Roman Catholic Exorcism

[Dachaser]

I’ll try to put it better- God gave them the knowledge, infallibly, that they needed for the occasion, whether it was healing as with Peter and John and the lame man, or with Paul as with the slave girl with the spirit. Of course they weren’t infallible men who always knew everything infallibly! That wasn’t true of any OT or NT prophet.

Back to the OP, and it’s the last time I’ll mention this book, but exorcism is dealt with very thoroughly and biblically in the Leahy book.

The Holy Spirit can still give that today, as in the gift of discernment, the ability to know whether something being claimed as real as is a legit supernatural happening or not.

 

[Dachaser]

He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.

Were their any times they misunderstood that a demon was present though?

 

[Dachaser]

I’m probably not understanding your issue with this, and I must not be stating it right. Do you believe that when Peter fixed his gaze on the lame man and spoke to him, Peter knew, prophetically, by the Spirit that God was going to heal this man through him?

Peter knew that Jesus would be able and willingly to heal that man on the spot.

 

[Dachaser]

He may have. We have no evidence that he knew at that moment that he was infallibly going to do that. I'm not disputing the possibility. It's just an unproven claim.

It did seem that God somehow notified Peter that he was there to do a miracle of healing in the name of Jesus there.

 

[Dachaser]

Ok, I think this comes down to a difference in how we view the offices and gifts of apostle and prophet as they functioned in the OT and NT (apostolic) church. It also seems to have to do with ideas regarding continuationism vs. cessationism. I’m coming from the view that when the apostles and prophets received revelation from God on a matter (the lame man, the girl with the spirit of divination), they knew they had received immediate revelation from God and that they were indeed acting in accordance with his will. (Galatians 1:12) But ministers of the gospel aren’t hampered by the cessation of this kind of immediate revelation in dealing with demonic activity. God has prescribed the means for setting people free from bondage to sin and the devil in the proclamation and teaching (which includes correction, rebuke, exhortation, etc.) of his word.

There is also the situation here that Christians cannot be possessed by any demonic forces/powers, as we are now in Christ and sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, can still be oppressed by those same forces, and the remedies to combat that are the ones that you listed here. Those whoa re lost in sins can at times have the possession activity be going on in their lives.

 

[Dachaser]

But you’re not interacting with proposition that in dealing with troubled people, there is no longer the direct revelation from God to the Minister that there is indeed demonic activity, and what to do about it. We are no longer to directly speak to demons, to call them out, as Christ and the apostles did. To do so, considering our fallibility in discerning, could be very harmful to a troubled soul. The counsel and exhortation of the word of God is the cure offered for all troubles, including from Satan. Of course, the minister, and everyone, should pray for the Lord to deliver all people under their care from Satan and his devices! We pray this daily, as Christ taught us to pray. And in some instances, that prayer takes on new fervency.

But to speak and act as if we have direct revelation about what’s going on in individual circumstances, those gifts of revelation having ceased, is not good.

So I’d say it is indeed a matter of cessationism (I understand there some extreme forms or expressions of cessationism that are wrong) vs. continuationism (maybe inconsistent) that drives different approaches.

The activity of demonic possession is real today, but not nearly as many have the TV/and Movie show to us, and that involves on the ones who are lost . the Holy Spirit Himself should be giving discernment to the Pastor/Elders.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is also the situation here that Christians cannot be possessed by any demonic forces/powers, as we are now in Christ and sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, can still be oppressed by those same forces, and the remedies to combat that are the ones that you listed here. Those whoa re lost in sins can at times have the possession activity be going on in their lives.

"Possession" is a misleading English word, as the Greek word simply means "demonized." Now those like John and Tony Podesta, who engage in satanic rituals, are probably far gone.

In any case, Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.

 

[RamistThomist]

Were their any times they misunderstood that a demon was present though?

I don't know. I'm not trying to prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't on me. In any case, the book of Acts doesn't give us a complete list of every action ever performed (or not performed).

 

[RamistThomist]

One of the ironies in saying that Peter knew infallibly (during that moment anyway) is that it has Peter's natural abilities being supervened upon. That's starting to look a lot like Holy Spirit Possession.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is a good summary of verses that combat the Miltonian view that we tend to default to.
https://www.miqlat.org/angels-and-demons.htm

 

[Dachaser]

One of the ironies in saying that Peter knew infallibly (during that moment anyway) is that it has Peter's natural abilities being supervened upon. That's starting to look a lot like Holy Spirit Possession.

Think that the 2 extremes to be avoided about satan and demons would be to live and act as if they do not exist at all, or to live and act as if they are everywhere, and one is to be afraid of them. We are not to be ignorant of them and their ways, but to walk in faith and obedience to Jesus Himself.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here are some other things to think about:

1. Where does the OT say that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the same as the Ha Satan in Job 1?

2. Wouldn't a better name for him be ḥêlel ben shaḥar (Isaiah 14:12).

3. Whoever the entity is in Genesis 3, he was originally a guardian cherub (Ezekiel 28).

4. Where does the Bible speak of ḥêlel ben shaḥar's taking 1/3 of the angels with him in a pre-temporal fall?

 

[Dachaser]

Here are some other things to think about:

1. Where does the OT say that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the same as the Ha Satan in Job 1?

2. Wouldn't a better name for him be ḥêlel ben shaḥar (Isaiah 14:12).

3. Whoever the entity is in Genesis 3, he was originally a guardian cherub (Ezekiel 28).

Do the scriptures ever even mention that he was/is a former Archangel though?

 

[RamistThomist]

Do the scriptures ever even mention that he was/is a former Archangel though?

It specifically calls him a guardian cherub, which isn't the same thing as an archangel. An angel is just a messenger, and can be human or divine. Michael is called an Archangel. Interestingly, he doesn't challenge the devil directly, so it appears that he would have been lesser in rank. But that wouldn't have necessarily been the case with a guardian cherub.

 

[Dachaser]

It specifically calls him a guardian cherub, which isn't the same thing as an archangel. An angel is just a messenger, and can be human or divine. Michael is called an Archangel. Interestingly, he doesn't challenge the devil directly, so it appears that he would have been lesser in rank. But that wouldn't have necessarily been the case with a guardian cherub.

I am mindful of the passage where is states that not even Michael dared to rebuke satan, but that he used the Lord Himself to rebuke him.