Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! Dr Ransom, that may be the longest post I've ever seen from you.

I'm just going to say that though temptation from the Devil surrounds us, we may be assured (Romans 8) that he cannot harm us and that nothing, not even our rotten choices, can separate us from the love of God in Christ.

And though this world with Devils filled
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear for God has willed
His truth to triumph through us.

TBG

Thank you wisewoman and DigoryKirke for your detailed responses.  Also, thanks heaps for that side note about not being ganged up on; I actually love this sort of conversation because it is helping to clear up a few things -even if you are all mods I still have the utmost respect for you and only feel slightly intimidated.

ww: An unclean spirit is a fallen angel, a created being just as we are. It is a person. It is not a form of sin. A sin is any action or thought that violates God's law. I don't think we should conflate the two because that will lead to confusion.

I understand, my real point with this was that aren’t they both just as disgusting to God? Therefore how can they both be present in the same body as the Holy Spirit etc but that doesn’t seem to be a useful example so I shall drop it here and admit it does not make sense!

ww: A person can be sick for reasons that have nothing to do with demons (how much credit do we want to give them, anyways?).

I understand what you’re saying here as well –certainly not all sicknesses are caused through demonic influence. However my reasoning was that if Jesus was able to bear ALL of our sins and ALL of our sicknesses upon him at the crucifixion; as well as taking dominion back from Satan and setting us free; than any sickness or oppression we still have is not His will. SO Christians who are suffering from natural sickness or demonic attacks shouldn’t have to either as it has been dealt with at the Cross along with our forgiveness. They're both insufferable and both outside of God's will; whether naturally occurring or not.

And of course there are cases like the man you mentioned who was born blind merely for the glory of God –I’m not denying there are exceptions but it is interesting that he was actually healed and many do not live healed lives today -yet we wouldn’t call them unbelievers or not ‘true’ Christians the same way we seem to do with demonized ones.

Also, I apologise for saying that Christ and demons are merely ‘opposites’ –I meant that only in nature but the connotation of equality should have made me use another word.

There’s one more thing I would like to bring up; another factor that I had not previously considered but which changes things immensely. I think I had a ‘lightbulb’ moment this afternoon (that is, until someone here causes said bulb to short circuit ), after discussing this issue at length with my father actually (good old dad) and re-focusing on the passage in Matthew where Jesus warns that if one is empty than although they may have been originally ‘set free’ they can be afflicted by an unclean spirit; plus seven others worse than it. Interestingly my father believes that someone who is filled with God’s Spirit cannot be demonized; only afflicted as most people here seem to agree with.

This is interesting because it reminded me that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not always occur immediately alongside salvation. At least, I think I am right in assuming this as Jesus told his disciples to wait for the day of Pentecost? And I don’t believe that I personally was filled with the Spirit when I was water-baptised and confessed with my mouth and believed in my heart that Jesus is Lord; I think it happened afterwards. Anywho if we look at this definition of salvation that I posted before:

“"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Is this scripture talking about water baptism, or Pentecost? Going with the latter conclusion, perhaps a person who is not baptized with the Holy Spirit yet goes up and ‘gets saved’ without surrendering all parts of themselves to God; i.e. acknowledging that Jesus is Lord and not us; then they may not be fully set free yet call themselves a Christian? To me this would make sense of the passage in Matthew where once a person is set free from oppression maybe even ‘saved’, if they leave their house empty and do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, they can be indwelt once more with demons? And presumably to leave one’s house empty is to not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them?

And check out these verses from Acts 8:14-18 (emphasis added!): Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."

Which would make sense why Simon was not yet set free as well –he was not filled with the Holy Spirit…for none of the church of Samaria had received it yet. This makes me so excited as you'll see.

I really don’t think I can say that this friend of mine is not saved in the sense that they ‘did’ everything that most people do to understand they are saved. He confesses Christ is Lord with his mouth, has received the word just as the Church of Samaria in the above scripture; even evangelises and has a good friend who has ‘come to Christ’ through his evangelism. I mean I really cannot brush his case aside as one of being mere nominalism; I truly believe he wants to be a Christian. He has been an encouragement to me on more than one occasion. With that in mind, when I know that he manifested perhaps I can conclude that he has heard the word, yes, as above, but has not fully understood it and his house is still not been emptied that the Holy Spirit may dwell there? Or am I pulling straws out of nowhere and being completely heretical in lieu of Scripture? Which is what can happen when I try to justify others, I am well aware and don’t seek to do it on purpose –I really am curious on this point. Because if being saved and being baptised with the Holy Spirit are two separate things, and I’m almost certain they are considering the above verse, than I think this case is nearing completion. Is anyone else as excited as me at this distinction?

I understand, my real point with this was that aren’t they both just as disgusting to God? Therefore how can they both be present in the same body as the Holy Spirit etc but that doesn’t seem to be a useful example so I shall drop it here and admit it does not make sense!

I think I see what you're getting at, but admittedly I'm a little weak on deep theology (as anyone else here can readily tell you ). My understanding is that God cannot abide sin, hates it in fact, as you say. When a person becomes a Christian, Christ covers them. We were purchased with His blood and God honors this, so that despite how sinful we may be, even as Christians, when God looks down upon a sinful Christian He sees not our sins but Christ. This is, to me, the really miraculous thing about our faith. This is a chance we never deserved but were readily given, and sometimes when I think we were hand-picked by God before time even began it really, truly overwhelms me.

I would liken this to the Passover story in the OT where Moses was instructed to have the Hebrews paint blood upon their door posts, and that because of that the Angel of Death would "pass over" their homes and make a beeline towards any who didn't have that blood there. The basis here I think is basically the same.

Is this scripture talking about water baptism, or Pentecost? Going with the latter conclusion, perhaps a person who is not baptized with the Holy Spirit yet goes up and ‘gets saved’ without surrendering all parts of themselves to God; i.e. acknowledging that Jesus is Lord and not us; then they may not be fully set free yet call themselves a Christian?

To be perfectly honest I've always been rather curious about that verse as well. I was baptized as an infant and became a Christian much later (around age 14'ish). Does the verse point specifically to water baptism or does it speak of the Holy Spirit indwelling a Christian? In truth I do not know for sure...the only thing I can point to for clarification is that the criminal on the cross next to Christ was promised personally by Him that he would see paradise, but he (the criminal) was not baptized before his death. If Christ said he'd be there I have no doubt that he's there right now. That's why I tend to think perhaps it means the latter explanation, or spiritual indwelling, but then again I'm not a theologist and many others here are better equipped to answer this than I am. I am understandably curious about the answer myself though.

However my reasoning was that if Jesus was able to bear ALL of our sins and ALL of our sicknesses upon him at the crucifixion; as well as taking dominion back from Satan and setting us free; than any sickness or oppression we still have is not His will. SO Christians who are suffering from natural sickness or demonic attacks shouldn’t have to either as it has been dealt with at the Cross along with our forgiveness. They're both insufferable and both outside of God's will; whether naturally occurring or not.

Hmm, really? Where is your proof that Christ took our sicknesses upon Himself when He died on Calvary's tree? I have never heard that argument, nor do I think you'll find it in Scripture. People get sick because we live in a fallen world; a world filled with sin, sickness, and abominations. Certainly God never intended things to be that way (although my Calvinistic friends will disagree with me ), but that's the way things are. The book of Ecclesiastes focusses on this a good deal, as the main theme of that book (as summarized by one of the men of my church) is "Life sucks. . . deal with it!" So again, I advise you to go back to Scripture. Remember that several followers of Christ were sick (Paul especially so), but that certainly is not to say that A: they were posessed by demons or B: That they were not saved.

if one is empty than although they may have been originally ‘set free’ they can be afflicted by an unclean spirit; plus seven others worse than it. Interestingly my father believes that someone who is filled with God’s Spirit cannot be demonized; only afflicted as most people here seem to agree with.

Exactly!!!!! The Holy Spirit within us seals us, and never leaves us, therefore, you were right in your previous argument that demons cannot posess the temple of The Holy Spirit. Your logical trip is that you think (indirectly it could be said) that the demons can "kick-out" The Holy Spirit. You've done this by claiming the following things: First that certain Christians can be "demonized," if they so allow, and second, claiming that people who claim to be Christians and yet have flaws in their lives must never have been true Christians. When these two statements are combined together, then you get the claim (indirectly made by you) that the demons can misplace The Holy Spirit.

This is interesting because it reminded me that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not always occur immediately alongside salvation. At least, I think I am right in assuming this as Jesus told his disciples to wait for the day of Pentecost?

That is simply because Christ hadn't sent his Holy Spirit into the world until the day of pentecost. People like Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of old were never indwelled with The Holy Spirit. This is why you so often read of these Bible characters that "The Spirit of the Lord came upon them," but you never see this statement after the day of pentecost because each Christian was constantly indwellt by The Spirit of the Lord.

“"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Is this scripture talking about water baptism, or Pentecost? Going with the latter conclusion, perhaps a person who is not baptized with the Holy Spirit yet goes up and ‘gets saved’ without surrendering all parts of themselves to God; i.e. acknowledging that Jesus is Lord and not us; then they may not be fully set free yet call themselves a Christian?

Think of it like this: Did the sinner on the cross next to Christ ever get baptized (by water). No, he didn't have time, and yet Christ still told him, "Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise." So either Christ lied (hee hee, yeah right) or else that the verse you quote is refering to spiritual baptism; that "killing of the old man and rebirth of the spirit that Christ intended us to have all along."

He confesses Christ is Lord with his mouth

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a cotton-pickin' minute. Anybody can profess that Christ is Lord, it's just like believing that there is a God (which 90% of the population believes). Just believing that Jesus Christ was the Son of God isn't what saves somebody (although it does play a definite part). It is the acceptance of the finished work of Calvary as payment for our sins that truly saves us. It is the recognition that we are worthless on our own, and have worth only through Christ and his finished work of Calvary that truly saves us. Believing that Christ is Lord is well and good, but it has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin as it is just a belief about who the "historical Jesus."

I understand what you’re saying here as well –certainly not all sicknesses are caused through demonic influence. However my reasoning was that if Jesus was able to bear ALL of our sins and ALL of our sicknesses upon him at the crucifixion; as well as taking dominion back from Satan and setting us free; than any sickness or oppression we still have is not His will. SO Christians who are suffering from natural sickness or demonic attacks shouldn’t have to either as it has been dealt with at the Cross along with our forgiveness. They're both insufferable and both outside of God's will; whether naturally occurring or not.

Go read 1 Peter. Is your God so small that sickness and sin are outside of His plan? Was my grandmother's long illness outside God's plan? Were the 9/11 attacks outside the will of God? Did my good friend have cancer because of sin? No! Nothing is outside the will of God!

Do you have no concept of redemptive suffering? Christ suffered because of sin and we are called to bear our crosses, following His example. We have the honor and privilege of suffering with Christ as part of our sanctification. True, we do not seek suffering, pain, or sickness, but nonetheless they come. There's something right about what Nietzsche said: "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger." As Christians we know that nothing can permanently harm us, therefore we become stronger through suffering. It's all part of God's plan to reform us, mold us into His image.

This is what I have discovered: whatever happens, whether I get a job this summer, whether I marry the person I want to (whether I get married at all), whether I go on that study-abroad trip, whether my health goes downhill, whether I go to a good grad school, whatever comes my way, I known that God is on His throne and is working all things in His sovereignty for His glory and my good. If you think for a minute that any of it is outside His will and purpose, your God is too small.

TBG

Edit: @Shadowlander: I can relate to your experience being baptized as an infant myself. I would assume that it is a baptism of the Holy Spirit which is being referred to, but was not sure. The example of the man on the cross next to Jesus is certainly confirmatory of it being spiritual baptism that counts; thanks for reminding us of that.

Digory: Your logical trip is that you think (indirectly it could be said) that the demons can "kick-out" The Holy Spirit. You've done this by claiming the following things: First that certain Christians can be "demonized," if they so allow, and second, claiming that people who claim to be Christians and yet have flaws in their lives must never have been true Christians. When these two statements are combined together, then you get the claim (indirectly made by you) that the demons can misplace The Holy Spirit.

You misunderstand me. My claim from the beginning was that demons can dwell within a Christian’s soul (mind, body, emotions) but never in their spirit. Further, they do not own the person they are afflicting! Christ is supreme. What I am now beginning to understand is that it may not be a matter of ‘true’ Christian v ‘fake’ Christian (and who can make that distinction, really?) but a matter of coming to Christ as the Samarians did ‘receiving the Word of God’ and being baptised ‘only in the name of the Lord Jesus’ -(does this classify as being saved?) but NOT YET receiving the Holy Spirit. How else do you explain that scripture?

That scripture again which I don't know if you read above: Acts 8:14-18 (emphasis added!): "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit." This is different again from the day of Pentecost, which has already occurred at this point! So with reference again to Matthew; couldn't someone who has 'received the word of God' but not yet the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' still be living with AN EMPTY HOUSE? And hence be open to demonic afflictions as they have always been? We don't come to Christ perfect; and no one here seems to be able to pinpoint when exactly a demonized person is set free. Is it before salvation? After? When is salvation anyway? These are all questions you would need to answer if you advance the point that a Christian cannot be demonized. HOWEVER, my viewpoint now is that it may be possible for a person to come to God yet because they have not received the Holy Spirit still be indwelled by other things.

DigoryKirke: Hmm, really? Where is your proof that Christ took our sicknesses upon Himself when He died on Calvary's tree? I have never heard that argument, nor do I think you'll find it in Scripture. People get sick because we live in a fallen world; a world filled with sin, sickness, and abominations. Certainly God never intended things to be that way (although my Calvinistic friends will disagree with me ), but that's the way things are.

I love the book of Ecclesiastes and I know that we get sick because we live in a fallen world and I am not an optimist who wants to believe there is healing and forgiveness together because it would be nice. I know about the distinction between the Holy Spirit coming upon people in the Old T, as compared with living in them in the New.

However my answer from scripture to you and also to The Black Glove (which, ironically comes from the same book he advised me to read) is the following:

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."

And Psalm 103: "Praise the LORD, O my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

Praise the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits-

who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,

who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion."
-emphasis added.

How is it that you can accept that we can now ‘live for righteousness’ that is; we have been forgiven of our sins (in this life praise God) and disregard that also by His wounds we have ‘been healed’ of 'all [our] diseases? How do you accept forgiveness for the here and now and delay healing? Are you not cheapening a large part of what Christ endured on the Cross? I am not a fan of accepting a part of a Scripture, and ignoring the other part merely because we hardly see healing today, which of course is a subjective statement. I am a fan of seeking God about why this seems to be; not making up theology to explain this lack of healing away.

Furthermore, I do not wish to discuss the matter of healing with you right now for personal reasons. But please don’t misunderstand me and think I am condemning all those people you know who weren’t healed; I have been through the same; and put too many Christians in the ground also who died slow, painful horrific deaths (which were not for martyrdom!). However I would advise you to look at the following scriptures and be assured it is God’s will for you to be healed in this world, “thy kingdom come; your will be done ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN" -and not just the next. I’m pretty sure there is no place for any type of sickness in heaven! With regards to Paul’s affliction; there are many different interpretations of this and they are not incompatible with healing teaching.

Other scripture regarding forgiveness AND healing:
Psalm 103
Isaiah 53
The Lord’s Prayer

There are of course many, many others.

The issue people seem to be having with my arguments is that they worry that I am somehow promoting the idea that God is a subject to our actions; or our will; and that somehow this takes away from His sovereignty or omnipotence. My personal view is that the Kingdom of God is governed by laws (which HE set in place) and even He will not break them. He is subject to His own laws; i.e. if as a REAL Christian, I refuse to forgive my brother; than by default God cannot forgive my sins. Is that what He wants? NO; but is His law.

Do not "My people die for lack of knowledge"? What did God mean by His OWN people dying here? If He is sovereign in the way that you seem to think He is; than WHY would he have cause to lament his own childrens ways? Why not just step in and fix them up? And if you think this is strictly confined to the Old Testament from where it comes; than how do you explain Paul's worries when he 'fears lest some of you [Ephesians] receive a different spirit, different gospel, different Jesus...and put up with it' (paraphrased)? And why is it that some Christians (not FAKE Christians I would presume you have to be IN the faith to be able to DEPART from it) 'will depart from the faith' if God is so totally and completely in control? You cannot tell me that He would will that on His own children, but that is what you seem to be saying. As for the argument TBG makes before concluding my God is too small; I would respectfully disagree -your argument sounds suspiciously like a case of 'que sera, sera' and no other factors are allowed to come into play (like, um disobedience or unbelief). Remember what happened to Ananias in the NT? How do you reconcile this with the verse 'He is faithful and just to complete the good work He began in us'? I am curious to know.

p.s. One last thing:

The Good Kirke: Anybody can profess that Christ is Lord, it's just like believing that there is a God (which 90% of the population believes). Just believing that Jesus Christ was the Son of God isn't what saves somebody (although it does play a definite part). It is the acceptance of the finished work of Calvary as payment for our sins that truly saves us. It is the recognition that we are worthless on our own, and have worth only through Christ and his finished work of Calvary that truly saves us. Believing that Christ is Lord is well and good, but it has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin as it is just a belief about who the "historical Jesus."

Agreed, agreed, agreed! Let me put it in your terms then: my friend, to all outward appearances (obviously only God can judge the heart) has recognised his worthlessness on his own, and that only through Christ we are truly saved. My point is not to decide whether he is a 'true' Christian or not but rather to examine how he may do all this (do everything that you and I have outwardly done) and still be demonized. I understand salvation is not a few words, like uttering a magical spell and then 'Poof!' you're a Christian.

EdIt: I would also like to add that this whole concept of a person who claims to be a Christian yet still manifests is not something that I am under-representing. I have spoken with many zealous and respected missionaries about this and they have all said the same thing -they have seen 'Christians' become delivered by the power of God. I am not trying to emphasise a dischord between people whose job description is missions and the rest of us who are living out our faith among our own people -I'm merely observing that it is those who seem to be in the nitty and gritty of Christianity around the world (western and otherwise) who seem to see these things happening on a frequent basis. Why this is, I have no idea.

You misunderstand me. My claim from the beginning was that demons can dwell within a Christian’s soul (mind, body, emotions) but never in their spirit.

Which assumes a distinction between "soul" and "spirit" which the Bible does not make.

but a matter of coming to Christ as the Samarians did ‘receiving the Word of God’ and being baptised ‘only in the name of the Lord Jesus’ -does this classify as being saved?? but NOT YET receiving the Holy Spirit. How else do you explain that scripture?

What exactly do you mean by "receiving the Holy Spirit" here? Does this mean "manifesting the gifts"? If so, then it would seem that the vast majority of Christians have never "received the Holy Spirit" (indeed, I would say a tiny fraction have done so).

How is it that you can accept that we can now ‘live for righteousness’ that is; we have been forgiven of our sins (in this life praise God) and disregard that also by His wounds we have ‘been healed’ of 'all [our] diseases? How do you accept forgiveness for the here and now and delay healing?

Go read Job. God quite often lets us suffer for our own good and no, He doesn't always heal us in this life. I'm sorry, but your God is too small. You are confusing forgiveness of sins with healing in this life. You forget that the greatest physical disease of all has not yet been cured in any Christian nor will it until the end---mortality.

Remember what happened to Ananias in the NT? How do you reconcile this with the verse 'He is faithful and just to complete the good work He began in us'? I am curious to know.

I am curious as to how the case of one false repentance is supposed to negate the idea that God will bring all of His elect unto Himself.

i.e. if as a REAL Christian, I refuse to forgive my brother; than by default God cannot forgive my sins. Is that what He wants? NO; but is His law.

If you are a real Christian, then you will show it by forgiving your brother. If you never forgive him, then you have shown that you do not love or trust God. If you consciously refuse to do as God commands, then you are in willful sin and need to repent.

I would respectfully disagree -your argument sounds suspiciously like a case of 'que sera, sera' and no other factors are allowed to come into play (like, um disobedience or unbelief).

God brings disobedient and unbelieving sinners to repentance all the time. None of God's elect will be lost in the end---otherwise they would not be God's elect.

I'll just say, it's hard to admit that we aren't in control: that our sins, failures, and weaknesses aren't capable of thwarting God and His purposes but play into them. I often like to maintain the delusion that in forgiving me, God has given me a "second chance"---don't believe it. If God were "a God of second chances" we'd all be damned. We'd blow that second chance, and the third, and every chance. That's why there's grace---we don't do it, Christ does it. Our good works, our faith, our repentance, it's all to be credited to Christ and His Holy Spirit working in our lives.

TBG

*edited a few thousand times*

TBG: Go read Job. God quite often lets us suffer for our own good and no, He doesn't always heal us in this life. I'm sorry, but your God is too small. You are confusing forgiveness of sins with healing in this life.

I don’t believe I am confusing the two; especially looking at Job. You suggested I read Job; and I see that he was healed –in this life. How does this prove that God does not deal with healing while we are on Earth? Unless there are other Scriptures proving this to be the case; I can’t see it. Please do not think I am confusing suffering with healing. I know we have trials and some will succumb (and of course they are still God's children!); but I believe that is different to God willing us to be healed.

Jesus came so that we could have life, and life to the full. But can you honestly say that all the Christians around you are living life abundant? Looking at real life for a moment you will see this is not the case. Does this mean then that God does not really will us to have life to the full or intend to satisfy us with long life? I don't think so; it is our own lack of growth and understanding in God which can prevent this abundant life; not a lack of His will! As wisewoman mentioned before, the trouble is always on our end, not God's. So when I hit a brick wall in seeking healing my answer is to delve deeper and seek the knowledge which will prevent me from 'dying' for lack of it -not to give up and say it must have been God's will. 99% of the time God does not will sickness on anyone; it is almost always the fruit of our own doing (see 1 Corinthians 11:30 where members of the church are weak and sick; and a number have fallen asleep) and in the cases where He willed it there was always healing available (see Job and the blind man for God's glory). I understand He is always ALLOWING it; but He is not always WILLING it.

You do not seem to recognise the distinction between healing and forgiveness made in 1 Peter 2;24 and Psalm 103 that I posted before. And how do you explain away ALL those psalms and blessings promised us; for example 'with long life He will satisfy us'?

I came to the conclusion that I could not pick and choose which of God's promises are real; for the here and now, and which are merely pretty verses. Perhaps our theology is too small; and not Gods? At this point in time, I would really kindly appreciate if I was not involved in any discussion about Healing; but I really felt like I had to address those issues raised. (And I know it's not fair, and I'm sorry; but there it is).

TBG: What exactly do you mean by "receiving the Holy Spirit" here? Does this mean "manifesting the gifts"? If so, then it would seem that the vast majority of Christians have never "received the Holy Spirit" (indeed, I would say a tiny fraction have done so).

I am referring to the indwelling or 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit; as occurred on and after the day of Pentecost. As for your statement that the majority of Christians do not manifest the gifts; that is a subjective statement of course but as the greatest of these gifts is love my opinion is that many Christians do try to be loving and hence ‘manifest’ the Spirit.

This is not really relevant but regarding your mortality/disease theory; I don’t see mortality as being a disease so much as a product of sin–I would not want to live forever in a fallen, condemned world. However Jesus does provide for eternal life in a new heaven and a new earth; so He resolves this by giving us new life in Him that began in this life when Jesus died upon that cross & will last forever.

TBG: I'll just say, it's hard to admit that we aren't in control: that our sins, failures, and weaknesses aren't capable of thwarting God and His purposes but play into them.

But isn't this the story of human history? When Adam and Eve sinned and became mortal and so eventually died, was that God's purpose for their lives?
Wasn't that brought about by their own weakness, failing and sin? And there are so many examples of where we step outside God's will -the story Abraham and Hagar comes to mind.

This is different to suggesting that God can't bring us back to His purpose for our lives -He did in Adam & Eve's case by sending Christ to die for mankind. But the point is that they thwarted His perfect plan for their lives. Yes He gave them the ultimate forgiveness and Yes He saw it coming; but still He did not restore them in this life to the immortal perfect state they were originally in. He could not go back on His word; the penalty for sin was death.

TBG: None of God's elect will be lost in the end---otherwise they would not be God's elect.

I agree -they will not be lost. But have they all lived life to the fullest that is in Christ? According to 1 Cor 11:30 some believers experienced the judgment of God upon their bodies in this life that they could have escaped merely by confessing or not having disobeyed in the first place. But Paul also says, "When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world." So from this I understand they did not lose their salvation. But did they have to live shortened lives? Was it God's will, or His mercy here? I would argue the latter.

TBG; I am curious as to how the case of one false repentance is supposed to negate the idea that God will bring all of His elect unto Himself.

I think here you’ve hit the nail on the head; and come to the crux of the matter, which is this: at what point do we become saved? Can we lose our salvation? Or did we never have it if we end up walking away? I don’t pretend to know the answer to this –I respect that you see it as only a case of false repentance; but I don’t know this for sure and there seem to be scriptures on both sides or the predestination debate would not really exist.

Anyway my main point now which I would appreciate your input on, as stated earlier; which if answered renders the others far less significant is this:

With reference again to Matthew; couldn't someone who has 'received the word of God' but not yet the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' still be living with AN EMPTY HOUSE? And hence be open to demonic afflictions as they have always been?

I really think that this could be the case; as how else really (disregarding the distinction between soul and spirit as I have not looked deep enough into this yet anyway) can people who receive the word of God go through deliverance? I've seen it happen time and time again, throughout my travels and at home, and am not the only one either. I suppose what is foremost in my mind now is that passage in Matthew where Jesus describes an empty, clean house as perhaps the only time a person can be demonized. I know I must come across as bipolar; but I am seriously considering the scriptures many of you have presented here and this one is standing out greatly (and kudos to anyone who has borne with me thus far).

So, I think I have come far enough along to say that if the body/spirit argument is not feasible; than the only other alternatives are that they are not really Christians or they are not yet filled with the Holy Spirit; which the Father gives freely to them that ask Him -Luke 11:10-13.

Later today I hope to re-engage in this discussion, with all its fascinating and related topics. One quick note, though: StudyMate, recall that not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture.

This is how we can say that God doesn't expect everyone to have the doctrinal acumen of Paul and write theological treatises, or wait to make a decision until hearing from a "man from Macedonia" type vision. Similarly, not everything described in the book of Acts is prescribed there or anywhere else in Scripture. This includes dealing with demons (as if real repentance and faith in Christ isn't enough? it sure sounds like it!) and the delay some had in receiving the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, the case of people not yet filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 19: 1-7) is a very special case -- they were not yet real Christians. They were Old-Testament style believers. They had heard John the Baptist's preaching, but missed the rest of the story. As soon as Paul heard that, he started telling them not about how to get some "second baptism" of the Holy Spirit, but the Gospel. Then they were saved and got the Spirit.

Each of the three situations in Acts in which the Holy Spirit manifests in more-spectacular ways was necessary because of the early church's situation. It was a time of huge transition. Recall that at the time it was a big thing for the Gospel to be going anywhere outside Jewish "borders." But that's where God wanted it to go. (This can't happen Biblically, but to think how big this was to them, imagine the controversy among Christians if we found out there were space aliens and it turned out they could repent, believe and be saved!)

That is why in the cases of the early church, Cornelius and his family (Gentiles) and the other occasion with the Old-Testament-style believers, the Holy Spirit manifested like this. And it's a huge theme of Luke writing Acts. He describes these things, but doesn't prescribe what to do if the Spirit supposedly delays coming to real converts.

None of the epistles describe how to deal with this situation, either. If God meant us to learn about how, He would have said so there.

The epistles also don't describe how to deal with demons other than focusing on Christ and rejecting Satan's lies. (They also don't unnecessarily separate people into divisions of body/soul/spirit, but more on that later.) And they also never imply that sickness (such as Paul's "thorn in the flesh," which could have even been brought on by a demon) is outside God's will or for any purpose other than God's glory.

To Black Glove's rightful, gentle reminder that your God is too small, I would add that you're just missing some clear Biblical teaching contradicting your views -- opting for a misinterpretation of Biblical narrative that doesn't prove anything except something happened.

As for God's will, it is right in one sense to say sin is outside His will. But that would mean "sin is outside God's revealed will." God is constantly commanding things (His revealed will, or will of command) that He doesn't "actually" want (His perfect or hidden will). One example: telling Pharaoh to let His people go. Exodus and Romans 9 make it clear God really wanted Pharaoh not to release the Hebrews immediately, because God wanted to show His power to them and the Egyptians. Why? For His glory.

I can write more about God's will(s) next time; I'm sure I've overviewed this before. I also hope to point you to a very helpful John MacArthur chapter about the events in Acts and the reason behind them, and theologian Wayne Grudem's reminders about the human unions of body and soul/spirit. Reading more books for balance is always good -- it seems like you're mainly basing a lot of thoughts on one author -- but of course, matching everything to Scripture is the best practice at all.

Heading off to church now, and to prepare to teach Sunday school. ...

My claim from the beginning was that demons can dwell within a Christian’s soul (mind, body, emotions) but never in their spirit.

Whoa! First of all, that's a radically different definition of "soul" from what I have been used to; I thought the "soul" was the very inner core of who the person is, or something like that. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

Still, though, I do find the various aspects of the human (body, mind, emotions, soul, spirit, sociality) interesting, so I do have to wonder where you're getting your definitions of "soul" and "spirit", as well as how the two are distinct. Primary sources would be nice, but I'll accept secondary sources, too.

(And yes, the Bible is a primary source.)

I don’t believe I am confusing the two; especially looking at Job. You suggested I read Job; and I see that he was healed –in this life.

And you missed the point. The point is not that we will be healed, it is that God is God and owes us no explanation for our suffering. Instead He gives us grace to endure. He gives us Himself.

Jesus came so that we could have life, and life to the full. But can you honestly say that all the Christians around you are living life abundant?

Of course not---and we won't until glory when we live in the New Heavens and New Earth.

But life abundant? I can't answer for you, but I know that despite my sin, my life is abundant. I am growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus, which I did not and could not earn. It wasn't my choice, my good works, my anything---it is by grace alone. To live abundantly is to live a life dependent on the grace of God for the strength to get through the day.

So when I hit a brick wall in seeking healing my answer is to delve deeper and seek the knowledge which will prevent me from 'dying' for lack of it -not to give up and say it must have been God's will.

What kind of knowledge are we talking about? Sounds like gnosticism.

As for me, of course I don't give up---I pray because God always answers. Sometimes the answer is "no." In fact, often God doesn't give us what we want. We pray that God might give us daily bread---not daily pork chops, cake, or wine, but bread. Why? Because God gives us what we need, not always what we want.

This is not really relevant but regarding your mortality/disease theory; I don’t see mortality as being a disease so much as a product of sin–I would not want to live forever in a fallen, condemned world.

And this is exactly how I see disease.

But isn't this the story of human history? When Adam and Eve sinned and became mortal and so eventually died, was that God's purpose for their lives?

If it isn't in God's plan, it doesn't happen.

And there are so many examples of where we step outside God's will -the story Abraham and Hagar comes to mind.

That's Abraham trying to speed up God's plan and God says, "You idiot, I'm still going to use this, but you shouldn't have." Just because it's in God's plan doesn't excuse my sin. I'm still responsible before God and man.

I agree -they will not be lost. But have they all lived life to the fullest that is in Christ?

Again, this is vague spiritual-sounding language. What do you mean by it?

Was it God's will, or His mercy here?

Yes.

I think here you’ve hit the nail on the head; and come to the crux of the matter, which is this: at what point do we become saved?

When the Holy Spirit changes our hearts, gives us faith, and we believe: when we are born again.

Can we lose our salvation? Or did we never have it if we end up walking away?

If we are truly God's, we will not fall away.

but as the greatest of these gifts is love my opinion is that many Christians do try to be loving and hence ‘manifest’ the Spirit.

Love is a fruit of the Spirit, not a gift. Gifts are not commanded---fruits are. We are not commanded to prophesy or speak in tongues. We are, however, commanded to love one another.

With reference again to Matthew; couldn't someone who has 'received the word of God' but not yet the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' still be living with AN EMPTY HOUSE? And hence be open to demonic afflictions as they have always been?

Given that I don't accept your definition of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", I can't see how. Here's how salvation works:

Foreknowledge: God's knowing (in this sense) prior to salvation those who would be saved.
Predestination: God's choosing before time all who would be saved.
Election: God's choosing of all who would be saved.
Regeneration: God's renewing of one's life (not physically - but as opposed to the spiritual death caused by sin).
Evangelism: The communication of the Gospel by which one can be saved.
Faith: Belief and trust in the message of the Gospel.
Conversion: One's turning to God based on the Gospel.
Perseverance: One's continued true belief - remaining in the state of salvation.
Repentance: One's turning from sin to God.
Justification: God's freeing of one form the penalty of sin - the pronouncement of "not guilty" on a sinner.
Sanctification: God's separation of one from the lure of sin.
Glorification: God's final removal of all sin from the life and presence of one (in the eternal state).

I would say that for a regenerate person who comes to faith, possession would be impossible because of the new life in the Spirit.

TBG

WOW!!!! I leave for my Intervarsity Chapter Camp for a week and you guys go at it on one of my favorite topics: Spiritual Warfare. I just got back so I didn't take the time to read through every single novel-length post, but here are my thoughts on this topic. Let me first say that I will not claim to be an expert on demons, just experiences as many have heard from my encounters.

Something I need to make clear is that we have three enemies in our lives as Christians, and Satan, along with his minions, is just one of them. We also have to fight against the powers and principalities of the world. We also have to fight against our 'old-self'; that is our sinful nature. Very rarely are we going to see just one of these foes, so it is often that we will confuse one for the other. So let me go into details about what I have learned about each one.

Demons: This is something a number of people come to me for advice because I have encounted the demonic in an outright fashion. It was extremely intense and an experience that forever changed my life for the better. I was tested and God guided me to pass it. Now, what are demons and what can they do? Demons are former angelic beings that rebelled with Lucifer. It is believed that 1/3 of the angelic host fell along with Lucifer. That being said, it is also believed that there are still enough angels for each person to have quite a few. That being said, demons are very numerous, and I believe they have a very intricate network established.

But demons are not omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, or anything else that might try to equate them with God. They are a defeated foe; a still fighting foe, but a defeated foe. Their true power was lost with the ressurection of Christ. Demons also only have the power and authority granted to them by God. Job is a fine example. Satan was allowed to do whatever he wanted to Job, but he could not kill him. Demons also have no power to do what they want with us, as believers or not. What power they do have with us is what we allow. We are told not to give Satan a foothold. He is really clever in getting us to give him that foothold without knowing we are doing it.

I've seen a number of episodes of "A Haunting" on Discovery and every time I see demonic activity in one of the person's lives taking place, I see an invitation. In the encounters I've had with the demonic, there was an invitation as well. Can a demon take control of a Christian? I will say no. A Christian has Jesus living in them and the 'home' is occupied. Can they control a non-Christian? If the invitation is there, absolutely. But demons can definately oppress or even 'demonize' a Christian, if the invitation is there. Allow me to clarify. Galatians tells us that a man reaps what he sows. If a Christian sows bad seed, he will get bad crops. If this becomes a habit, it will grow eventually, like feeding a monster, into a stronghold, and if we allow it to go even further, we will eventually reap a demon. Our sin doesn't create demons, but gives them an opportunity to get into our lives. And when habitual sin is taking place, demons can find thier invitation pretty easily. There is a difference between demonic possession, oppression, and even demonizing.

Demonic Possession is when the demon actually takes over the person body, will, emotions, and actions. The person cannot control what he/she says, does, where he/she go, etc, etc. The person often has no recollection of the actions done, has a comletely different personality, voice, etc. In fact, I really question if split-personality syndrom is even a real thing. I can't recall any cases where it happens to Christians and the 'other person' almost always has knowledge the that the other does not.
Oppression is when the demon has a very strong influence on the person's actions. The demon does not actually take control of the person but has a strong enough grip that the person will willingly do what the demon says to do. Oppressed people will at times talk to the demon as you might with a friend. They also might have an extensive knowledge about things that they normally wouldn't have.
A demonized person is very similar to a demon-oppressed person. Because of time's sake, I cannot go into details now, but I will try later.

The important thing about demons is that the eradication of them is not the main goal. The presense of the Lord is. This is one thing I learned at Chapter Camp this week. If you are just trying to drive out the demons, you may succeed, you may not. If you do succeed and the presense of the Lord does not replace it, that demon will simply return with a handful of buddies as described in Matthew 12:29. This is simply replacing one evil with another. If we do not have the presense of the Lord, what will separate us from every one else (Exodus 33)? Jesus is God, Satan is not. The two are not equal opposites. God is in control of every situation and if he wasn't, he would not be soveregn or God. Demons are our enemies, whether we are believers in Christ or not, and thier chief goal is to steal, kill, and destroy. They are also the tools that God uses to mold us, build us, strengthen us, and get us to come to him. They are God's messenger boys and they don't even know it. But they are clever in what they do and if we are not rooted in the Word, we are easily susceptible to thier wiles.

I have run out of time for now, so I will continue later about how our battle extends beyond just the work of the devils.

Dr Elwin Ransom:

Acts 8:14-18 (emphasis added!): "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

Actually, I think this is a different case to what you are referring to in Acts 19 which talks about the disciples in Ephesus; merely because the verse specifies that those in the Church of Samaria (who had only been recently been ministered to by Philip?) were ‘baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus’ and ‘received the Word’ –not the law. It makes no mention of John; or that he planted the Samarian church (but I could be wrong here). In which case I wouldn’t see it as a ‘special’ thing that was restricted to the Early Church? But you have kind of scared me (in a good way) when you discussed God’s Hidden and Revealed will; what is considered prescribed and what is considered narrative –this makes me realise how much I still haven’t looked into or know; and I won't know if it makes a difference to my thinking until I study it. Um….maybe I should get to Bible College when I get done with law school.

And I understand what you’re saying about how important it was for the Holy Spirit to ‘make a splash’ so to speak; God needed to show the early church that He did not distinguish between Jew and Gentile anymore. However just because this valid does it necessarily negate the idea that the Holy Spirit comes after we receive the word in our hearts? I don’t know; but couldn’t they both be valid? I mean, many people still need to see the Holy Spirit move in power today before they know that they have that spiritual baptism –I mean, maybe it’s a faith thing but I don’t know?

Dr Ransom: One quick note, though: StudyMate, recall that not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture.

Thanks for the reminder; it’s just very hard for me to make the distinction at places others seem more easily able to. I understand God is not some sort of formula we need to figure out -but I also believe that a kingdom without laws is lawless...where the balance is I can only live to find out.

Fencer: Let me first say that I will not claim to be an expert on demons, just experiences as many have heard from my encounters.

I was praying/hoping you would come back! (and was pretty sure you would think that a Christian could be demonized). Again, and this is purely an observation of mine, it seems to be the people ‘on the ground’ who are involved with people who suffer from demonic attacks that have this heretical-sounding view. I am very curious as to this –that’s certainly what made me even begin to question the idea that a Christian couldn’t be demonized. Now I’m not suggesting we put our personal experiences over Scripture; only that Scripture seems to be (to me) ambiguous on this issue and I think it really does go back to when we are saved which I doubt I’ll ever know.

Stardf: Howdy! I actually heard that teaching during a six month course I did with Youth With A Mission –I don’t know if it’s their official line or what but many of the speakers who lectured held this view. Here is an interesting link I found on the matter, I’m not sure I endorse it but it sounds like a possibility so I’m not writing if off until I’ve done more research on the matter. http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbamay96.htm

On a parting note, I am sure God will resolve this issue in my mind; taking comfort from Psalm 25:4-5

“Show me Your ways, O LORD; teach me your paths. Lead me in Your truth, and teach me: for You are the God of my salvation; on You do I wait all the day.”

I hope I am not unteachable. Well friends, here is where I am going to raise the metaphorical white flag and surrender –thank you for your time and effort and many interesting points. I’m off to ‘read a more balanced’ set of books, which I think is very good advice; while the rest of you continue this terribly interesting but taking-over-my-life discussion! I think I've said all I have to say; and have more to think about.

I hope I am not unteachable. Well friends, here is where I am going to raise the metaphorical white flag and surrender –thank you for your time and effort and many interesting points.

StudyMate, you’re a brick! That makes me stop for a moment and take stock (I hope again!) of my own motivations for being in the discussion. Am I hoping to learn here? Yes, Lord willing, yes, in addition to sharing some things (such as the “two wills” truth) that God has showed me in Scripture.

By the way, some have noted the enormous length of my last post. Black Glove, by no means is that my longest post ever on NarniaWeb! However, I mainly make it that long because it’s a complex subject that requires some length, while knowing I myself enjoy reading others’ posts of that length. Perhaps I (wrongly?) assume others react the same. I hope it doesn’t seem like showing off.

As for the related topics, this discussion has made me dig out my own books and check a lot of things.

That has included Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology book. Despite its scary-sounding name (and some Hebrew terms I tend to, um, skip over!), I highly recommend that. Just this morning I pulled it up on the computer and started re-reading on many different topics:

1. God’s “two wills”
2. Demon “possession” and Christians
3. The idea of the Spirit’s “second baptism”
4. “Trichotomy” conceptions of human beings vs. the “dichotomy with unity” view.

I’ll likely post a little from Grudem about each topic, while heartily recommending the book again (and especially these chapters). But before then, I need to scream in imploring anguish:

Um….maybe I should get to Bible College when I get done with law school.

Nooooo! Stay in law school and study this stuff “on the side,” I’m begging you!

I’m sorry. I get a little worked up about this. Here are two reasons why: 1) Half the men at my church are seminary wonks, either going to seminary, in seminary or done with seminary. I feel a bit left out sometimes! 2) Too often I hear of Good Little Baptist Children whose mothers naturally expect them to go to Bible College and be In the Ministry — but for the Christian, all of life is ministry!

(However, I don’t at all mean to dismiss it, or especially seminary, as important for Christians who believe God wants them there and in that line of ministry for His Kingdom.)

So please, StudyMate, for my own selfish reasons, don’t become another Seminary Wonk / Bible College Clone. Different vocations reclaimed for God’s glory need you. Also I may want a will done for free someday. And of course, no one here is in Bible college, and they do quite well!

Actually, I think this is a different case to what you are referring to in Acts 19 which talks about the disciples in Ephesus; merely because the verse specifies that those in the Church of Samaria (who had only been recently been ministered to by Philip?) were ‘baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus’ and ‘received the Word’ –not the law. It makes no mention of John; or that he planted the Samarian church (but I could be wrong here).

After I wrote about Acts 19 (which talks about Old-Testament-style believers), I wondered if I might have hit on the wrong chapter. Apparently I did — yet the principle is still the same. In Acts there are four occasions in which the Spirit manifests in very external ways, each one for a purpose:

1. Pentecost — the Holy Spirit first arrives and makes sure the earliest Church knew He was active.

2. Acts 8 — after staying in Jerusalem for a while (years?), the apostles and other Jewish Christians are finally heading out and abroad as missionaries. Phillip reaches Samaria, and lo and behold finds a receptive audience. The Spirit delays falling upon new believers. Why? My guess (backed by MacArthur and Grudem, who agree on this point): they were Samaritans. We know from elsewhere that they, like Gentiles, were not well-regarded by Jews.

3. Acts 10 — Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in God like a Jew, was converted along with his whole family. Inspired by the Spirit, Luke takes a lot of time to show that the Gospel is moving from Jews to Gentiles. It’s a hugely important point. And the Spirit manifests clearly and visibly.

4. Acts 19 — already described, with “partially converted” people who knew about repentance and John the Baptist’s message, but not about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, or the Holy Spirit.

Further about Acts 8, Grudem notes (I’ve added paragraph divisions for easier reading):

A better understanding of this event would be that God, in his providence, sovereignly waited to give the new covenant empowering of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans directly through the hands of the apostles (Acts 8:14–17) so that it might be evident to the highest leadership in the Jerusalem church that the Samaritans were not second-class citizens but full members of the church.

This was important because of the historical animosity between Jews and Samaritans (“Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” John 4:9), and because Jesus had specified that the spread of the gospel to Samaria would be the next major step after it had been preached in Jerusalem and the region of Judea that surrounded Jerusalem: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Thus, the event in Acts 8 was a kind of “Samaritan Pentecost,” a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the people of Samaria, who were a mixed race of Jewish and Gentile ancestry, so that it might be evident to all that the full new covenant blessings and power of the Holy Spirit had come to this group of people as well, and were not confined to Jews only.

Because this is a special event in the history of redemption, as the pattern of Acts 1:8 is worked out in the book of Acts, it is not a pattern for us to repeat today. It is simply part of the transition between the old covenant experience of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant experience of the Holy Spirit.

However just because [the Spirit “making a splash”] is valid does it necessarily negate the idea that the Holy Spirit comes after we receive the word in our hearts?

Not really, but the epistles negate that idea — implicitly by assuming all Christians have the Spirit and never encouraging them to seek a “second baptism,” and explicitly in verses like this:

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

The Apostle Paul, Romans 8: 8-9

From this it’s pretty clear: if someone is not in the flesh but indeed has God’s Spirit, he belongs to Christ. And if we don’t have the Spirit, we don’t belong to Christ. There’s no in-between category.

None of this, though, is meant to contradict the truth that sometimes the Spirit is nearer, or that Christians can grieve Him with their sin, or “give the devil a foothold” with a sin like anger.

All of Grudem’s Systematic Theology chapter 39 is an excellent overview of the “is there a second baptism of the Holy Spirit” question. Unlike MacArthur, Grudem believes all the Biblical spiritual gifts, understood rightly, continue to this day; however, he is very clear on showing how the “second Spirit baptism” and other ideas, while not necessarily heresies, are a little questionable.

A brief note: some of the “life to the fullest” and other phrases sound a bit like the “prosperity gospel.”

However, I’m very sure you do not mean it that way, StudyMate. My only concern would be, do some “charismatic” authors not do so well in avoiding the implication or belief that being saved (or a person of greater faith than others) mean you’ll have little to no suffering from sin or sickness in this life? A lot of Pentecostal-leaning Christians are susceptible to this — though not all (I have a book by a Pentecostal scholar specifically rebuking and refuting the “word faith” movement).

[...] God’s Hidden and Revealed will; what is considered prescribed and what is considered narrative –this makes me realise how much I still haven’t looked into or know; and I won't know if it makes a difference to my thinking until I study it.

Whew, yes — this puts a lot of things in perspective. It also comes in handy when some Christians are blundering (particularly on TV) into saying “this disaster was not God’s will” (implying He was powerless to prevent it) or else “this disaster was God’s will” (implying He isn’t love or is wrongfully cruel).

Knowing God has a “revealed will” and a “hidden will” also helps answer (mostly!) the question of why, if God wills to save all people, doesn’t He just go ahead and save them?

More from Grudem (in his section about God’s attributes of purpose):

Paul says that God “desires [or “wills, wishes,’ Gk. θέλω, G2527] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Peter says that the Lord “is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

In neither of these verses can God’s will be understood to be his secret will, his decree concerning what will certainly occur. This is because the New Testament is clear that there will be a final judgment and not all will be saved. It is best therefore to understand these references as speaking of God’s revealed will his commands for mankind to obey and his declaration to us of what is pleasing in his sight.

I have more, but maybe I’ll save it for a future post. A summary, though ...

1. According to Grudem, “demon possession” is an unfortunately misleading term. However, he takes it in a different direction than some of the discussion here: he says what that means is that Christians should not imply that even nonbelievers can be “taken over” by a demon, in the way often presented.

He also notes that “demonize” is an unfortunate term, implying a demon can take over someone’s will.

2. The body/soul/spirit divide is Biblically questionable, because of many verses in which the three terms are not presented as separate, but with spirit and soul meaning the same.

And if you like, StudyMate, I can send you a quote (or post it here) from a book called How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. It’s one of those Biblically based books that has really helped me sort better through the “narrative” or descriptive parts and the “prescriptive” parts. It also helps when you’re reading, say, a promise meant specifically for someone else (such as 2 Chronicles 7:14 or Jeremiah 29:11), and are trying to figure out what, if anything, this promise also means for me. ...

Well, on an entirely different note of topics, I think I've asked about this before but what's the ratio on Creation-believing scientists/people who do or do not believe that there was a pre-Flood canopy around the Earth (which provided the perfect environment)?
My vote would go to the side that there was a pre-Flood canopy. It makes quite a lot of sense, thinking about it. But, if there's a different point of view, I would be very interested in hearing it and the points behind it.