Reformed books on angels and demons?

[RamistThomist]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

 

[MW]

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

George Hutcheson: "As for those believers who are to do these and greater works, whatever may be said, in a sound sense, of every believer's doing great things, and overcoming the world through faith in him, yet the parallel holds clearer to restrict it to the apostles and others in the primitive times, who were endued with extraordinary power, and sent abroad to preach the gospel."

 

[Jeri Tanner]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

They aren't prescriptive at all (I.e. they're not meant to prescribe for us how to deal with demons). Those narrative texts are teaching something, yes, but what they are teaching is something true and wonderful about the Son and what he came to do (and that he did it!)

 

[RamistThomist]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

They aren't prescriptive at all (I.e. they're not meant to prescribe for us how to deal with demons). Those narrative texts are teaching something, yes, but what they are teaching is something true and wonderful about the Son and what he came to do (and that he did it!)

I didn't say they were prescriptive.

 

[earl40]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

They aren't prescriptive at all (I.e. they're not meant to prescribe for us how to deal with demons). Those narrative texts are teaching something, yes, but what they are teaching is something true and wonderful about the Son and what he came to do (and that he did it!)

I didn't say they were prescriptive.

The problem is many assume that a fallen angel somehow is controlling a person like a ventriloquist controls a dummy, and that for any person to fight against that fallen angel one must somehow cast out that fallen angel out of a person.

I say this in that I do realize the VAST majority of Christians believe that a "demon" or fallen angel can indeed do what I described above. I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

 

[RamistThomist]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

They aren't prescriptive at all (I.e. they're not meant to prescribe for us how to deal with demons). Those narrative texts are teaching something, yes, but what they are teaching is something true and wonderful about the Son and what he came to do (and that he did it!)

I didn't say they were prescriptive.

The problem is many assume that a fallen angel somehow is controlling a person like a ventriloquist controls a dummy, and that for any person to fight against that fallen angel one must somehow cast out that fallen angel out of a person.

Yeah, that's wrong in most cases. This is where movies and Hollywood have influenced a lot of Christians. Most deliverance ministries actually reject the automoton view.

Of course, sometimes that is true (like in deeper occult cases, remote viewing, MK-Ultra, and other CIA projects).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

 

[lynnie]

It really bothers me to see the clear and obvious meaning of a NT text labeled as some sort of accommodating language for the less informed people of that day. If a canonical inerrant passage called it a demon, we have no right to call it epilepsy....or call other references to demons an emotional problem or chemical problem or mental illness. You just can't redefine the word demon like that.

It is one thing to say it can't happen to Christians today, or Jesus and the apostles put an end to it, or we are not called to deal with it the way they did. At least you are not denying the clear meaning of those passages. It is another to claim that demons- as they were clearly understood to be in scripture (evil beings either inside or tormenting humans...or pigs for that matter)are not really that, it was just less informed less scientific thought back then.

This is the type of approach that rejects creation and biblical morality. We are so much more advanced now, that we know gay is OK and mankind evolved from primates. I think there is a dangerous mentality in some posts on this thread.

 

[Pergamum]

Study Papers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (1965 to 1982): 153rd General Synod MINUTES, MAY 30, 1975, pp. 197-214. "STUDY COMMITTEE ON "DEMONIC ACTIVITY"

http://pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/165.html

Though there are few explicit references to occult activity in the New Testament, where it is mentioned, particularly the references to sorcery, false prophets, and lying wonders, it supports what has already been deduced from the Old Testament. In Matthew 24:25 (cf. Mark 13:22), Christ stated that in the future false christs and prophets will appear who will even threaten to deceive the elect of God with their great signs (sameia, cf. John 20:31) and wonders. In Revelation 19:20, we note that these false prophets through their "sameia" deceived those men who followed the Anti-Christ. In Revelation 16:14, it is implied that the source of these false prophets' power is the "spirit of demons." In Paul's reference to the Anti-Christ in II Thessalonians 2:7-10, he made it very clear that there will be occult activities accompanying him, and that such activities have their source in Satan and deceive unrighteous men because they do not receive the love of the truth which leads to salvation.

Thus, the only passage which gives an indication that the ability to cast out demons is a continuing ministry in the church is Mark 16:17, plus evidence which can be drawn implicitly from passages such as Matthew 28:18-20 and John 14:12.

Christ promised his powerful presence with His people in the world, and therefore, as He dwells in us by His Spirit He will do great works through us. Historically, there is much evidence to confirm that Christians still have this ability and can exercise it. However, it should only be used when a situation has been very clearly confirmed as "demonization" in consultation with spiritually competent medical and psychological authorities, if possible. When it is used, the Scriptures teach that there is a need for much prayer, and a demon is only expelled when it is commanded in the name and power of Jesus Christ to leave the individual.

Kittel makes this clear:

It should be notes that in the New Testament not all sicknesses are attributed to demons. . . . Nevertheless, it may be said that the existence of sickness in the world belongs to the character of the age of which Satan is prince. . . . Thus while not all sicknesses are the work of demons, they may all be seen as the work of Satan. [12] (Luke 13:10-16)

 

[Pergamum]

Athanasius, in his On the Incarnation, seemed to think that demonic activity was vanquished and it receded as the gospel was spread.

Who, then, is this Christ and how great is He, Who by His Name and presence overshadows and confounds all things on every side, Who alone is strong against all and has filled the whole world with His teaching? Let the Greeks tell us, who mock at Him without stint or shame. If He is a man, how is it that one man has proved stronger than all those whom they themselves regard as gods, and by His own power has shown them to be nothing? If they call Him a magician, how is it that by a magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being rendered strong? Had He conquered certain magicians or proved Himself superior to one of them only, they might reasonably think that He excelled the rest only by His greater skill. But the fact is that His cross has vanquished all magic entirely and has conquered the very name of it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Athanasius, in his On the Incarnation, seemed to think that demonic activity was vanquished and it receded as the gospel was spread.

Who, then, is this Christ and how great is He, Who by His Name and presence overshadows and confounds all things on every side, Who alone is strong against all and has filled the whole world with His teaching? Let the Greeks tell us, who mock at Him without stint or shame. If He is a man, how is it that one man has proved stronger than all those whom they themselves regard as gods, and by His own power has shown them to be nothing? If they call Him a magician, how is it that by a magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being rendered strong? Had He conquered certain magicians or proved Himself superior to one of them only, they might reasonably think that He excelled the rest only by His greater skill. But the fact is that His cross has vanquished all magic entirely and has conquered the very name of it.

Sort of. Athanasius's quote doesn't mean demonic activity has ceased. Remember, he wrote a biography of his mentor, St Anthony, where Anthony fought demons every day.

 

[Pergamum]

Athanasius, in his On the Incarnation, seemed to think that demonic activity was vanquished and it receded as the gospel was spread.

Who, then, is this Christ and how great is He, Who by His Name and presence overshadows and confounds all things on every side, Who alone is strong against all and has filled the whole world with His teaching? Let the Greeks tell us, who mock at Him without stint or shame. If He is a man, how is it that one man has proved stronger than all those whom they themselves regard as gods, and by His own power has shown them to be nothing? If they call Him a magician, how is it that by a magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being rendered strong? Had He conquered certain magicians or proved Himself superior to one of them only, they might reasonably think that He excelled the rest only by His greater skill. But the fact is that His cross has vanquished all magic entirely and has conquered the very name of it.

Sort of. Athanasius's quote doesn't mean demonic activity has ceased. Remember, he wrote a biography of his mentor, St Anthony, where Anthony fought demons every day.

He means that activity ceases or retreats where the light spreads. As Christians are successful in that warfare, the devil retreats. And everywhere the Gospel is preached, we see the devil being vanquished and fleeing.

Did I read him right on that?

 

[earl40]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

How do lunatics like the girl in Acts 16 give accurate knowledge of cases she can't possibly know? The examples throughout church history are too numerous.

 

[RamistThomist]

Athanasius, in his On the Incarnation, seemed to think that demonic activity was vanquished and it receded as the gospel was spread.

Who, then, is this Christ and how great is He, Who by His Name and presence overshadows and confounds all things on every side, Who alone is strong against all and has filled the whole world with His teaching? Let the Greeks tell us, who mock at Him without stint or shame. If He is a man, how is it that one man has proved stronger than all those whom they themselves regard as gods, and by His own power has shown them to be nothing? If they call Him a magician, how is it that by a magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being rendered strong? Had He conquered certain magicians or proved Himself superior to one of them only, they might reasonably think that He excelled the rest only by His greater skill. But the fact is that His cross has vanquished all magic entirely and has conquered the very name of it.

Sort of. Athanasius's quote doesn't mean demonic activity has ceased. Remember, he wrote a biography of his mentor, St Anthony, where Anthony fought demons every day.

He means that activity ceases or retreats where the light spreads. As Christians are successful in that warfare, the devil retreats. And everywhere the Gospel is preached, we see the devil being vanquished and fleeing.

Did I read him right on that?

"retreats" and "ceases" are two very different words. And the flip side holds as well. As countries embrace paganism (like erecting statues of Baphomet in the City square) then darkness will advance.

 

[earl40]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

How do lunatics like the girl in Acts 16 give accurate knowledge of cases she can't possibly know? The examples throughout church history are too numerous.

You are assuming the girl in Acts 16 is not like the modern Jean Dixon who made a LOT of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

How do lunatics like the girl in Acts 16 give accurate knowledge of cases she can't possibly know? The examples throughout church history are too numerous.

You are assuming the girl in Acts 16 is not like the modern Jean Dixon who made a LOT of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon

I'm simply reporting what the Bible said. Paul assumed this girl had knowledge she couldn't have had and it was caused by a demon.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I went back to the 2014 thread linked to earlier by Rev. Winzer- http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/84279-Ghosts-spirits-demons

Reading carefully, trying to think it through, taking the advice of the moderator in that thread to be courteous, to ask questions, to listen to each other, I begin to understand some of the issues brought up by Rev. Winzer and Earl. Their views certainly do include the view that Satan was and is active and very much going about his work of deceiving.

I've had the experience before of being compelled to review some of my own deep-seated assumptions concerning what Scripture teaches, and being heartily unwilling to do so, even angry about it. But when the challenge comes from a respected source, it has always been profitable to do so. I would encourage going back and reading that thread and taking some time to chew through and consider some of the points made there. They are worth doing so.

I'm not sure what I think about some of the aspects of the use of accommodation in the "exorcism" texts in the Gospels and Acts. For instance, some of us don't want to use accommodation in the account of the sun standing still in Joshua.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

How do lunatics like the girl in Acts 16 give accurate knowledge of cases she can't possibly know? The examples throughout church history are too numerous.

You are assuming the girl in Acts 16 is not like the modern Jean Dixon who made a LOT of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon

I'm simply reporting what the Bible said. Paul assumed this girl had knowledge she couldn't have had and it was caused by a demon.

Jacob, I don't see from the actual text where Paul assumes that she has knowledge she couldn't have otherwise had; the text only says that after several days of her following them around he was "grieved" (KJV; NASB "annoyed") and dealt with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and if we in our time can replace the word "lunatic" or a "crazy" person in the narratives about people being possessed by a demon a lot of confusion would be averted on this subject.

But wait, how does this view fit with the fact that the demons spoke, with knowledge of who Christ, and Paul, were; and that the Lord cast them out of the demoniac and sent them into a herd of pigs, which then rushed to their deaths?

The "demons" speaking were the "human lunatics" for starters, and I would have no problem with Jesus accommodating to the wishes of the "crazy" person to have the pigs jump off a cliff as an object lesson of how horrible mental and physical disease's are.

How do lunatics like the girl in Acts 16 give accurate knowledge of cases she can't possibly know? The examples throughout church history are too numerous.

You are assuming the girl in Acts 16 is not like the modern Jean Dixon who made a LOT of money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon

I'm simply reporting what the Bible said. Paul assumed this girl had knowledge she couldn't have had and it was caused by a demon.

Jacob, I don't see from the actual text where Paul assumes that she has knowledge she couldn't have otherwise had; the text only says that after several days of her following them around he was "grieved" (KJV; NASB "annoyed") and dealt with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. I might have been reading modern, documented experiences into Paul's narrative. Though of course, the demoniacs in the gospel knew Jesus was the Holy One of God.

 

[RamistThomist]

Once you begin saying "Something is cultural accommodation," then it becomes an acid-drip. Why stop? Why not say our understanding of male-to-male sexuality has improved since Paul's day?

 

[RamistThomist]

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/do-angels-and-demons-exist

Click on the talk by Moreland

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think I know what Moreland will have to say. Probably all points of view have been exhausted in this thread! That because "principalities... powers... rulers of the darkness of this world...spiritual wickedness in high places..." all exist, it doesn't follow that we are called by Scripture to deal with them in the ways that are widely believed. Sure, we encounter much darkness in this world that is of the evil one and many are obviously held captive by the devil to do his will. But beyond that, whatever is happening in the unseen, spiritual world is God's business, not ours, except as Paul lifts the curtain a little in a few texts to help us in realizing that much is at stake and to keep at the means of grace, including our fervent prayers, often for specific situations and people. We keep on doing all that Christ has commanded us to do, and having done all, to stand. This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think I know what Moreland will have to say. Probably all points of view have been exhausted in this thread! That because "principalities... powers... rulers of the darkness of this world...spiritual wickedness in high places..." all exist, it doesn't follow that we are called by Scripture to deal with them in the ways that are widely believed. Sure, we encounter much darkness in this world that is of the evil one and many are obviously held captive by the devil to do his will. But beyond that, whatever is happening in the unseen, spiritual world is God's business, not ours, except as Paul lifts the curtain a little in a few texts to help us in realizing that much is at stake and to keep at the means of grace, including our fervent prayers, often for specific situations and people. We keep on doing all that Christ has commanded us to do, and having done all, to stand. This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.

And no one will disagree with most of that. And anyway, that's not what Moreland's argument was about. But saying it is "God's business" is simply dodging the issue. Everything in the universe is "God's business," so therefore we shouldn't do anything about anything. But that's not how life works. Moreland, as well as the entirety of the Christian tradition, notes that the Gospels and Acts see Jesus and the disciples engaged in deliverance ministries.
Second premise: This appears to work.
3rd Premise: People are delivered and receive rest and release.
Fourth premise: In the course of such ministries, Moreland et al have come across dark intelligences and personalities logically distinct from the entity at hand (thus ruling out any kind of psychobabble).
----------------
Conclusion 1 (C1) This activity happens today.

 

[MW]

There is no cultural accommodation in the Gospels concerning "demons." In the Gospels we see the kingdom of heaven penetrating the present order and manifesting the power of God over all that was considered to be "divine." In that revelation we see "demons" showing their subjection to the word of Christ, the anointed King. These "demons" are the hero-gods whom the nations served in their blindness as a part of the just judgment of God. These "gods" were understood to be wicked by the Jews. Any activity or power which these so-called "gods" demonstrated was attributed to an "unclean spirit," i.e., a wicked disembodied soul. At no point do we find our Lord or the Gospel penmen accommodating themselves to this belief. They attribute the working entirely to Satan. Our Lord specifically stated that He cast out "Satan," Matt. 12:25-30, the strong man being bound in order that his house might be spoilt. The apostle Peter explicitly stated, as a part of his summary account of the gospel, that Christ, as anointed Lord, "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil [diabolos]; for God was with him," Acts 10:38. There was no accommodation to a false belief. They spoke plainly so as to identify the real agent behind this activity.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

There is no cultural accommodation in the Gospels concerning "demons." In the Gospels we see the kingdom of heaven penetrating the present order and manifesting the power of God over all that was considered to be "divine." In that revelation we see "demons" showing their subjection to the word of Christ, the anointed King. These "demons" are the hero-gods whom the nations served in their blindness as a part of the just judgment of God. These "gods" were understood to be wicked by the Jews. Any activity or power which these so-called "gods" demonstrated was attributed to an "unclean spirit," i.e., a wicked disembodied soul. At no point do we find our Lord or the Gospel penmen accommodating themselves to this belief. They attribute the working entirely to Satan. Our Lord specifically stated that He cast out "Satan," Matt. 12:25-30, the strong man being bound in order that his house might be spoilt. The apostle Peter explicitly stated, as a part of his summary account of the gospel, that Christ, as anointed Lord, "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil [diabolos]; for God was with him," Acts 10:38. There was no accommodation to a false belief. They spoke plainly so as to identify the real agent behind this activity.

This is the accommodation mentioned in the 2014 thread: "When it is accepted that "demons" are associated with fallen angels (devils), the ideas of "demon possession" and "casting out demons" are understood to be an accommodation to the way the people thought about these things. The Gospels must be understood to be speaking by way of accommodation. Otherwise one will be led to adopt all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions." Are you saying that the Lord and the disciples accommodated to the beliefs of the people the narratives tell us about, but that in the writings there is no accommodation to their beliefs?

 

[MW]

This is the accommodation mentioned in the 2014 thread: "When it is accepted that "demons" are associated with fallen angels (devils), the ideas of "demon possession" and "casting out demons" are understood to be an accommodation to the way the people thought about these things. The Gospels must be understood to be speaking by way of accommodation. Otherwise one will be led to adopt all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions." Are you saying that the Lord and the disciples accommodated to the beliefs of the people in the narratives, but that in the writings there is no accommodation to their beliefs?

These demons are not demons in the realistic sense of that term. Christ and the apostles have given clearer revelation. We are reading the narratives in light of the clearer revelation, though we also recognise a different view was also present. In that sense there is an accommodation, but it is not cultural; it is counter-cultural. In no sense did Christ and His apostles simply function according to the cultural construct of the times. They corrected the view of the times, and we are obliged to interpret the phenomenon according to the correct view.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is the accommodation mentioned in the 2014 thread: "When it is accepted that "demons" are associated with fallen angels (devils), the ideas of "demon possession" and "casting out demons" are understood to be an accommodation to the way the people thought about these things. The Gospels must be understood to be speaking by way of accommodation. Otherwise one will be led to adopt all kinds of crude and ridiculous notions." Are you saying that the Lord and the disciples accommodated to the beliefs of the people in the narratives, but that in the writings there is no accommodation to their beliefs?

These demons are not demons in the realistic sense of that term. Christ and the apostles have given clearer revelation. We are reading the narratives in light of the clearer revelation, though we also recognise a different view was also present. In that sense there is an accommodation, but it is not cultural; it is counter-cultural. In no sense did Christ and His apostles simply function according to the cultural construct of the times. They corrected the view of the times, and we are obliged to interpret the phenomenon according to the correct view.

Thanks, Reverend Winzer. I'll be reading the Gospels and Acts with this in mind and will give it thought. Can you recommend any resources for learning more about this?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

If they're to be prescriptive for us, then so must be the accounts of other mighty wonders done, including healings, raising people from the dead, etc.

On one hand, they aren't prescriptive in the sense of "ye must do this to be saved, yea." But Jesus did say "Greater things than these."

I always understood the Greater Things to be leading others to be reconciled to God which is greater than earthly miracles. One is everlasting and the physical healing only temporal.

 

[MW]

Can you recommend any resources for learning more about this?

The work by Leahy has already been mentioned. The greatest assistance I found came in the way of dictionary and encyclopedia entries under "demons," especially the Imperial, Hastings, and ISBE. These bring an historic awareness to the subject which moderns tend to neglect. I also found it helpful to go through the Gospels where "demons" are mentioned, and to note the connections and characteristics. It is important to observe that the "demon" is connected with physical and emotional evil, and that the idea of moral evil is not present. Whereas the moral connection seems to be the most pronounced in continuationist views. But Matthew 12 is the key passage, along with 1 Cor. 8-10. Here the phenomenon is tied to the worship of false gods, and a distinct monotheistic interpretation comes into prominence, which opens the door for understanding the demonic activity in terms of the opponent of monotheism, Satan.