Apologies for interjecting in the current discussions, but I wanted to slip in and acknowledge and respond to the kind responses I recieved a month ago...

Not a problem. A lot of us are in and out. I've been mostly lurking the last few months and there are times where I don't even come on to NWeb for a few days. (Spending most of my social online time on FB).

(by the way, those who have answered some questions in the past...you have gained the reputation to my mom as "Those great people on Narniaweb who help and answer your [theologically-related] questions." )

I'm glad you have been able to find some quality answers to those questions here. And I grateful you appreciate what I have offered.

Amen - I totally agree that a Christian can not be possessed. And I also believe and 100% agree that a Christian can be oppressed by the reaping of habitual sin or by inviting such influences in their life through Ouiji boards and the like.
However, in a different case scenario... can a Christian be oppressed (such as, bothered?) even when they have not pertained in habitual sin, but as a part of spiritual warfare? (not in a like "ooh, creepy!" way, but in a general way.)

That just covers some of the ways demons can be involved. Some demons are territorial. My pastor and his family moved into a home and their daughter KNEW something was in her room. Turns out, the demon had been invited from a previous owner and the demons just stayed there. My pastor told the demon the house was under a new authority and it has no right to stay there. It was gone from then on. Other demons are associated with particular sins and strongholds. Generational curses are real, but they can be broken.

Something I want to emphasis here is Proverbs 26:2, which says "A curse without a cause cannot alight." If you are dealing with something demonic, find out what the cause is. It may not be your sin, but someone else's sin. It may not even be sin related at all. Look at Job. He was attacked because God was proud of him. God brought Job up to Satan. It was not a sin issue there but simply God demonstrating that Job would not betray God with his lips. And Job never did. But there are cases where someone else puts a 'curse' on you where you did nothing wrong. In those cases, find out what the cause is and rebuke it. If there is no cause, there is no 'legal' right for the demon to be there. If there is a 'legal' right, the demon won't go away until that right is removed. And we have the authority to remove that right by our identity in Jesus Christ.

We are in a war and our enemy will fight dirty. Know the rules of the game (via Scripture) and make the enemy play by them. Satan and his minions are defeated foes and we are more than conquerors. Don't forget that.

Sorry for just randomly interjecting in the middle of your discussion, FenceforJesus, but it's a really interesting discussion and I just had some questions and maybe some thoughts.

My first question is this. Do you believe that God would afflict us, i.e. send Satan to afflict us, not because of sin, and not even to prove that we won't sin, but merely to instruct us? To teach us humility and trust maybe? Or something to that effect? In the case of Job's affliction, that is how I have always heard it presented. It was not God trying to prove to Satan that Job was a good man and would not curse Him. But rather, it was God teaching Job that God is God and no one else.

Or take the Apostle Paul, for example, and the "thorn in his flesh" that God would not remove in order to teach Paul that we are weak, but Christ is strong in our weakness and we should be dependent upon Him rather than ourselves.

Ruby, no problem there. This isn't quite what we are talking about but an interesting aside.

That is definitely a possibility. It's hard to think of every possible situation in one go. God often does use Satan as his 'messenger' and 'delivery boy' without him (Satan) even knowing it. I often look at life from a sport training perspective (I am a fencer, as you can guess from my username). In fencing, (or any other sport), we practice and practice then when we learn our moves, we go out to competition. God likes to move a little faster by throwing us out into the competition right away and having us train by trial by fire. If you ask for patience, God will send some troubling spirits your way to test that patience. We have to remember that God will never tempt us.

Another important thing to understand is that God isn't satisfied with us just 'getting the lesson'. In a sport, you learn a play and you run the play over and over and over and over again until you are sick of it. The reason why is because God doesn't want you to 'get it'. He wants you to be able to respond with that action without thinking about it. He wants your 'spiritual muscles' to know the actions so well they do it automatically. Quite often, God will send little devils to be our 'coach'.

God will never give us anything beyond what we can bear. But that being said, as we grow in our faith, he'll send bigger and tougher foes for us to take down.

Overall, yes, God will send the enemy in our direction to test us. This is NOT demonic oppression or possession, but mostly just training and battling in every day life. What were were talking about was not quite as common as we were discussing actual manifestation of demons in their various forms. It's good stuff as long as we are constantly Christ-focused.

that's an interesting idea but I think Hell is actually a Lake of Fire. I take the Bible literally so when it says lake of fire, that's what's there. But I also believe Hell is completely lacking of God and his attributes.

I'm no expert, but I believe that the Bible says that people are sent to hell and then at some point sent to the lake of fire.

I've wondered the same thing myself. My position is that humans deserve neither eternal happiness nor eternal punishment (just the fact that it's eternal is spine-tingling if you think about it). However, I've been told many times that my view that humans don't deserve hell is incorrect, and unchristian.

why do you think humans don't deserve eternal punishment? Anyone who has not reached God's standard deserves Hell. No humans deserve eternal happines, but God chooses some people to bestow that gift on.

Your right there, we don't deserve heaven. But, God doesn't choose people to bestow his gift to. First of all, how he decide? The Bible says that it is not by works, but by grace that you are saved. Second, Jesus said that anyone can take the gift they just have to repent and believe.

I believe that God has given us free will, so that we still have the free will to be corrupted later in our lives even if we have accepted Jesus at the current moment.

The Bible says that once we are in God's hands not even Satan can take you out. Besides, lets say I give you a new computer and you mistreat it. I'm not going to just take it back. That is the same way with Jesus, I believe.

I don't believe that we can change our minds like that. Anyone who is truly a Christian, would not turn from God. Once you have experienced the glorious wonders of heaven, how could you reject it? Not to mention, John writes in 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Also, since I'm a Calvinist, I believe God chooses who is saved. So it's not a matter of changing our minds, it's what God decides.

Agreed, nothing can take you out, and you can't change your minds. John 3:16 say that God so loved the WHOLE WORLD that he sent his only son, and that WHOEVER believes in him will not parish but have eternal life. That verse should speak for itself, God doesn't choose us, we choose him. Other wise, what's the point of grace?

But in the New Testament Jesus changes that and says what we need to do now, for the New has come:

I don't believe Jesus changed that. The Bible is the same, new and old. If the old is disregarded and changed by Jesus, why would anyone have cause to believe in the new? And also "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (1 Timothy 3:16). If all scripture is inspired by God and useful for all those things, how can parts of the old be wrong and no longer our standards and laws? I know that we are no longer bound to Jewish law but just because disobedient children are no longer stoned doesn't mean we are to be disobedient. So if the Psalms say we shoud hate God's enemies, we should. But I don't think David is saying we should hate actual people, but the evil in them, like you said. Sorry if this a bit harsh, but I believe the entire Bible is true and unchanged .

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law not change or destroy it.

Now it's time for me to post a question.

I was wondering what the correct, Biblical way of "listening for God's Will" was, on a day-to-day basis. I already know and believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority and source for morality and discerning God's will. But what about situations that aren't really covered by the Bible? Such as deciding what college to go to, or deciding whether to move to Ohio vs. Nebraska, or other decisions that aren't moral decisions? There isn't anything in the Bible that will indicate what state in the US He wants you to move to, or which college will best suit you. What is the best way to make a choice, when it comes to following God's will, in those situations?

I've heard some people say that you should go by little "promptings" in your heart. I've heard some people say "God opens doors and God closes doors. He will close the door if He doesn't want you to go that way. When He opens a door, all you have to do is go through it." I've heard of people who go by prophecies they've received. I've heard of people who "throw the fleece", where they do a sort of experiment and say, "If the experiment happens this way, I'll take it as a sign from God that he wants me to do ____. But if it happens the other way, I'll take that as a sign from God to choose ____ instead." I've heard of people who go by "signs". I've heard of people who pray, "God, please have me make the correct decision now." and then just pick their choice at random, hoping the prayer "worked" and that it caused their decision to be right. And I've met people who say that all the previously mentioned methods are both incorrect and dangerous.

So... What is the right way?

~Riella

What is the best way to make a choice, when it comes to following God's will, in those situations?

First of all, don't give in to superstition. Remember that all your steps are directed by God and that even when you make mistakes, God is faithful. Nothing is wasted, nothing is outside of God's plan.

Sometimes, God gives you a choice and says "here, I've given you the tools you need to make this decision---so choose." Sometimes the answers are obvious and staring you in the face---other times you have to try doors to see if they're open. The point, though, is to act in faith not in fear. God's going to put hard decisions like this in your path so that you will make them and trust Him for the results. There's no single method or single answer here.

TBG

Such as deciding what college to go to, or deciding whether to move to Ohio vs. Nebraska, or other decisions that aren't moral decisions?

Actually considering moving to Nebraska should be a moral decision. NOBODY MOVES TO NEBRASKA I TELL YOU!!

And so the LORD said, "My eleventh commandment unto thee: Thou shalt not move to Nebraska. EVER."

I've heard of people who pray, "God, please have me make the correct decision now." and then just pick their choice at random, hoping the prayer "worked" and that it caused their decision to be right.

That's pretty much what we've always done in our family, just choose what we've felt God calling us to do and hope for the best. Kinda like an eeny meeny of life changing decisions

And I've met people who say that all the previously mentioned methods are both incorrect and dangerous.

They must not get a lot done, considering their apparent moral uppityness prevents them from ever making a decision.

Oooh, making decisions is such an interesting process. For me, it works differently every time. First, it was really important for me to identify the way that I make decisions on my own. Remove God fromt he equation and I make decisions as a "feeler" (according to the Meyers-Briggs personality test) which means that I usually go with my gut. Because of that, I have to analyze my "gut feeling" to see whether I'm attributing my own feelings to God. I don't want to accidentally say, "I just really felt that God wanted me to do ______" and have it be my own feelings. Alternatively, maybe you're a thinker. Then, it would be important to make sure that you aren't attributing all the elaborately mapped out pros and cons to "God's wisdom" when really it is your own, worldly wisdom.

After that, sometimes I listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit, I pray and ask and wait. Sometimes he really does make it very clear by his small Voice. Sometimes it feels like He isn't going to speak by the time I need to decide! Sometimes His guidance is less clear and I just follow what I think sits best with obedience and discernment. Sometimes I see which I have the most peace with if I pray with the Holy Spirit about it. I am wary with any set way or "equation" for making decisions. Each decision is different and God can move differently every time. But I think it is SO so important to at least ask and wait and trust rather than just making the "right decision" based on what seems like sound earthly judgment.

Wow, that was long. But I've had to make a lot of decision just recently so it's something I've been learning about.

Ouch. I just discovered a nasty theory about Paul. I'm going to go ahead and put it in a spoiler tag, because it is causing me some serious doubts and I don't want to force that on anyone. If anyone wants to brave the theory or if they're already familiar with it (hint: it concerns epilepsy), feel free to click and give me your thoughts.

Yeah, not feeling good.

Reepicheep775, it may be possible Paul had epilepsy, and that it was the cause for his poor vision, and was his thorn in the flesh. But I'm not sure why it would bother you, or why it would dismiss what he wrote as an apostle. You can be epileptic and still have religious visions that are actually from God. I think a lot of scientists want to have a non-spiritual explanation for spiritual experiences, and so they attribute them all to psychological and neurological factors.

You must also keep in mind that Paul was accepted by Christ's disciples as someone having divine revelation from God. And I'm pretty sure they had met/prayed for people in the past with epileptic conditions, and wouldn't have assumed someone with such a condition would just be having a religious experience.

~Riella

Also, after Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, he spent some months re-examining the Old Testament scriptures, and then, over the course of many years, he wrote the Epistles in which he argued the case for Christianity in a logical and systematic way (C.S. Lewis would have been proud! ) If his conversion experience hadn't been authentic, he would very likely have fallen back on his understanding of the Old Testament as a Pharisee and continued to persecute the Church.

I'm not going to say doubt is bad, it can be very useful to help power us on in our faith walk, but I disapprove of people who foster paranoia and doubt everything they hold dear. It's not healthy.

I think a lot of scientists want to have a non-spiritual explanation for spiritual experiences, and so they attribute them all to psychological and neurological factors.

Well, yeah. If there are numerous mental diseases and drugs that can cause powerful hallucinations, it makes sense from a secular worldview to assume that people with visions from God are just mistaking them for natural phenomena in the brain.

And I'm pretty sure they had met/prayed for people in the past with epileptic conditions, and wouldn't have assumed someone with such a condition would just be having a religious experience.

That's actually probably exactly what they assumed. Epilepsy was associated with the supernatural and demonic possession in the ancient times. Hippocrates called it the "Sacred Disease", because people assumed epileptics were were being seized by gods, and the visions that epileptics had were messages from the gods. This stigma is seen throughout ancient cultures, including in the Babylonian book of Medicine. Hippocrates also prophetically remarked that epilepsy would cease to be considered divine the day it was understood.

I'm not saying that I fully agree with the theory, but...it does kind of have a point.

If Paul's conversion experience hadn't been authentic, he would very likely have fallen back on his understanding of the Old Testament as a Pharisee and continued to persecute the Church.

I don't think it matters so much whether the actual experience was authentic, but whether he thought it was authentic. If I have an extraordinary dream where Allah comes and tells me he's real, and I'm convinced that the experience is a legitimate encounter with the supernatural, then it doesn't really matter at that point whether Allah was actually speaking to me. I would also be quite internally biased when examining the evidence for Islam if I didn't have any mental quirk to attribute it to (as Paul wouldn't have since epilepsy was thought to be supernatural). From Paul's perspective, he already has the proof of Jesus's truth from personal experience.

If there's a counterpoint to be made in saying that a legitimate supernatural vision would be more convincing than a strange mental hallucination, all I can think of is the visions from god received by numerous followers of pretty much every religion. The illegitimate visions must be pretty effective for all the alternate religions to be doing as well as they are.

Well, yeah. If there are numerous mental diseases and drugs that can cause powerful hallucinations, it makes sense from a secular worldview to assume that people with visions from God are just mistaking them for natural phenomena in the brain.

Oh, I wasn't saying that scientists assuming this was somehow strange or out of character for them.

That's actually probably exactly what they assumed. Epilepsy was associated with the supernatural and demonic possession in the ancient times.

The interesting thing to note is that it's not exactly an either-or situation. It didn't have to be a question of "Is this a health problem?" or "Is this a spiritual problem?" since the Bible says (and they certainly believed) that health problems and spiritual problems often go hand in hand. I don't mean the belief that anyone who is sick has their condition because they have sinned and are being punished or anything like that. But rather that all sickness has its source in the devil. They most likely would have approached it from both angles simultaneously. I also don't believe the apostles were as stupid or superstitious as some modern philosophers and scientists, etc. would like to think. That seems to be a stereotype people like throwing around concerning anyone who lived in the past; or anyone religious, past or present.

But no matter what they assumed when it comes to epilepsy being a strict matter of health or the work of demons, it's clear they didn't think either of Paul. And having seen epilepsy before, I think they would know a seizure when they saw one, and would have at least assumed it was demonic work if nothing else. But of course, any kind of theory on this would be guesswork, just as the theory of Paul having epilepsy in the first place is guesswork.

No matter the case, Reepicheep775, the theory is lacking one major thing: proof. About all they're going on is the fact that Paul wasn't married (at that time. I've heard theories of him being married before that time), and that he developed poor eyesight. The "thorn in the flesh" could very probably be the eye trouble by itself. I see very little reason to put stock in the theory, unless you come from the viewpoint beforehand that you don't believe in God or the miraculous, and are trying to find a different explanation for it (other than Paul simply being a liar). And even if he did have epilepsy, it still wouldn't matter, because people with epilepsy can also receive genuine visions and revelation from God, same as anyone else. In other words, it's nothing faith-shattering, no matter which way you look at it.

~Riella

Excellent post but I disagree with your comment that "all sickness has its source in the devil". All sickness has its source in sin. Otherwise, you're giving the devil far too much power.