more wicked than others, and they can repossess a person from whom they have been cast out." (The Ryrie Study Bible)
Luke 11:24 "unclean spirit goes out. Jesus is perhaps referring to the work of Jewish exorcists, who claimed to cast out demons (cf. v. 19) but who rejected the kingdom of God and whose exorcisms were therefore ineffective. See Matt. 12:43-45, where Jesus makes a similar comment about the Jewish nation of that day." (Zondervan NASB Study Bible)
"the last state of that man is worse than the first. The problem is that the evil spirit found the house "empty" (v. 44). This is the description of someone who attempts moral reform without ever being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Reform apart from regeneration is never effective and eventually reverts back to pre-form behavior." (MacArthur NKJV Study Bible)
Nolan
|
| |
On Harry Potter? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Tim
Yes I think real magic is demonic. Yes I believe Christians are exempt from it's power. But I believe there is a world out there filled with it. With out getting into a once saved always saved discussion I also believe "Christians" can allow or give entrance to such forces.
Jesus said there would be some that said we healed in your name and cast out demons in your name and Jesus said I never knew you.
To me that says Satan counterfeits healings and even demon exorcisms in an effort to deceive many. I think this is what we witness many times when we see healings through men that are obviously seeking the glory for themselves rather than giving it to God.
Yes it would be a interesting study. In fact the longer we discuss this I discover more reasons to stand in opposition to any opposing view.
EdB |
| |
Did the sons of sceva had demons? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Greetings SRN!
No, the seven sons of Sceva did not have demons.
The lesson of this story is that to use the name of Jesus effectively in exorcism one must be totally devoted to Him. Contrary to theories of magic of the time, the name by itself could do nothing; this misuse, in fact, backfired (v. 16).
- Nolan |
| |
MARY--HONOR OR ADORATION? |
|
|
|
1 Pet 5:7
|
| |
Part VIII
MARY -- HONOR OR ADORATION?
(Conclusion)
'Seven Steps to Deity
'The Voice of Mary?
'To underscore the importance of the emerging role of Mary in Catholic literature, one need only examine a recent book, a product of the Marian movement of priests, entitled Our Lady Speaks to Her Be1oved Priests. This material purports to be a collection of messages communicated by Mary from 1973 to 1977. The messages were dictated to an anonymous priest to whom Mary allegedly said:
'“It is I who live, suffer, pray and act through a priest who has consecrated himself to my immaculate heart” (p. 89).
'The Virgin Mary allegedly stated: “My Son, how you need your Mother! She alone can understand and help you. She alone can hear you. She alone, through her Divine Plan, can snatch you from the hand of Satan and save you. Have recourse to me again, and I will be your salvation” (p. 88).
'It is evident from the preceding quotation that Mary’s role as Savior is accelerating to a place where it can be stated:
'“Nothing shall be of interest or importance to you save living for me and with me... It is through your weakness that my strength will be manifested. It is through your nothingness that my power will be known.”
'The end-product of such teaching Cannot be ignored. it is nothing less than the absorption and possession of “Her Beloved Priests.”
'“I will take possession of their lives, and gently I will transform them... Learn to let yourself be possessed by me, so that everything that you do will be done by me through you. It is necessary that the Mother act, and I want to act through you.”
'Such language is reminiscent of the world of the occult, not the theology of the New Testament. The one thing that Catholic Charismatics do not need is the world of the occult masquerading as Charismatic mysticism, imitating, and at length, discrediting the genuine movement of the Holy Spirit within the Catholic Charismatic renewal. With chilling clarity the Marian movement endorses total subjugation to Mary:
'“If you remain in the garden of my Immaculate Heart, you become my property. Thus no one can ever take you away from me, because I am your defense. You must always feel that you have security. You must no longer fear either Satan or the world or the frailty of your nature ... I can defend you against the evil one, who can do nothing to harm those who are part of my property” (p. 204).
'Biblical theology underscores the fact that Jesus Christ is our defense and our security, and that Satan responds to Him, and Him alone. This is evidenced by the fact that exorcisms in the Catholic Church are done exclusively in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the name nor by the authority of Mary. She has no power over the demon world of possession.
'Let us strive, therefore, to proclaim the historic gospel of Jesus Christ which exalts Him as Savior and Lord. Let Protestant and Catholic Charismatics stand upon the unshakeable foundation of New Testament revelation. Let us together share in the fellowship of the redeemed, and turn away from all other voices and teaching not consistent with “the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).'
(STATEMENT DM160 Charismatics and the Cult of Mary by Walter Martin) (www.equip.org) |
| |
"...and fasting"? |
|
|
|
Mark 9:29
|
| |
Greetings again, Robert!
Thank you for your reply and for your reference to the Old Scofield Bible! :-)
Actually, I favor the "Critical Text" of today over that which was used by the KJV translators, and I see and understand why the newer translations do not include 'fasting' in this verse and take out Matthew 17:21 altogether. Over time, the scribes had a tendency to 'embellish' or to borrow a phrase that actually existed somewhere else and inserted it in another place that contained similar language or events. And I trust that the Greek text that we have today is just about as close to the original autographs as we will probably ever get, that is, without God's direct intervention. :-)
However, does the absence of "fasting" in this verse take away a bit of theological significance? In your response, you seemed to say "No, it doesn't", even though you did mention that such an act of obedience (the exorcism of that demon) required not only devotion but also self-denial, which would perfectly be illustrated by the presence of the word "fasting" in this verse.
Even with that said, I agree with you, and I will continue to use my NASB and ESV despite the fact that neither one of those two translations includes the word "fasting" in Mark 9:29.. But it is difficult to hold a discussion with people who believe that the omission of the word "fasting" in this verse presents a quandary of sorts, since it feels as if it is missing the practical emphasis and 'punch' that Jesus had originally intended (or so it is thought). I presume that over time people will be able to adjust and to come to grips with the "correct" critical rendering of this verse, instead of trying to retain the traditional emphasis. But history has shown us that people are more likely to embellish and over illustrate rather than to keep it plain and simple, as the original author had more than likely intended.
Mark 9:29 is one of the most disputed verses between those who believe in the preservation of the Textus Receptus and those who favor a Critical text.
Blessings to you,
Makarios |
| |
Mark: Two narrative composition? |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Angel
In response to your inquiry to my initial thread I am sending this one response written in two parts.
Like most, I hold to the primacy of the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark, along with other source documents, to compose their narratives. However, the gospel of Mark as we now have it are not single creations out of a whole cloth anymore than Matthew or Luke are. Like Matthew and Luke, Mark consists of collections of material. The final selection and arrangement of which we owe to the composers themselves. Mark is here the primary influence; and Matthew and Luke both follow him and use his material.
The material now presented in the Gospels have a previous history of use in the Church, largely a history of oral transmission. It circulated in the Church in the form of individual units or small collections of related material and in this form it served definite functions in the life of worship in the church, in preaching and apologetic, in exhortation and instruction.
The smallest units of tradition, the individual story, saying, dialogue, et cetera, have definite forms which can be defined and studied. Each of these forms served a definite function in a concrete situation in the life of the early church.
The main purpose for the creation, the circulation, and the use of these forms was not to preserve the history of Jesus, but to strengthen the life of the Church. Thus these forms reflect the concern of the church, and both the form and the content have been influenced by the faith and theology of the church, as well as by the church's situation and practice.
The Gospel of Mark is a composition of two source communities.
1. The Jesus people of the Jesus movement (as in 4.35-8.26)
2. The Christ people of the Christ cult (as in 11.1--16.8)
As my outline will show, Mark is a combination of two narratives - one being the narrative of the Jesus people, the other being the Christ-community. Between the two narratives, there is a weaving together of the two narratives in a transition section (Mark 8.31-10.52). I will now outline the narrative(s) of the first community – the Jesus people, and then move on to the transition section.
THE JESUS PEOPLE NARRATIVE
Whereas the Christ cult emphasized a narrative story of a dying martyr, the Jesus people emphasized a retelling of their story with miracle stories that retold the Israelite epic to include people like themselves. Mark includes two sets of their five miracle stories in the first half of his narrative. Each cycle probably stood on its own before his composition. Notice the pattern: first a sea crossing miracle, then a combination of one exorcism and two healings, ending with an account of a feeding of a multitude:
FIRST CYCLE
Stilling the Storm (Mark 4.25-41)
The Gerasense Demoniac (5.1-20)
Jairus' Daughter (5.21-23, 35-43)
The woman with a hemmorage (5.25-34)
Feeding the 5000 (6.34-44, 53)
SECOND CYCLE
Walking on the sea (6.45-51)
The Blind Man at Bethsaida (8.22-26)
The Syrophonecian woman’s daughter (7.24-30)
The deaf mute (7.32-37)
Feeding the 4000 (8.1-10)
Each story begins with a water crossing and a feeding of the multitude, evoking the Israelite epic of Moses and the people. Each story has at its center the miracle worker, evoking the miracle working power of Elijah. In this way, the story of Jesus is told in such a way as to include those who were excluded from the Israelite Epic because of their ritual purity. Jesus is redefining holiness in terms of mercy, love, and compassion (Moses prophesied, “Be ye holy, even as I am holy” Jesus proclaimed “Be ye merciful, even as your father is merciful “ - Luke 3.36).
Continued next...
|
| |
Answers |
|
|
|
Is 57:1
|
| |
An article for you to consider from "Charisma " magazine. I've cut and editied in 2 installments!
"Where Is God When You're Not Healed?"
By Larry Keefauver
Many Christians feel guilty or defeated if they aren't instantly healed after receiving prayer. It's time to take an honest look at how the Bible says we should respond to sickness.
For years I have heard preachers imply that faith in some way is quantified. The myths seem to circulate unabated: "If Susan had just had enough faith, she would have been healed," or "When Bill's faith gets strong enough, he will be healed," or "If everyone in this room all believed at the same moment, then all would be healed."
But is healing really based on your faith alone? What should be your perspective when God doesn't heal immediately? If you are to understand why God doesn't always heal now, you will have to peel away the layers of myth that have been so tantalizing to embrace. You will have to dig deep into the Scripture for yourself instead of consuming the "fast food" of your favorite popular name-it-and-claim-it theologian. And you will have to decide to walk by faith instead of simply mouthing the platitudes of faith that have so easily supplanted God's Word in your daily confessions. The truth is, while the lack of faith may hinder healing, healing does not depend on faith.
I have witnessed both the faithful and the faithless being healed. And I have seen those of great faith die. In fact, everyone Jesus healed eventually died.
Those around the tomb of Lazarus lacked faith, and certainly Lazarus was in no position to exercise faith--he had been dead four days (see John 11:39-40). Yet Lazarus experienced a wonderful healing: He was resurrected.
We must avoid the myths of faith and healing and embrace the truth revealed in Scripture.
The Myths of Faith Healing Some believers focus exclusively on faith as the key to healing. Yet Jesus healed many who apparently had no faith. Some were healed because their friends had faith. Others were bound up by demonic spirits and healed by exorcism, even against their wills.
The truth is that God heals.
The myth is that God always heals now at the initiative of our faith.
The highest kind of faith is, "I believe in Jesus," not just, "I believe."
It is true that faith must be our initiative. But even our initiative comes through the prompting of the Holy Spirit: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). Our faith helps us receive healing, just as the lack of faith hinders healing. But healing does not depend on faith. Healing depends on the Healer.
Healing is the will of God. Canadian evangelist Peter Youngren wrote: "Jesus clearly shows us God's will in healing...the Word of God declares that 'great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all' (Matt. 12:15). When Jesus healed all, He was obviously doing the will of His Father, because He only did that which the Father wanted Him to do." Youngren adds: "This is why you can come with boldness asking God for healing. God is on your side. He wants the best for you. He is good."
So, if God wills all to be healed, then can your faith move His hand to heal you?
"Not exactly!"
Your faith moves Him to save you (see Rom. 10:9-13; Eph. 2:8). And in your salvation is your healing: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: 'He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses'" (Matt. 8:17; Is. 53:4-6). But your faith does not effect your healing now. When you are healed rests entirely on what the sovereign purposes of the Healer are.
Consider this biblical example. In John 5 Jesus healed one paralytic at the pool of Bethesda though a multitude thronged that place daily to be healed. Why was one man healed at that moment while others were not? John 5:19 gives the answer when Jesus confessed, "'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.'"
Bible scholar Jack Deere correctly observes that the initiative for the miraculous in Jesus' ministry did not begin with Him but with the Father. "He healed only the people He saw His Father healing," Deere writes. "The only firm reason for the healing of the paralytic that we can derive from the context of John 5 is that the Father willed it, and Jesus executed His Father's will...
We are ultimately faced with the conclusion that sometimes the Lord works miracles for His own sovereign purposes without giving any explanation for His actions to His followers."
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
