FREE INDEED

Before I embark upon this subject, let me say that I do not do this lightly. It is not some factional zeal that leads me to write on this subject. I am not just passing on teachings handed down to me by my denomination or group. What I am expressing here is the result of studying and accepting only what the scriptures explicitly say on this subject. It is also the result of having observed the fruit of this teaching in local church situations. People have suffered and do suffer many things in their lives, and for a variety of reasons. It is not my intent to barge in with just some slanted view into an area where people may be in distress and where wise biblical counsel is called for. Of course, none of these intentions make what I say right, but this is how I approach the subject. However, please remember, this article is not a piece of personal counselling, nor is it meant to be. It is a biblical assessment of the teachings concerning whether Christians can have demons. It does not really go further than this. It is simply meant for those who want to know what the scriptures specifically say on this subject. In the end let the scriptures themselves be the yardstick. If we are to be helped in our afflictions and distress, it is only through an understanding of God’s word coupled with faith and obedience in His word. This article is written in the hope that it might help some who are unsure or confused about what the Bible says on this topic.

It is my conviction that what is making an understanding and acceptance of God’s word difficult in these days is the amount of erroneous teaching that is shaping people’s thinking. These teachings either attribute the cause of people’s problems to the wrong source, or offer unbiblical, experienced-based solutions as some kind of quick fix, which only turn out to be the passing fads of winds of doctrine. People excitedly go from one wind of doctrine to another – since the previous one obviously didn’t result in the liberty it promised! If the first wind of doctrine had offered the liberty it promised why then is there a need for a new wind of doctrine every ten, if not five years? All this makes it increasingly difficult for people to receive the word of God, since the word of God calls for a greater honesty about ourselves and the causes of our problems, and offers solutions that, at times, stand in stark contrast to the alternatives offered by some of today’s popular teachings, which have more to do with humanistic psychology and superstitious belief than with God’s answer in Christ. It is actually possible in this kind of scenario that we become resistant to what the word of God really says. A kind of brainwashing or ‘bewitchment’ takes place that blinds us to the truth as it is in Christ. The extent to which humanistic ideas have invaded churches is deeply grieving, as it constitutes an attack on the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the true remedy for the human condition that it provides.

With regard to my own ‘religious tradition’ or church background, I was converted in 1971 at a church where these things were firmly believed and practiced. In fact, the pastor of our church was known nationally for his ‘deliverance ministry’. Not only among us but also up and down the country he prayed for Christians to be delivered from demons. Our church also had good links with one of the main promoters of this teaching worldwide. This was my home church for five years, so I was ‘brought up’ in an environment where it was believed that not only can Christians have demons that needed casting out of them, but that indwelling demons were one of the main causes of hindrances and problems in their lives. As a young Christian, I didn’t quite know what to make of this, as even at that time I was aware that the teaching had no scriptural precedent, but was content to accept that the pastor understood things better than I did. Moreover, it is not some upset with the church that has led me to write these things now, nor have I fallen among people who have persuaded me that such teachings are false. I can be nothing but grateful to God for this church through whose witness the Lord reached and saved me. In other respects, I also benefited greatly from the teaching I received there. However, over the years I have become increasingly concerned, firstly about what seemed to be the lack of real effectiveness of this approach among those I was with, and subsequently about the validity of the teachings that lay behind the approach. Let me say that in the real life of a local church, the effect and consequences of this teaching is quite different to what seems to be promised by the books that promote it. Suffice it to say that I am not someone writing totally ‘from the outside’ nor am I disaffected or soured because of anything in the past. I was increasingly concerned that people weren’t genuinely being helped and became increasingly aware that genuine help could only issue from what God has actually said in His word. I certainly believe that deliverance from demons is part of the ministry of the preaching of the Gospel to sinners and the unconverted, but there is something certainly awry with how modern writers and leaders apply this kind of ministry to the saints.

Can Christians have demons indwelling them and do they therefore need deliverance from these demons by having them cast out? This, of course, is a matter of some controversy. Those who believe this to be true, sometimes portray those of the opposite opinion as being blinded by prejudice or blinkered by church tradition. They express surprise that those that disagree with them ‘ignore’ what the scriptures ‘actually say’ and claim that they are unable to provide a biblical basis for holding the opposite viewpoint. Is this criticism true or fair? Others write more moderately, but are they able to provide a clear biblical foundation for their theories?

Well, let us consider the practice in the churches of the NT. Did the apostles or anyone else go among churches or any group of Christians and cast demons out of any of them? Do we read of any Christian having a demon cast out of them by the ministry of an apostle? Do we read of such a thing happening in the Acts of the Apostles or is such a practice or occurrence intimated in any of the Epistles? Paul visited churches that had started under the ministry of others. Did he make sure that all the believers were truly free from demons and carry out a ‘deliverance ministry’ among them? After the churches had been established for some years, did he or other of the apostles exercise a deliverance ministry among the Christians, that is, casting demons out of them – just in case some had joined the church or been converted but still had spiritual hang-ups from the past which were still allowing demons to operate in them; or for those who had perhaps fallen into repeated sin and therefore were perhaps deemed to need such ministry; or for those whose demonic problems only surfaced some time after their conversion (which is most definitely taught by modern writers who support this teaching)?

There is no such example in the NT nor does it feature in any way whatsoever. Please remember, what we are talking about here is a ministry whereby demons are cast out of the Lord’s people – those who have been born again and been baptized in one Spirit into one Body by virtue of what God had done through Christ at Calvary. According to the writings of the supporters of this teaching, such a deliverance can commonly involve the Christian falling on the floor, writhing, screaming, wriggling and hissing until the demon comes out.

I shall use the designation ‘Christian’ in its proper meaning, namely, to refer to people who were converted through the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, after Calvary and from the time of Pentecost onwards. Let us also recognise what the scriptures clearly relate, namely, that demons can and do inhabit unconverted people. It is also clear from the Gospels and the Acts, that in evangelisation those who are sent by the Lord are also empowered to cast such demons out of such people. This point will be developed as we proceed.

So why are the promoters of this teaching surprised that others are hesitant to receive it. There is no example of such a ministry or of such deliverance taking place among Christians in the churches of the NT. They cannot refer to one text where such an event is portrayed. There are, of course, examples of believers giving opportunity to the devil to deceive and influence them and we shall look at those closely later. However, there is no incident where an apostle casts out a demon from a Christian believer because of some personal problem that believer was having. Whatever conclusions one might wish to draw from these facts, these are the facts we have to deal with.

Well, if we have no example of demons being cast out of Christians in the NT, can we find any teaching in the Epistles that indicate that personal or spiritual problems that Christians may be having are due to indwelling demons that need to be cast out of them?

We don’t need to deliberate long over this, because there is no such teaching. Not even by way of exception are Christians warned that hindrances in their spiritual walk are, or even may be, due to indwelling demons. Where do the apostles teach us that a problem we may have as the Lord’s people is, or even might be, due to demons that have ‘remained’ in us because of something bad we had experienced before our conversion, or because of parental or ancestral involvement in the occult or idolatry? Where is their exhortation and instruction concerning the need to have these demons cast out of us? Where is their teaching that if we are not walking in perfect obedience, this will open the door for demons to enter us and that part of the remedy must necessarily include the casting out of such demons? There is no such apostolic diagnosis concerning the personal problems of Christians; there is no such warning that such things might happen, and there is certainly no exhortation at all that the expelling of demons forms even a part of the remedy to problems that believers might have.

So, it is not ‘religious tradition’ or my ‘church background’ that makes me hesitant to receive this teaching. It is the scriptures themselves that make me concerned about this outlook! Namely, this teaching does not exist in the NT! One popular author who has promoted this teaching says that in all his years of ministry he has never seen a case argued from scripture to refute his beliefs in this matter. I would say, on the contrary, neither he nor anyone else can show us one example of this happening to Christians, or one example of this being taught to Christians in the NT. Namely, neither in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the Epistles is it shown or taught that a Christian had a problem that was caused by a demon in them that needed casting out of them. (I am not saying that there are cases where a person can have a demon in them which doesn’t need casting out. I am just being doubly clear in my language so that we know what is meant.) This is simple fact. It is not a matter of opinion. If this is a matter of ‘church tradition’, this is because church tradition has followed scripture.

Those that disagree with this teaching of demons in Christians are sometimes portrayed as being irrationally horrified at this doctrine and so scared at the thought of it, that their whole theology is viewed as being based on fear. I cannot speak for anyone else but as far as I am concerned, this is totally untrue. This is not a matter of fear or shock-horror but of simply looking for some scriptural basis for what is being taught. Some writers parody their opponents’ opinions in order to make it easy for them to dismiss what their opponents really believe. One writer claims that if we hold that demons can’t be, or get inside a Christian, then this makes Christian living a matter of ease; a Christian can sin without any harmful or lasting effects; spiritual warfare would simply be a matter of warding off the relatively innocuous attacks of the devil. This is the kind of reasoning and outlook a writer imputes to those who hold different viewpoint. This is bizarre. This is a parody of other people’s beliefs or rather a gross misrepresentation. No Christian believes any such thing as far as I am aware, nor is our spiritual walk and warfare depicted in such ludicrous and innocuous terms in the NT. What all this reveals far more than anything else, is that the supporters of this teaching are largely unable to view any serious sin or repeated carnal and sinful behaviour in Christians outside the context of a demon residing in a person and compelling him to such actions and sins. (Not that these writers do this in every case, but in a fundamental way this is true of their outlook in a way that is not true in scripture, which ascribes the sins of believers to their own selfish choices, unbelief or carnal disposition.)

Similarly, we are told that Christians refuse to accept this teaching because they would be afraid that if they sinned they would attract a demon into their lives. I don’t know who holds such a view apart from these modern teachers themselves! It is strange how they impute their own bizarre notions to others! The scripture says that if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father and if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 1 John 1:9. However, it is those groups of Christians who fervently believe in this teaching that are forever seeing demons behind all sorts of actions and attitudes that people have and who then try and convince them that it is an indwelling demon that is the cause of their problem. The indiscriminate and almost legalistic application of such an approach can, and does lead to confusion and further misery.

Writers have pointed out that we need to use our terms with the utmost care when discussing these matters. I couldn’t agree more, particularly when these writers are guilty of the very thing they warn others against!

For example, they point out that the expression "to be possessed by a demon" is not an accurate translation of the Greek. This is true. It is an attempt at translating a single Greek word, but an attempt that is not necessarily wide of the mark. This expression is derived from the Greek verb, daimonizo, which is transliterated into English, to demonise, but in the NT it is used as a passive, to be demonised (daimonizomai). So, the NT refers to people who are "demonised" and it does not literally use the expression, "to be possessed by a demon". Modern authors seize on this fact and want to make it very clear that a demon cannot ‘possess’ a Christian, since he has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and therefore belongs to the Lord. They say a demon can inhabit a Christian, trouble him, depress him, torment him, inhibit him and compel him to sin and to do the most foul things, but a demon cannot ‘possess’ him – this would be ‘theologically totally unacceptable’ they say! But this ‘distinction’ is simply a matter of playing with words! Their explanation is a contradiction in terms that only highlights the heart of the problem without clarifying or settling anything. Such affirmations on their part confirming our ‘ownership’ by Christ do nothing to clarify or validate their idea that Christians can have troubles because of indwelling demons; they simply raise the issue which is at the centre of the whole controversy; they simply touch on the very thing that begs the question. Namely, how is it that someone who has been redeemed by the blood of Jesus, cleansed and set free from sin and its judgement, who has been made a new creation in Christ where all things are made new and the old things have passed away, who has been baptised in the Holy Spirit and has Christ living within them - Christ who has destroyed the works of the devil and spoiled principalities and powers – how can such a person have a demon dwelling in them, dominating a part of their life and compelling them to do or think evil? All the scriptures that the forgoing sentence alludes to, and many others beside, actually point to a condition that is not consistent with the idea that a Christian can still be compelled to sin by an indwelling demon that remains in him from before his conversion.

They maintain that a demon invades, lodges in or dominates just a part of a Christian’s life, not the whole, and therefore this does not constitute ‘possession’. The demon is like a (temporary) resident or squatter in the house, not the owner of the house. Their extreme ‘disapproval’ of the idea that Christians can be ‘possessed’ by a demon becomes utterly meaningless when the condition they describe of a Christian who needs deliverance from a demon, is exactly what others would regard as demon-possession or demonisation as described in the Gospels! Simply changing the terminology by which you describe such a condition, does not alter the nature of the condition that is being described! However you interpret "possessed", the fundamental tension and problem remains totally unresolved by such theological wordplay. Simply by saying - "Look. The Greek doesn’t actually mean that a person is "possessed" by a demon, so, you see, it’s theologically all right to say that a Christian can have an indwelling demon!" – this doesn’t really address the main issues which arise out of this teaching nor the substance of the objections to them. One writer concedes that there is no example of a demon being cast out of a Christian in the NT but then proceeds to tell us that from early on in church history this was the practice, so we cannot rule out its validity! Should such an appeal to church ‘tradition’ also induce us to become Roman Catholics? How can we hope to shed any light on this matter or make progress when we refer to extra-biblical sources for justification or validation of our beliefs? This simply reveals the poverty of scriptural evidence in support of this teaching.

So what other expressions do we find in the Greek NT? It talks about people being "demonised" or about people "having" a demon (Gk.daimonion). The expression "to be possessed by a devil" or to have a "devil" which some English translations use, is incorrect. The word used in these cases is not "devil", which in the Greek is diabolos, but "demon", which is the word daimonion or in a few cases daimon. From a study of the passages concerned, we can also see that the words "demon", "unclean spirit" and "evil spirit" seem to be interchangeable. So in the Gospels and Acts we read of people who were demonised or had demons or unclean spirits. The ministry of Jesus and His followers in evangelisation involved the "casting out" of these demons from people. In no case did this happen to Christians nor is any Christian characterised as ‘having a demon’ or as ‘being demonised’ in all the NT.

However, in rejecting "to be possessed by a demon" as an incorrect translation (although others might see it as a legitimate interpretation for the events or condition described), some of these writers don’t simply adopt the language of the Greek they refer to; they don’t practice that accuracy of language that they say is so essential in this matter, but develop their own terminology which only helps to muddy the waters! Leaving the accuracy of the Greek, they start using such expressions as "subject to demonic influence or attack" or "to be under the influence of an unclean spirit" to describe the state of those who had demons cast out of them in the Gospels.

This brings us on to an important point and it is the reason I have spent some time considering this matter. Namely, a number of writers change the terminology of the Bible into slightly more innocuous terms or into far more generalised statements when describing the condition of people who needed demons cast out of them. This is meant to have the intended effect of making their own beliefs more acceptable, or providing a smokescreen through which they then smuggle their doctrines. What I mean is this. Some writers start by taking generalised expressions that they know could also be applied to a Christian’s spiritual walk, such as "under the influence or attack of a demon", and want us to accept that such expressions also legitimately or accurately describe the condition of people needing demons cast out of them that we read about in the Gospels and Acts. Despite their earlier appeals to the Greek, they now depart from the language the NT itself uses in describing people who were tormented by, and delivered from demons in the Gospels, and want us to accept their new terms in describing such cases, not only in the place of "demon-possessed", but also in the place of "having a demon" or "demonised" which is the terminology of the NT Greek to describe such people. Regarding such wordplay as legitimate, they feel their case is won! They then and ask something like, "Well, are you saying that Christians can’t be influenced by demons?" The trap is laid. To answer that they can’t be, would be to contradict the teaching of scripture. To answer that they can, is then met with the remonstrance, "Well, there you are. If Christians can be ‘subject to demonic influence’, it’s the same as saying that they can have demons in them that hinder their Christian lives and so they will need to have them cast out, just like people in the Gospels who were ‘influenced’ by demonic powers and needed them casting out!" They invent a less severe and more general term than the NT uses for these specific cases of people who had demons cast out of them, which we read about in the Gospels and Acts, but then use the same terminology for Christians, so that they can validate their ideas about Christians needing deliverance from demons! People in the Gospels were "under the influence of demons" and needed these demons casting out of them and of course Christians can be "under the influence of demons", so it’s obvious that they will need demons casting out of them! This is the reasoning and logic of some! It is far more like dishonest wordplay and for this reason we cannot accept that this is legitimate or accurate terminology for people who had demons cast out of them in the Gospels. Nor does the Greek of the NT!

There is a fundamental distinction between the two cases, which these modern writers not only totally ignore but also seek to demolish and abolish! The whole issue is made difficult because these writers make no distinction between the two cases and find fault with Christians who seek to point out this obvious distinction. Little headway is made in the discussion because the foundation of this teaching rests on the assumption that there is no distinction in the two cases – between people in the Gospels who needed demons casting out of them and Christians who succumb to the temptations and snare of the devil – all of them need demons casting out of them! It’s all basically the same! This is their theology!

One writer goes so far as to say that the Bible only uses one word to describe a person who is "troubled" or "controlled" by a demon, and that is demonised. The writer claims that the scriptures make no distinction (we’re back to this fallacy again!) whether demons operate inside or outside a person. This is, of course, not true, if by ‘operating inside’ you are referring to an indwelling demon that needs casting out. The scriptures clearly teach that the devil can tempt our minds with suggestions, and that we can allow the devil to influence our thoughts and choices and thereby also affect our heart states. However, nowhere is it suggested or taught that Christians thus affected have demons dwelling in them or that even part of the solution is to have demons cast out of them.

There are other expressions such as ‘to have a demon’ or ‘to have an unclean spirit’ or ‘evil spirit’. But all these expressions, including ‘demonised’, are only used in the Gospel and Acts and only in the context of evangelisation and relate exclusively to people who are not Christians!

In the Gospels and Acts we read of those who encounter Gospel preaching and have demons cast out of them. In the Epistles written to Christians, problems are not viewed in this context at all. But having universalised this word "demonised" to make it apply to all cases of demonic or Satanic ‘influence’ or ‘attack’, this writer then proceeds to include under this heading verses such as 2 Cor.12:7 and Eph.4:26,27. What are we to say about this? Was Paul demonised? Did Paul need a demon casting out of him because he was buffeted by Satan? Is such an idea implied by Paul? If not, why are they classifying these, as well as other scriptures in the Epistles, as a cases of ‘demonisation’? What does this word now mean? The apostles clearly tell us that we can give space to the devil to affect our lives by our selfish choices and behaviour, but it is never their diagnosis or teaching that Christians’ problems are due to indwelling demons and it is never their suggested remedy for their problems that demons need casting out of them. The apostle John tells us that if we sin, we have an Advocate with the Father and that if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Neither John nor any of the other apostles advise us that we might need a demon casting out of us. They exhort us to repentance which leads to cleansing and a clearing of our lives of wrong actions, attitudes and influences, 2 Cor.7:9-11. God’s own remedy for Paul was to remind him of the sufficiency of His grace, not to cast a demon out of him! What if Job’s friends had advised him that his real problem was due to demons and that he needed deliverance from them? Would God not have rebuked them equally as strongly for the folly of such a diagnosis and for the uselessness of their suggested remedy? Even so today, in too many cases the diagnosis is matter of folly and the suggested remedy worse than useless for the cul-de-sac it leads people into and the distress it can cause.

These writers refuse to distinguish between the strategies and influence of Satan in tempting and ensnaring redeemed believers, from the control and compulsion of a demon dwelling within an unconverted person and where the demon needs casting out as a means of securing freedom. The latter we only find in the Gospel and Acts among those who hear and respond to the Gospel, where specific language is used to describe these cases. The former are mentioned in the apostolic writings to Christians where quite different language is used and quite different remedies advocated than that of the casting out of demons. What a mockery and confusion this disregard for the proper use of language and reasoning causes – this refusal to distinguish things that manifestly differ.

Let us be clear about it then, even at the expense of repeating ourselves.

The NT Greek makes reference to people who are demonised or who have an unclean or evil spirit or demon. These expressions are only found in the Gospels and Acts. They are not used in the Epistles at all and they are never used anywhere in the NT in reference to any Christians. They are only ever used when referring to people who hear the Gospel preached and who respond to the Gospel, or who are challenged by the Lord or the apostles because of some kind of opposition to the ministry. It is always in the context of evangelisation – the proclomation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. Deliverance involves the evil spirit being rebuked and cast out of the person. It is characteristic for the spirit to cry out as it comes out of the person, at times convulsing him and throwing him to the ground – unharmed. The italics here reflect the language used in the Greek and the actions described in these events. Luke 4:33-36 represents one of many passages where this is clearly portrayed. Jesus commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the man in Mark 5:8, and the account Jesus gives of an unclean spirit who goes out of a person and then returns to ‘his house’ in Luke 11:24-26, reinforces the evident reality which is true in all these cases, that these demons dwell and operate in people and need to be cast out. It refers only to people who hear the Good News of the Kingdom of God and respond to it in some way. These demons troubled or tormented the person (Luke 6:18) or compelled or controlled them in some way (Luke 8:26-33; 9:37-42). (Obviously, demonic bondage could not prevent a person from responding to Jesus Christ as Saviour.) This list of symptoms is not exhaustive but it helps us to understand why some translators felt "demon-possessed" to be a legitimate rendering for the Greek word that referred to such a condition as this. Since the above terms are never used in describing Christians or the kind of problems they have, it is no surprise that there is no reference to evil spirits being cast out of Christians or needing to be cast out of Christians anywhere in the NT.

As we look at these passages, I would like us to bear particularly one aspect of this teaching in mind. In order to validate their ideas, some writers appeal to two types of situation. One is where people perhaps didn’t hear the Gospel preached in its fullness and power and therefore were converted without having been delivered from demons. We are told that these Christians will need demons casting out of them. The other case is of Christians who repeatedly sin or behave carnally. It is said that surely such Christians invite demons into them by such actions. (We will specifically consider these two cases later, although everything that follows has a direct bearing on these points as well.) Though much is made of these two types of cases in terms of trying to prove their point, once they believe they have achieved their purpose, this then opens the floodgates for them to introduce ideas and approaches that are extreme and manifestly erroneous - extending the application of their teaching to all Christians. Any Christian can now be regarded as having a demon if they have any kind of problem at all – the point about exceptional cases is now forgotten as this teaching now becomes a major approach in counselling all Christians concerning problems that they might have!

This is the central issue. Proponents of this teaching might start by referring to what might be considered exceptional cases or situations, where they say such deliverance ministry might be necessary, but the reality is that once this approach is conceded to, it then forms a fundamental and quite normal part of their counselling and ministry to any and every Christian, without any regard to establishing a biblical foundation for such an approach. "Have you got a problem in your Christian walk? Well, in any of the last four generations of your family has anyone been involved in anything of an occult nature? Or did you have a traumatic experience in your childhood or before you became a Christian?" If you answer "Yes" to any of the questions that relate to the past, then it is quite normal for it to be considered that your problem is demonic and that you need demons casting out of you.

It is the same approach if someone is suffering from fears, anxieties, depression, bitterness, loss of temper, jealousy etc. These counsellors easily come to the conclusion that the problem is a demon in the Christian.

This is the real area of contention. And it doesn’t stop here. Not at all. We are told that it is likely that even the most mature of Christians will still need deliverance from this and that demon! I’m not exaggerating the issue. One of the leading and most popular writers who has been responsible for disseminating this teaching worldwide, makes it very clear that most Christians can, and most likely do, still have demons which need casting out of them. The logic of their own reasoning leads them to teach that such deliverance is not unusually an ongoing procedure over many years if not your whole lifetime! Not all demons are dealt with at once! We can only detect these demons as problems arise or occur in our personal lives. Are we not now entering a madhouse of confusion and delusion. Calvary cannot deal with resident demons in a repentant sinner! We have to wait for problems to arise in our Christian living before being able to identify the appropriate demon! But even then the grieving, repenting Christian will not be delivered of all the demons in him as he calls on the Lord. No. Christ and His death on Calvary cannot secure such a comprehensive deliverance for him in one go - not even if he repents of all known sin and grieves over his condition for weeks, months or years. No. The Christian will have to wait until a specific problem arises in his life which then allows him to ‘identify’ the nature of the demons that still remain in him, which then enables him to expel them! This can go on over a number of years if not decades, as the author himself testifies concerning himself and his wife!

This is what is taught. Here is the heart of the matter. These ideas are not taught by some extreme fringe of this movement. It is central to the teaching and is propagated by their leading writers and preachers. We are now in the realm of superstition, delusion and error. This is not a matter of opinion. This is an attack on the nature of the redemption and salvation that Christ has obtained for us. Though their aim is to secure liberty for Christians, their counsel is misguided and leads people away from the truth as it is in Christ. It largely ignores (there are exceptions to this) biblical counsel concerning how to deal with besetting sins, the lust of the flesh, putting off the old man, and putting your faith and trust in what God has done for us in Christ. Too much is wrongly imputed to the work of demons. It confuses fundamental issues. Nothing in all the Bible can justify such human inventions.

They may quote many cases in their books of Christians being ‘delivered from demons’, but they relate to people whose background and condition the reader cannot accurately judge or really know about. We are relying on the assumptions, judgements and interpretations of the author. Besides this, we cannot establish or determine doctrine from people’s ‘experience’. This must be done from scripture alone. As you read the books that promote this teaching, it becomes evident that the writers rely heavily on experiences of the deliverance ministry to validate their teaching. The bottom line seems to be, "Look. It works, so we’re going to carry on with it whatever anyone says". This of course is not good enough, especially in these days when many are claiming that their approach ‘works’. I was in a church for five years where the ‘deliverance ministry’ was very much believed in and practised, and I would say that the reality of how effective such a ministry is, is quite different to what the writers promoting this teaching would have us believe from the accounts they give. Moreover, some of these accounts of people being ‘delivered from demons’ have left me with serious questions regarding the whole procedure and its results, and the kind of assumptions and judgements that the ministering person has made. In no way do I regard what I have read as convincing or by any means conclusive. Quite the contrary. Though I do very much believe that any ministry which encourages people to repent and turn from sin and self-pity and to trust in the living Saviour according to God’s own Word, will be of benefit. Equally, any encouragement to Christians to believe in the efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection will act as a foundation to knowing His victory in our lives. And of course these truths are also to be found in their writings, but they are negated and swallowed up by that which really dominates their writings – the erroneous and superstitious belief that indwelling demons are the cause of so many of our problems.

This whole area of ‘deliverance’ is prone to deception, not only on the part of the person who is counselling and praying, but also on the part of the person being prayed for. There is the whole psychological issue of unwittingly ‘manufacturing’ the ‘results’ that are anticipated. Particularly people who feel depressed or who are in self-pity are prone to believe that their problems stem not from their own wrong attitudes but that they are the victim of past traumas or demonic powers. Emotional intensity or mental turmoil, all these things can lead to all sorts of experiences and manifestations, if not histrionics, that have nothing to do with demons coming out the person but are the result of an unbiblical psychological climate that has built up or been produced in the person. There is also the possibility of the devil encouraging certain manifestations where counselling practices are not based on the Word of God in order to divert attention from the real problem. I am not saying these things are so in every case but they are factors that can lead to deception. The anecdotal stories quoted by modern authors in no way forms any justification or acts as conclusive evidence for their theories.

Let us be clear about this most vital point. The above-mentioned well-known author and speaker makes much of the notion that Christians can have demons remaining in them from their pre-conversion days because of not having heard the Gospel preached in its fullness and power – they weren’t told about the reality of demonic powers and the need to be free of them. This is supposed to be a convincing argument in favour of his teaching. He claims to declare this power of the Lord to deliver people from demons, and he has practised this ministry among Christians. But what kind of message does he preach? He tells Christians that indwelling demons can be the cause of many of their problems but that they can also be delivered of them – but not necessarily all at once! Even after you have heard of the Lord’s power to deliver from demons, he teaches that various demons may still remain in you for some time until further problems occur! In other words, even those who have heard the ‘fullness of the Gospel’ are in no way guaranteed full deliverance from all the ‘remaining’ demons in them! So his initial reason why Christians may still have demons in them is no longer the reason! This exposes a severe lack of consistency, to say the least, in his argument! Is it the lack of knowledge of the fullness of the Gospel or not, that has left some believers ‘with demons in them’? How is it then that Christians can have demons remaining in them even after having heard the fullness of the Gospel and having had prayer for deliverance? According to such modern ideas, even those who had had deliverance under the ministry of the Lord and of the apostles in the Gospel and Acts, were not necessarily delivered from all demons in them! The demons might have ‘not named themselves’ or ‘gone into hiding’ only to appear later on in the Christians’ life, giving him trouble!

Why then don’t the apostles mention this in their Epistles, explaining to Christians that some of their problems might be due to demons from the past? This crucial point is not explained at all! How can the apostles have remained totally silent about a matter that affects our salvation from evil? The basis of his argument has begun to fall apart in terms of his own illogical development.

As I said, once some kind of reason can be found for indicating that Christians may have indwelling demons, this is then taken as a green light to bring in every kind of error and superstition and to regard any and every serious problem as fundamentally demonic. This lack of consistency and explanation exposes what is at the heart of all this. There is already from the outset a superstitious, fixed belief, there is already an immovable preconception that problems in the lives of Christians are caused by indwelling demons. This is the starting point! Scriptures are interpreted and bent and corrupted until they are made to conform to this belief. Reason and consistency of thought and language are easily abandoned in a desperate attempt to ‘show’ how it is possible for Christians to have demons. So for the above author, whether you have heard the fullness of the Gospel or not, whether you are doing your best to live in it or not, as a Christian you can, and probably do, still have demons that you will need to be delivered of. This is the reality of the position of many who promote this teaching.

To illustrate the extremity of their views and to show that I am not misrepresenting them, it is necessary to quote from one of the leading proponents of this teaching, to whose ideas I have already made reference above. Derek Prince, in his book, "They Shall Expel Demons" (Copyright ã 1998 Derek Prince Ministries – International), refers us to Peter’s visit to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10:24-28, (page 174). During Peter’s preaching the Holy Spirit falls on those listening. Derek Prince comments:

"It would be unrealistic to think that every area of their lives had been brought into line with God’s standards by this one experience, or that they were totally free from the defilement of their Gentile background." (Italics mine).

What is meant by this language? The latter part of this statement would seem to fly in the face of the scriptures themselves, which declare that we are washed clean by the blood of Jesus, set free from sin and sanctified by the Holy Spirit at our conversion. Now we are told by this author that people who were not Jews at that time were ‘not totally free from the defilement of their Gentile background’! What could this possibly mean in scriptural terms? Nothing, as far as I know. But according to this chapter in the author’s book it is an oblique way of saying that people with a Gentile background would have been involved in idolatrous worship at some stage. Idolatrous worship involves demonic activity – which we don’t disagree with – and this demonic activity results in people becoming ‘demonised’; that is, inhabited by demons. We don’t know if Cornelius or anyone in his household had ever been involved in idolatry – the author just assumes it. Having made this assumption about their idolatrous background the author concludes that they therefore would have become ‘demonised’. He then makes the incredible assumption that since no demons came screaming out of Cornelius or out of those with him at the time they heard Peter, it is only ‘realistic’ to suppose that those demons had remained in them and would have needed casting out at some later time! The teachings concerning demons in Christians are based upon this kind of method of ‘interpretation’! Can a more extreme example be found of reading one’s own assumptions into the interpretation of a text?

The above author formulates the above ideas, using the event in Acts 10 as a springboard! As I said, no one is safe from this doctrine. They do not just apply their doctrine to what might be called exceptional cases, though at times they would make much of this. No. They apply it to virtually everyone. It doesn’t matter if you had a God-fearing and God-devoted background as Cornelius had done, where even God was pleased with your service and devotion. It doesn’t matter if you have heard the fullness of the Gospel preached through the apostle Peter himself. It doesn’t matter if God had sovereignly baptised you in the Holy Spirit, as was the case with Cornelius. No, according to the above author, it is only ‘realistic’ to suppose that there were demons still residing in Cornelius – and therefore also reside in other Christians after their conversion - because of the ‘defilement that remains from the past’ (the scriptural basis for this notion in the case of Cornelius is not given!) and because of present imperfections! Thus we see that the author regards most Christians as a continuing prey to indwelling demons, whatever the manner of their conversion. This is his monumental presupposition which he reads into this passage. There is no scriptural indication that these people needed demons casting out of them before or after their conversion.

So we see that the whole point of the above vague language is to allow room for, and to give justification to, his teaching that the ‘remaining defilement’ and lack of perfection of these new converts are a basis for, and a indication of the activity of demons that have remained in them – and from which they will eventually need deliverance!

The latter part of the above statement refers to the past, but the former part refers to the present and future: "It would be unrealistic to think that every area of their lives had been brought into line with God’s standards by this one experience..."

Where might this thought be leading us? He proceeds by asking whether our whole personality is brought under the control of God’ Spirit immediately (at conversion). He then underlines two points. Firstly, that sanctification is an ongoing process, and that there is also an ongoing struggle with sin. He writes,

"It is now that we need the Holy Spirit, so that we may have His help available to us continually to overcome the power of evil and to attain to God’s standard of holiness. One particular area of conflict in which we need the Holy Spirit’s help is in dealing with demons. The Holy Spirit does not withhold His help if He discerns that there are demons within us. On the contrary, He sees our need…………and He empowers us to expel them……

Our progress depends on the degree to which we co-operate with the Holy Spirit within us" (page175,176). (Italics mine).

Not only does Derek Prince believe that it is common for most Christians to have demons remaining in them after conversion, but as we have seen in the above quotes, he plunges further into error by inventing a teaching that largely views the conflict with sin in the life of a Christian as resulting from the activity of indwelling demons, and growth in sanctification as dependent on the progressive expelling of demons. Here we have a new doctrine, found nowhere in the Bible - sanctification by the progressive and continual casting out of demons! More menacingly, we are told that our spiritual progress actually depends on us co-operating with the Holy Spirit (who will discern these demons and reveal to us their nature) in expelling them! So it is no surprise that he, along with other writers and teachers, view many of the imperfections, failings and sins of Christians as an indication of the activity of indwelling demons! If your ‘whole personality’ isn’t exhibiting perfection of behaviour, then it is quite possible that demons are behind your failings and problems. What’s more, your continued failings and sins can allow further demons to enter you.

This is their starting point by which they interpret all scripture. This is why they refer us to any number of scriptures which mention the carnal and sinful behaviour of believers, as though these scriptures prove their point - even though none of those scriptures identify indwelling demons as the cause of the problems or the casting out of such demons as the remedy. For these writers, the failings and sins of Christians, by definition can imply the presence of indwelling demons, or can result in Christians being inhabited by demons. This is their assumption and outlook! This is why Derek Price can teach that Cornelius and those of his household still needed deliverance from demons after they were baptised in the Spirit. He goes even one huge step further by teaching that Cornelius and those of his household still needed deliverance from demons after they were baptised in the Spirit, even though the scripture doesn’t allude to any kind of personal problems in their lives!

Not only do the proponents of these teachings view the difficulties with sin in a Christian’s life in the context of indwelling demons, but also protest that to teach otherwise (that is, if it were taught that we didn’t have demons in us who were responsible for our sin and failures) would put an intolerable burden on Christians because we would all feel under obligation to live perfectly! I would say that their ideas have reached a certain fullness of error and deception with such an astonishing outlook. Who is subject to such bizarre reasoning and logic except the people who promote these teachings on demons?

To illustrate the above points let me quote a little more from the author’s book:

"The teaching that every area of a person’s life must be totally clean before the Holy Spirit will indwell him may produce …… undesirable consequences." One of which is that a Christian who has received the Spirit might think, "I must have been perfect to have received the Holy Spirit, so now I’ve got to go on being perfect all the time." (Page 173).

To begin with, the idea that a person believing in Christ is not made completely clean by the blood of Jesus Christ is totally contrary to scripture! But of course his language is again evasive, because what he means by "totally clean" in the above quote is, "totally free of indwelling demons". Again, this is less than honest wordplay. He teaches that it is perfectly consistent that a person can be baptized in the Holy Spirit and yet be inhabited by demons, and he maintains that to teach otherwise is to plunge Christians into a sense of having to exhibit perfection of behaviour!

Talking about his own experience he says, "My release from demons has been progressive…" (Page 87).

Commenting on his own deliverance ministry among Christians he says, "Full deliverance, however, may not be immediate but progressive, as people come to understand the various areas of the lives that have been affected by demonic influence." (Page 73).

Commenting on an occasion when he believes his wife was delivered from a spirit of fear, he says, "So I am no longer taken aback by demonic conflict even in mature Christians." (Page 91).

So, not only do demons continue to inhabit us through our conversion and Baptism in the Spirit, but they continue to plague us and hinder our spiritual walk and growth until some kind of ‘discernment’ and expulsion occurs – a process which could last most of your life-time!

In defence of such strange ideas, he refers us to Colossians chapter 3, stating,

"Our ‘old man’ was crucified in Him so that the ‘new man’ might come to life in us. Just as a completely healthy human body is immune to cancerous cells, so the ‘new man’ in Christ is immune to demonic activity. Most Christians, however, have not yet arrived at this state of complete spiritual health. In my limited personal experience, I have to say I have encountered comparatively few Christians who did not seem vulnerable to demonic activity…….. there is an urgent need for Christians to learn all we can about the nature and activity of demons. This knowledge is important for all believers since none of us can claim immunity from the attacks of demons……. Without this knowledge ……… we will often be unable to make the correct diagnosis or to apply the appropriate remedy.." (Pages 110, 111).

In this remarkable passage, full of assumptions and wrong conclusions, he again makes the point that nobody is made completely perfect with regard to their behaviour after their conversion. However, this point can be made from appropriate scriptures (Phillipians 3:14) and without undermining or calling into question the fullness and efficacy of God’s redemption in cleansing and delivering us from sin when we are converted – as he does in the above quotes. He maintains though, that even as cancer can invade an unhealthy body, even so demons can invade and inhabit many Christians, since hardly any of them are able to live in the ‘new man’ continuously! This passage in Colossians exhorts us to resist temptations and sin on the basis of the great and effective work that God has accomplished on our behalf through Christ. It is meant to inspire us unto obedience. Derek Prince draws conclusions from this passage that are totally unwarranted – i.e. your lack of perfection is due to the demons that inhabit you, or, because you’re not perfect demons can still inhabit you! That’s the ‘doctrine’ - since none of us are perfect, it is inevitable that demons will indwell us! And if we don’t have this kind of esoteric knowledge and discernment about demons, then the ‘appropriate remedy’ will elude us! (But even if with such ‘discernment’, presumably we will never really be free of demons since none of us will ever be perfect in this life?) The problem with this teaching is that this huge jump in logic is nowhere to be found in this passage, nor in the rest of scripture. Why didn’t Paul forewarn us of these things if they are as Derek Prince describes them?

Again, we also see the ambiguous use of the term "immune to demonic activity". It cannot refer to being beyond the temptations and strategies that the devil would use against us, since even Christ was subject to these. We are all tempted, tested and tried. In the above quotes, ‘being vulnerable’ or ‘not immune to demonic activity’ really means ‘having a demon inside you’! It is interesting how, on the whole, he avoids using language that explicitly states what he actually believes – that demons can inhabit Christians - and instead talks about us being ‘subject to demonic pressure, attack or activity’.

"The doctrine that Christians are no longer subject to demonic activity can lead to……unfortunate results." (Page 160).

"It would be naïve to assume that being born again means we shall never again be subjected to demonic pressure." (Page 161).

These writers use language that others might use in particular contexts, but then apply it to different contexts. Failing to realise that others don’t go along with such wordplay, they impute to others their own lack of logic and thereby believe that they have placed their opponents into an "untenable" position. But they fail to realise that others do not accept their ‘logic’ and therefore do not hold these untenable views.

Consequently, they attack what no one is defending.

For example, the question is asked by some, "How can you say that Christians are immune to attacks from demons or the devil?" My response to this is, who on earth maintains such a thing? Where does such language or such a thought come from? If by ‘not being immune’, they mean we are subject to temptations from the devil and other trials, then this is so obviously true from scripture that we wonder why it needs to be debated. If they are referring to the possibility of a Christian being influenced by the devil to think and therefore also to behave wrongly, scripture also provides us with teaching and examples of this. I was surprised to find that this question was posed with so much seriousness and energy by some writers as though it is an issue. We are told to take the shield of faith to deflect the fiery arrows of the wicked one; we are told that the devil goes around like a roaring lion seeking whom he can devour; the Son of God was tempted and tried forty days in the wilderness. We are told that our conflict or battle is not with flesh and blood but with principalities and powers in heavenly places. The scriptures make it plain that Christians can be tempted, tried, deceived and ensnared by the devil and that it will be very much to our harm if we neglect the exhortations of scripture and give space to the devil in our thoughts and actions. How can anyone suggest that we are ‘immune’ to the attack or influence of the devil? It is absurd. What isn’t absurd is the wonderful safety and protection we do have in Christ when we abide in Him. Indeed, then nothing can harm us – we are kept wonderfully and perfectly safe in Him. If we walk in the obedience of faith and love, then God keeps us. Amen! This is immunity, if you like. The grand immunity that we have in Christ. Not that we shan’t be tempted and tried, but that we are perfectly kept in trials and temptations in Christ. If we neglect His word and live to please ourselves, then the scriptures make it abundantly clear that we bring harm on ourselves and on others. The real issue is that proponents of the deliverance ministry say that this ‘harm’ includes the possibility of demons inhabiting Christians.

This is the point of departure from those that teach concerning demons in Christians. They automatically assume that this ‘harm’ – this ‘not being immune’, of necessity includes Christians becoming inhabited by demons. However, none of the scriptures they allude to demonstrate or teach this. Nor can they find one in the whole of the Bible. This is why some writers make such an issue of this idea that Christians are ‘not immune’ to the attacks of the devil. This is why they spend so much time and effort in trying to prove what we already believe, as though we didn’t believe it. Simply because these writers believe they have won their argument as soon as anyone acknowledges that we are "not immune to the devil’s attacks", since for them this idea includes Christians being troubled by indwelling demons! For them, this expression is equal to saying that Christians can have demons! They fail to realise that others make no such wild assumptions! This is simply playing with words again, and they should not be surprised that others are not convinced by such a lack of logic, by such a priori reasoning and by such a complete failure to actually demonstrate their point that there were Christians in the NT who were troubled by indwelling demons and who needed those demons casting out of them! They need to show us scriptures that exemplify their teachings, not repeatedly refer us to scriptures where they read their own assumptions into passages.

But where does this lack of logic and blurring of issues lead us? Are these writers saying that those who come under the influence or attack of demons or the devil are ‘demonised’, since none are ‘immune’ to such influence and attack? Are they saying that every Apostle and every Christian in the NT (and today) who had ever been tempted by the devil, who had ever been the subject of demonic attack or influence, was therefore ‘demonised’ and needed demons casting out of them? Every time a Christian sins, does this result in him being inhabited by a demon? Did all the NT saints, including the Apostles (and what about Jesus in the wilderness?) need demons casting out of them? If not. Why not? Again we ask, what do their terms now mean? Or do these writers now allow that we must distinguish things that differ – that the devil can tempt, deceive, influence and even ensnare, without this resulting in demons inhabiting Christians? Now although such writers may not admit the absurd conclusions to which their own wordplay might lead them, some use this faulty logic and ambiguous terminology in order to conclude that ‘not being immune to demonic influence and attack’ of necessity includes, and results in Christians suffering from demons that inhabit them. The NT does not provide us with such reasoning, teaching or example. We could all agree that we are subject to the temptations and fiery darts of the devil, but this is no argument nor does it provide a biblical basis for saying that this inevitably must involve Christians being inhabited by demons.

This inability or unwillingness to distinguish things that clearly differ is abundantly exemplified when we are presented with the scriptures that are meant to "indicate" or "prove" that a Christian can be "demonised".

It must be said that Derek Prince does emphasize the importance and need for repentance as well as for a disciplined spiritual walk – the responsibility of the believer is highlighted. However, these points are swamped by the errors which take precedence over everything else.

Let us now look at the passages that are meant to be relevant, bearing in mind that at the heart of this teaching is the thought that just about any Christian can have a demon in him from his pre-conversion life, which is also the cause of problems that he may now have, and that continued failings in his life can also result in other demons inhabiting him. As we look at these passages of scripture, let us also take note of the kind of diagnosis that the writers make concerning problems in the lives of Christians and the type of exhortations given to remedy the situation.

According to some writers, this passage is meant to show us that a Christian can be ‘demonised’. However, there is no mention of demonic responsibility at all in this passage. Whatever demonic activity there may have been, it wasn’t relevant either to the diagnosis of, or the remedy to, the problem in terms of any ‘casting out’. There is no suggestion that the person was compelled to sin because of a demon or that they now need deliverance from a demon because of gross sin. It simply does not feature. On the contrary, according to the language used and the advice given by the apostle Paul, the person is held wholly responsible for his sin and unrepentant condition. Paul exhorts that he should be excluded from the church. This, together with his comments about committing the man to Satan so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, indicates that this was a believer, but a believer who was responsible for his own behaviour. In the Gospels we read about unclean spirits that were cast out of people, but there is no indication that this was the nature of the problem or the required remedy in this situation! Acts of incest are also regarded as a "work of the flesh" in scripture (Gal.5:19), and it doesn’t seem to be viewed as anything else in this passage. The man did not deny himself; he did not "put off" unclean desires or mortify the deeds of the body. He followed the desires of his own heart and flesh, and sinned deliberately. The scriptures teach us that Christ has made us free from sin and therefore we are to abide in Him and deny ourselves, yet it makes it plain that we can still please ourselves and live according to our own desires and lusts, if we so choose. Although the devil is always there to tempt and exploit any wrong desires we may have, in this matter we bear the prime responsibility, not the devil or demons. You cannot claim from scripture that such a sin of necessity presumes demonic control. Yes, of course the devil will exploit and inflame any opportunity that our own selfish behaviour provides him with, but the basis of the sin is our selfish desire and choice, not demonic compulsion or control – certainly this is not indicated by this passage to any degree whatsoever.

The fact that Paul was prepared to commit this man to Satan, "for the destruction of the flesh so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus", is taken by some to indicate that Christians can be ‘demonised’ by this kind of church discipline! It is impossible to see how allowing someone to be demonised can save their spirit! Neither here nor in any other passage is there any indication that a believer is ‘demonised’ by church discipline and certainly no mention is made of any eventual ‘deliverance’ that may be necessary from such ‘demonisation’. Far more likely is the interpretation, that as in the case of Israel when they repeatedly or grossly sinned, God removes specific and basic protection from our outward lives, allowing us to suffer various difficulties and afflictions that have the intention of bringing us to our senses and therefore to repentance.

All this impinges on the heart of the matter. Why should supporters of this teaching think that this passage indicates or proves that a Christian can be demonised, when it does no such thing? Simply because they read their own beliefs into the passage. This passage doesn’t indicate to us that this man had a demon in him that needed casting out. What is revealed by reference to this passage, is the fact that supporters of this doctrine easily and hastily interpret sinful behaviour as being essentially demonic – the result of demonic compulsion or control and therefore they see a fundamental part of the solution as having the demon cast out of the Christian. So they read their own theology into the passage and expect us to be convinced! But all the teaching and instructions of the apostles to Christians reveal to us that sin is essentially a matter of our own unbelief or selfish desires and the main remedy is repentance. As I said, this has brought us to the heart of the matter. Their reference to this passage reveals how their interpretation is determined by their own outlook; the passage itself does not confirm their outlook in any way. This is what happens in virtually all of the passages that they refer us to.

It is apparent here that prayer against, or deliverance from demons played no part in the apostle’s counsel in dealing with this man. Though it is clear from scripture that the devil plays a part in all sin, demonic activity isn’t even mentioned as a secondary or subsidiary cause of anything, nor is prayer against such activity seen as even part of any remedy. The incest is viewed as the man’s sin and in view of his unrepentant attitude, Paul determines church discipline as the course of action.

This is another passage that is supposed to show that believers may still need deliverance from demons after conversion, or that demonic activity is responsible for people’s problems. Again, this passage neither indicates nor proves any such thing. On the contrary, it points us in the opposite direction. We are told in this passage that Simon the sorcerer believed the preaching of Philip and was baptised. He then offered money to the apostles so that he might receive power to impart the Holy Spirit to others also. I believe this is one of the most fundamental and revealing passages concerning this whole debate. It strikes a blow at the very heart and foundation of the teaching of those who see many of the problems that Christians have in terms of demonic control or influence, and deliverance in terms of the casting out of demons – though they also do acknowledge that repentance plays a part.

Let us look at Peter’s response to Simon’s request. Where does he indicate that even part of the problem is demonic control or even demonic influence, or a demonic blinding of Simon’s understanding? Where is it mentioned that there is a "demonic stronghold" in Simon’s attitude and that Simon needs to be freed from this ‘stronghold’? Where does Peter suggest in any way that Simon needs deliverance from demons that are still influencing or inhabiting him? The problem for the proponents of this teaching is that Peter makes no such remarks concerning the involvement or influence of demons in this matter! Nor is such a diagnosis of, or such an approach to, a Christian’s problems found anywhere in the NT!

Leaving aside the matter to what extent Simon was a true believer, let us concentrate on the diagnosis and remedy given by the apostle Peter who no doubt was directed by the wisdom and discernment given to him by God in this situation.

He firstly pinpoints that Simon’s heart is not right in the sight of God. It’s Simon’s heart state that is wrong. It is his own disposition of pride and covetousness that is the real problem here. His problem is not attributed to any other cause.

Peter’s exhortation is that Simon should repent. What should he repent of? His wickedness. He is to pray that that the thought of his heart should be forgiven him! This lack of repentance in Simon has kept him in "the gall of bitterness and in the bond of unrighteousness". No blaming of demons here or praying that demons should leave him! Nor is it indicated that this repentance is just a prelude to some necessary casting out of demons. What is perhaps even more remarkable here is that if Simon was a ‘believer’, he was in a pretty bad way in his thinking and he had very recently been seriously involved in the occult. However, Peter makes no reference to this involvement at all, even though Simon had been famous for this in that region.

All major modern proponents of ‘deliverance ministry’ would not have hesitated in diagnosing Simon’s problem as demonic and urged ‘deliverance ministry’ as absolutely essential. This would have been a classic case for them of indwelling demons ‘surfacing’ subsequent to conversion – a demonic ‘stronghold’ in Simon’s mind from which he needed deliverance. Apostolic teaching and action demolishes their approach in this instance! In the nature of things, the devil would obviously want to incite wrong attitudes in Simon and then to exploit them further, but this is not the heart of the problem. Particularly in the light of the truth of the Gospel which Simon had heard, it was for him to humble himself and repent of pride, greed and all wickedness.

This passage is not some kind of revelation that confirms this teaching about demons in believers; it is a revelation about the assumptions that proponents of this teaching make and the approach they adopt in dealing with problems that believers have.

Peter’s rebuke and exhortation strike at the very heart of this teaching. Here is a man with a totally wrong attitude and who had been heavily involved in the occult. Yet not a word about needing deliverance from demonic influence of any kind! If Simon was a true believer then Peter’s counsel and approach stand in strong contrast to this teaching about demons. If Simon was not what we could call a true believer, then Peter’s comments are even more remarkable and devastating for this teaching because he doesn’t attribute the root of Simon’s problems to demonic activity at all! What was Peter’s approach in dealing with this man – to urge him to repent of his wickedness. In all the exhortations and teachings to Christians in the NT, there is no variation or qualification to this advice regarding those that sin or who are deceived – except it be church discipline or divine judgement.

The above severe remarks apply to such a case as Simon’s. Such judgements are not to be arbitrarily applied to any genuine Christian who may be struggling with personal problems and grieving because of this condition. There are other reasons for our failure in Christian living such as having fallen into discouragement or unbelief. As I said at the beginning, this is not a counselling manual, so it is particularly important to take all comments in the context they are given and not to apply them haphazardly.

In this passage a man and his wife lie to the apostle Peter concerning money that they had withheld. It was a deliberate act on their part and the obvious reason was greed. They also obviously belonged to the believing community of Christians.

Now, we are told that Christians can invite demons into them by sinful behaviour, and this passage is quoted as an example of this. However, neither here nor anywhere else in the NT is sinful behaviour among Christians diagnosed as a pretext for casting demons out of them! What is clear from this passage is that Ananias and Sapphira themselves are considered responsible for their sinful action. In no way are they the innocent victims of the devil. They had made a cold decision and their conscience doesn’t appear to have troubled them in what they were doing. In view of everything that God had done and was doing among them in Jerusalem, they suffered immediate judgement for their actions. This surely underlines the truth that Ananias and Sapphira were totally responsible for what they had done. Peter’s question also points to their own responsibility in this matter, "Why has Satan filled your heart?" The whole point of the "why" is to indicate that they had allowed Satan to influence them. It was their own corruption of heart and covetousness that had given Satan this influence in leading them to this extreme act of deception. At no point is there any concession made to the idea that they now have a demon dwelling in them or that demons need casting out of them. "Satan filling their heart…" may simply refer to the fact that our own greed and selfishness can reach such extreme proportions that it allows the devil to have considerable sway in our thinking and actions. Their selfishness had reached such an extreme that it identified itself with the nature of Satan. And for this they were judged.

Let us now look at this significant passage which has a lot to teach us and which some would use to show that believers can have demons. We will leave aside the whole issue of whether Christ, who could so easily expel all demons from those that came to Him, should choose to leave a demon dwelling in Peter if indeed that was the cause of his problem here! This incident takes place before Calvary but Peter was a believer and follower of Christ and this passage is noteworthy for the nature of the rebuke that Jesus delivers to Peter.

Peter had a wrong image of God. He thought God should rule in might and not suffer at all nor let anyone get the better of Him. God is the one who would conquer all those that opposed Him. He would always be seen to be the greatest and win over men. That was Peter’s image of God. That’s what he thought God should be like – not to appear as someone who suffers or is weak. So when Jesus revealed to the apostles that He, as the Christ, would be rejected of men, suffer and die, Peter couldn’t accept this image of God and rebuked Jesus and told Him that He shouldn’t let these things happen to Him! Perhaps Peter thought that men should be strong and fight (like when he cut off the high priest’s ear). Nevertheless, even though it astonished Peter, Jesus expected him to consider what He said and submit to this revelation of God. But Peter found it difficult to humble himself to this revelation. If the Son of God was going to humble Himself like this, then this could mean that Peter might have to humble himself too – all this was too much for him and so he rebuked Jesus. Jesus turned to Peter and said, "Get behind me Satan. You are an offence to me, for you do not consider the things of God, but the things of men."

Jesus didn’t here say that a person is hindered from following Him because of the devil. He didn’t say that Peter needed some kind of deliverance from the devil or a demon. No! He told Peter that his attitude was wrong. He had the wrong standards and was loving the wrong things. He was loving himself and trying to save himself pain, loss and humiliation. This is very much like the mindset of the devil.

What was the remedy for all this, according to the Lord Jesus? He said that a person had to deny himself and take up his cross and consider the things of God. This is what it would mean to follow Jesus. And following Jesus would entail losing one’s life - loss, humiliation and apparent defeat - the very things that Peter was finding so difficult and which therefore gave the devil opportunity to infiltrate Peter’s wrong attitude with his own proud thoughts in order to tempt Jesus to please Himself. Jesus turned to His disciples to give them fundamental teaching concerning the thing that really prevents a person from following Him – teaching which issued out of this very exchange with Peter. He identified the heart of the problem, not as demon possession or demonic control, but in selfish choices based on pride and self-love! What we have here is not a clear and submissive heart being somehow wrongly influenced by the devil. No. It was the proud and resistant heart of Peter that gave the devil such an opportunity to communicate his temptations to Jesus.

This was a very strong rebuke that Jesus gave to Peter. Jesus used the same expression as He had used in His temptations in the wilderness. Jesus regarded these words of Peter as another of the devil’s strategies to deflect Him from doing His Father’s will. Jesus was not casting the devil "out of " Peter. Jesus was not saying that Peter was innocent here and that it was the devil who was keeping him in blindness and bondage. Jesus didn’t set about delivering Peter from the devil’s influence as though this would have been the answer to the problem. Nor did He tell Peter that his need was to be ‘delivered’ from a demon or the devil’s influence. The devil goes around as a roaring lion and his influence is always about! Jesus had been delivering all sorts of people from demons when they needed this. This was not a problem to Him. However, it wasn’t what Peter needed here. No. Jesus was blaming Peter fairly and squarely for his own attitudes and choices – and Jesus was showing Peter how serious his error was by telling him that his thoughts were the thoughts of the devil. Peter was aligning himself to the very mindset of the devil by resisting this revelation of God. Peter was not denying himself, not humbling himself. He was considering the things that are important to man, not to God. It was to do with the disposition of his own heart. Peter aligned himself with the way and spirit of the devil, which is to fight for one’s rights and to exalt oneself. Peter gave the devil space and opportunity to influence his heart with thoughts that opposed the Spirit of the Lamb of God. It was because of this alignment, this identification with the disposition of the devil, this giving of ground and opportunity for the devil to work in his life, that Jesus said these words to Peter. It is this pride that gives the devil opportunity to deceive us and wrongly influence us. But it is a deception and influence that is broken by repentance. We know how Peter repented later with tears when all his heroism and grand ideas collapsed. It was the disposition of his heart and the attitude of his mind that was altered through repentance, which then also denied the devil opportunity to work through him in this way. Peter didn’t need prayer for ‘deliverance’. The Saviour did pray for Peter – that his faith should not fail! And this is often the cause of people’s problems – they put their trust in other things and don’t exercise that proper faith, trust and submission in a loving, gracious God.

Again, we see that this passage also stands in contra-distinction to this teaching regarding the ‘demonisation’ of believers.

If by demonisation you mean that a believer can be influenced by the devil, then I have no contention except to say you’re using the wrong word to describe what is happening here. If by demonisation you mean that Peter had allowed a demon in him which needed casting out of him, then there is nothing in this passage that supports or illustrates this.

In nothing that He says does the Lord Jesus indicate that even part of the solution to Peter’s problem is deliverance from some kind of demon! Repentance from pride and a denial of oneself is the remedy given by the Lord here. This is of vital understanding in this whole subject. A believer can be deceived and ensnared by the devil, but this does not represent the ‘demonisation’ of a believer as far as NT teaching is concerned. Repeatedly we will see this truth. In the NT, although false teachings can indeed issue from demonic sources, the root cause of deception and ensnarement of Christians is never portrayed as demonic ‘control’ of Christians and it is certainly never regarded as the result of demons residing in Christians which therefore need casting out of them. The root cause is always portrayed as the waywardness or sin of the believer himself, which gives the devil opportunity to deceive and ensnare. This waywardness or sin needs to be repented of before God and it is this repentance which brings the believer out of any deception and breaks the ensnarement. That is the message of this passage and every passage that we shall look at, and it is the consistent teaching found to Christians in the NT. We are not spitting hairs here! It is vital to distinguish things that differ for it crucially affects the way we diagnose a problem and how we counsel Christians.

This appropriately brings us onto our next passage, which further illustrates what I have just said above.

Of all the passages in the NT, for me it is this one that would most likely point us in the direction of the idea that Christians can have evil spirits. I don’t resist this notion as long as it can be shown from the scriptures. The language used in this passage is quite stark. (The following is a slight adaptation of what I wrote concerning this passage in the second article on "Curses".)

In verse 3 Paul says he fears that as Eve was, even so the Corinthians might be deceived from the simplicity that is in Christ by the cunning of the devil. But notice that Paul makes no mention of praying against the devil, or of binding or breaking his power, or praying for deliverance from his evil deceptions. He nowhere indicates that the Corinthians need some kind of prayer of deliverance from demonic powers – whether they be ‘within’ them or ‘outside’ of them. If the Corinthians had been innocent victims of the devil’s interference, then Paul might have had reason to advise something like this. Or if their carnality had resulted in them being inhabited by demons who needed casting out of them, or were in danger of this happening, then the apostle would have had reason and obligation to warn them that they were in such a state and that they would need demons casting out of them. However, this was not the nature of the problem since Paul makes no such diagnosis of their condition neither gives any such warning nor suggests any need of demons being cast out of them at any stage. Paul is not directly blaming the devil for their problems. He is concerned that their carnal behaviour and selfish desires had given the devil opportunity and ground to deceive them. Remember, it was God who allowed the serpent into the Garden of Eden and it was the Holy Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. God allows trials but expects His people to stand, believing and trusting in His love and Truth, so that they should come forth as gold from these trials, stronger in Him and in his grace.

In verse 4 he tells them that they are ready and prepared to receive another Jesus, another spirit and another gospel. These people are ripe unto deception! Serious deception. But he neither rebukes the devil nor bids them rebuke him, as if this were the real problem and the required solution. No! He exposes the carnality of their actions and attitudes. He warns them of the seriousness of their condition, which is robbing them of their ability to discern the truth and the Spirit of Christ. It is this carnal conduct that is making them a prey to the devil’s deceptions. It is in this context that he says they are ready even to receive another spirit – not a spirit that resides in them literally controlling their thoughts, but a spirit that has been given ground to operate in their midst and was able to lead them into further deceptions because of their carnal attitudes and actions.

Paul’s way of dealing with this problem is to present them with the truth, as it is in Christ, and thereby also expose their carnal attitudes and behaviour. The purpose of such exhortation and warning was to lead them to an understanding of the truth, which should then lead them to repent and turn from such conduct and attitudes. And it is this repentance that would then deliver them from the work of such a spirit. If Paul had indicated in any way that "receiving another spirit" meant that they were actually giving ground to a demon to reside in them, controlling some aspect of their thinking or living, and that they would need deliverance from such a demon, then an irrefutable case could be made for Christians needing such a deliverance from demons in circumstances such as this. However, nothing like this is indicated in this passage.

Let us also remember that Paul was writing to a church, not an individual. It was a group of believers that was prepared to receive false teachers into their midst who would bring in wrong teachings. This would bring them under the influence of a wrong spirit that was behind the false teaching; that is, they would receive a wrong spirit into their midst. So the meaning of the expression may relate to a deceiving influence which they had received into their midst, rather than them individually being inhabited by a spirit which needed casting out of them. This too may explain why he was only interested in bringing them back to the truth in order to set things right among them, rather than directing them to the need of some kind of personal or even corporate deliverance from demonic powers.

What led to such a serious condition among them? Like many today, the Corinthians loved to have the signs and wonders. It is wonderful when God accompanies the preaching of His Gospel with signs and wonders, but it becomes a problem among Christians when they crave after these things almost like some kind of drug in their meetings, as was happening at Corinth, with their love for outward appearance, the impressive, the spectacular, the dramatic and the supernatural, which also led them to speak in tongues far beyond what was necessary or edifying. Paul challenges the Corinthian believers in 2 Cor.10:7, because they look on things according to the outward appearance. They loved the things that looked outwardly impressive and gave importance to a person, and it was for this reason that some of them didn’t want Paul’s ministry and some also questioned Paul’s standing as an apostle, 1 Cor.9:1-6; 2 Cor.7:2; 10:7-10; 11:23; 12:11,12. Some at Corinth actually thought Paul’s presence and ministry was weak and ineffectual. If it were today, people would say that he wasn’t preaching "under the anointing", that he didn’t have an "anointed ministry". Some of them neither recognised the ministry of Christ nor the Spirit of Christ that was in Paul. They were so engaged in asserting their rights, trying to be important and impressive, and so busy looking for those spectacular things which they thought represented God in their midst and made them more special than others, that they could not recognise the truth and Spirit of Christ even if it were before their eyes! (Gal.3:1). They were behaving and thinking just like Peter had done in Matt.16 which we considered above. Paul beseeches them by the meekness and gentleness of Christ in 2 Cor.10:1. Paul had walked according to this meek and gentle Spirit when he was among them but they had not recognised Christ – in him! Paul had worked with his hands and had not asked the Corinthians for any financial support. He had been among them as one who loved and served them, 2 Cor.12:14,15. This is the Spirit that some of them did not and could not recognise because of the pride and carnal desires of their own heart. They couldn’t understand a man who was gentle and serving among them, and who wouldn’t promote himself or seek some profit for himself from them! He tells them in 2 Cor.11:19,20 that they gladly receive someone who promotes himself, who brings them into bondage and demands money from them because of the importance of his ministry. The more someone promotes himself and rules over them, the more the Corinthians are impressed and will submit to such a person! But all this is to do with pride of heart and glorying in the flesh, which makes people an easy prey for the devil! And it is because of these things that the Corinthians were being deceived by the devil. The Corinthians gave him easy ground and opportunity to deceive them. Their whole mentality was one that the devil could exploit! Just as Peter had done because of his carnal considerations, so these Corinthians allowed themselves to become a prey to the devil’s devices and thoughts. Here, as in all his writings, Paul does not exhort them to rebuke the devil and his power. Neither as a root cause nor as even as a secondary measure, does Paul intimate that they will need special deliverance from demonic strongholds – even though he has talked about them being ready to receive another spirit! No. He presents the truth as it is in Christ to their hearts; he exposes their errors and their carnal attitudes and behaviour, and exhorts them to turn away from these things and to receive the truth. This is what will bring cleansing and true liberty, namely, their own repentance - as had already happened on a previous occasion in 2 Cor.7:10,11. In this seventh chapter we see that it was repentance – godly sorrow - that led to a complete turn around in their disposition, where they were both cleansed and cleared of the things that had polluted or restricted them. Again, in this situation it would be repentance that would mightily break down any strongholds - exalted ideas - in their minds! These "strongholds" are established by the carnal and unbelieving disposition of a person’s heart – which of course gives the devil opportunity to strengthen such a stronghold by feeding in suggestions that appeal to that same carnal disposition. It’s no good trying to do something about the demonic influence here – the person needs to repent of their wrong attitudes.

The ground for their deception was not some superior power that the devil has over the Lord’s people, but the pride and selfishness of their own heart (Obadiah verse 3), and it is repentance that would bring them back into the life and Spirit of the Lord and also deprive the devil of further opportunity to deceive them.

Everything that we have said about dealing with church problems in the above passage of scripture relating to the Corinthians, can equally be said concerning the problems that Paul addressed in his letter to the Galatian churches. Let us also notice that when writing to the Galatians, Paul nowhere mentions the need to pray for demons to be cast out of believers, even though they were on the verge of losing true faith in Christ, even though they were under serious deception. But he does express his desire that those who are wrongly teaching them should be "cut off". As in the Corinthian letters so here also he implies a devilish involvement in their deception (Gal.3:1), but it is not against the devil that he prays or exhorts them to pray. His main concern is the false teachers who fill God’s people with wrong ideas, which lead to carnal and selfish behaviour and even departure from true faith. So it is false teaching that he wants to remove and false behaviour that he is confronts in his teaching – there is no exhortation that they need to be delivered from demons. Their wrong believing and their wrong behaviour is the root of the problem. By presenting them with the truth as it is in Christ, he seeks to lead them to repentance from wrong beliefs and from carnal behaviour.

It is interesting to note here that in the previous chapter of 2 Corinthians, Paul mentions the pulling down of strongholds and reasonings that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, and the bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

Is not this the devil’s work, namely, to feed into men and women thoughts and ideas that oppose the true nature of God and so rob them of His grace and blessing? Thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God so that the person doesn’t believe or submit to God and His truth. Isn’t this what happened to Peter in Matthew 16? Isn’t this what happened to Eve in the Garden? Isn’t this what happened to Israel in the wilderness? Isn’t this what was happening to the Corinthians? Their proud and carnal attitudes had made space for the devil to work and deceive them so that their understanding of God was false, even to the point where they were actually opposing His truth and His Spirit? They were exalting themselves - above the knowledge of God! It is in this context of dealing with their carnal attitudes that Paul brings out this aspect of using spiritual weapons against these strongholds of exalted self-opinion, which the devil obviously loves to foster. Paul emphasises the truth that God’s power equips us to deal with every thought that would tempt us and lead us astray. No thought need dominate us or rob us of the knowledge of God!

Here he warns the Corinthians against judging things by their outward appearance; verse 7. Praying against ‘demonic strongholds’ is not mentioned as a strategy to deal with the problems they themselves have created. Declaring the truth as it is in Christ and exposing the carnality of the believers was Paul’s manifest method of bringing down the strongholds in people’s minds and of dealing with their problems, that is, by leading them to repentance from vain thoughts. In 2 Cor.79-11, Paul rejoices over their repentance which thoroughly dealt with everything and did not require the further need of some kind of deliverance ministry! (Some modern writers have developed a whole theology around the idea of ‘strongholds’ which basically imputes more power and authority to evil spirits than they actually have in this matter. It is a kind of dualistic teaching that robs the Gospel and godly counselling of its foundation of righteousness and truth - of its necessary and legitimate moral imperative - by portraying us as victims of the devil in a way that goes beyond anything the scriptures teach or give example of. By ‘moral imperative’, I am not referring to some fleshly ability that we have to do God’s will. I am referring to that onus that God has placed on us to believe and obey the Gospel in the light of all He has done for us and in the context of the grace He provides.)

Paul was concerned to present the truth of God to their hearts with the evident belief and purpose that this would bring about a change of understanding and a repentance that would not only result in their cleansing but also that would bring down those opposing strongholds in their minds and thus clear them of the influence and activity of other spirits in their lives.

How did the apostle Paul deal with all the problems of the Corinthian church? Does he speak of demonic strongholds that need to be prayed against and broken? No. Does he speak about a ‘stronghold’ of division, a ‘stronghold’ of lust or a ‘stronghold’ of deceiving spirits among the Corinthians? No he doesn’t. Such language is a misapplication of scripture - at best. Does he speak of them being "demonized" or in danger of being demonized? He certainly doesn’t. He fears for their spiritual well-being because of their carnal behaviour, not because of some superior power the devil has! He uses the word ‘fear’ because there is nothing that can be done for them while they persist in wrong attitudes – the devil has got legitimate ground to work on. So he goes to the root of the problem. He corrects them concerning their carnal attitudes and behaviour.

This was Paul’s approach right at the beginning of his first letter to the Corinthians. What was the basis of their divisions? Their carnal attitude and behaviour, and he plainly tells them this in 1 Cor.3:1-4. This is what he addresses, not ‘demonic strongholds’ or ‘demonisation’! He doesn’t even allude to such things. On the contrary, as he proceeds in this third chapter, he warns and reminds them that they are God’s temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in them! Of course the devil can ruin our lives if we let him by not believing and obeying Christ. But notice the burden and weight of scripture in this chapter, which doesn’t indulge in warnings of demonisation, but rather warns of God’s judgement against those that commit deliberate and gross sin, verses 13 to 17.

When dealing with the believers who go to court against one another (1 Cor.6), Paul doesn’t mention a ‘stronghold’ of greed and self-righteousness, or that there has been an ‘invasion’ of demons among these believers, or that the devil is in anyway responsible for their sin. He presents them with Christ! He instructs them and corrects their behaviour in the light of Christ’s nature and teaching! In view of their serious misconduct, does the apostle warn them of the danger of inviting demons into their lives; of the need to break a ‘stronghold’ of greed in them; of the need of some kind of deliverance? No! He rebukes them for their contentious behaviour and warns them that those who behave unrighteously shall not inherit the kingdom of God. This is the nature of his warning which is stern enough and which also puts the responsibility for their conduct fairly and squarely on their own shoulders. The whole problem centres round the issue of responsible behaviour before God, not demonic influence or invasion of a believer. He tells them that they used to be unrighteous sinners and reminds them that they have been washed, sanctified and justified in and through Christ! He brings them back to consider what God has done for, and in them and exhorts them to believe and behave accordingly! His exhortations are based on the truth that they are the temple of God, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, not on some kind of ‘insight’ that they were now the habitation of demons! How different is the approach of the apostles in dealing with the faults and sins of believers to the approach of modern writers and ministers who see a demon behind, and in so many things – including in Christians! In this whole chapter Paul targets their attitudes and conduct - and nothing else – contrasting these to what Christ has done for, and in them.

It is no different when we read what Paul has to say about those Corinthian believers who were eating meat that had been offered to idols. Not only were they buying such meat in the market place but some of the Christians were actually eating this meat at the idol’s temple. They allowed themselves this ‘liberty’ because they regarded this meat as meat, and not as something impure because it had been offered to idols. How did Paul deal with this situation? Firstly, he warns them that they are sinning by setting an example that is causing other believers to stumble because these other believers eat this meat as though it were defiled meat. Paul rebukes their attitude which was one of uncaring disregard for their brethren and which issued out of high-mindedness – chapter 8. In chapter 10 he makes it clear that the context in which they eat this meat is important. The meat is actually being offered to demons who inspire the idolatry and Paul makes it clear that they shouldn’t be having fellowship with demons by partaking of this meat. Then Paul returns to his original concern, namely, that they are showing an unchristian disregard for others who may completely misunderstand their actions. He corrects them for having an attitude that is more concerned in pleasing oneself than seeking the good of others.

In all this, there is no suggestion, warning or teaching that they might now be ‘demonised’, that is, inhabited by demons from which they need deliverance or which need casting out of them. These thoughts do not feature. He rebukes them for their attitude and conduct with regard to other believers and warns them that they shouldn’t be sharing food with demons! In everything he says, he addresses their conduct and attitude and expects a change in both. Their change in attitude and their altered conduct is seen as the remedy here, not deliverance from demonic powers or influence.

In 2 Cor.6 he returns to this theme and warns them not to be "unequally yoked" with unbelievers or share things with them in the temple of idols, since they themselves are the temple of God. Please note that Paul repeatedly reminds them that they are the habitation of God and the Holy Spirit; he nowhere indicates that they might have become the "habitation of dragons (demons)". His constant message is that because they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, their actions are to be different from the world’s. He exhorts them to separate themselves from the unholy and idolatrous practices of unbelievers. This leads to his further exhortation that they should cleanse themselves from all uncleaness of flesh and spirit, which in the context would refer to the action of separating themselves from fellowship with idolatrous unbelievers and thus cleanse themselves from the pollution that resulted from this carnal behaviour. What is required is changed behaviour and repentance which leads to cleansing. The ‘uncleaness of spirit’ mentioned by Paul in this passage is not cast in the context of demonisation and the need to have demons cast out of one. It is to do with sanctifying oneself, separating and cleansing oneself of polluting influences.

It is noteworthy that whatever the sin or misconduct among the Corinthians was, the apostle Paul never deals with it in terms of deliverance from demonic powers – at any stage. There is no statement of his that warns them that they might now have demons and that these demons need rebuking out of them, as part of the solution or as part of their deliverance. This is true of all the NT epistles and it reflects a fundamental truth that is essential in dealing with problems that Christians have.

Before we leave the topic of deception, which we have been considering above, we shall just mention some other scriptures that relate to the false teachers themselves. The following scriptures are used to indicate or prove that Christians can have demons in them.

We have already seen from Paul’s letters to the Corinthians that demonic powers using false teachers can bring false teachings and a false spirit into the church. We have also seen that Paul never counselled deliverance from indwelling demons to those believers who had been, or were being seduced by such false teachers. Let us also notice in these passages that nowhere do the apostles mention that the false teachers themselves are indwelt by demons. And if these false teachers were, or had been Christians, nowhere do the apostles indicate that those false teachers need urgent deliverance from indwelling demons. The passage in Timothy makes no mention whether those that spread the false teachings are Christians; and if some were, there is still no scriptural confirmation that this means that they were inhabited by demons rather than seduced in their minds by demonic influence. Whatever the case, Paul certainly doesn’t refer to any need for such false teachers to be delivered from indwelling demons. There is simply no pastoral concern or instruction along those lines! The same can be said for the passage in Corinthians. Many in the Corinthian church did not recognise Paul as an apostle and many were quite ready to receive wrong teachings and false prophets into their midst. The powers of spiritual discernment were certainly undermined by their carnal disposition! There is no evidence to suggest that the person who may have been blaspheming among them was a true believer – even though they, in their carnal condition, thought he might have been one. And again we are faced with the fact that Paul’s own pastoral approach in dealing with this problem lacks any mention of demons residing in the person concerned nor does he warn of the need for such a person to have a demon cast out of him. In John’s letter it is the same, although here John seems to identify the false teachers as not being true believers, 1 John 2:19; 3:4,5. In 2 Peter, if the false prophets had been believers before, there is no pastoral warning about them needing deliverance from demons. He refers to them as people who have made ultimate choices and for whom there was judgement awaiting. And again concerning them and those that follow them, there is no mention of any need of deliverance from indwelling demons.

It becomes apparent, as we have already seen, that where they may be demonic activity and influence, modern proponents of the deliverance ministry readily, if not automatically equate this with demonisation, that is, the believer becoming inhabited by a demon, which of course will then need to be cast out. This is why they refer us to scriptures like these, because they believe that the demonic activity involved in false teachings (which I would not deny), of necessity results in believers being inhabited by demons. But the very scriptures they quote do not substantiate such a diagnosis nor do they exhort the ‘remedy’ of casting demons out of believers or the false teachers.

So there are several problems with this proposition. First, it is uncertain that the above false teachers and prophets were, or had been, Chrisitans. Far more crucially, nowhere do the apostles offer the diagnosis or warning that those false teachers were inhabited by demons nor did they point out the need of some (eventual) casting out of such demons from those false teachers. It is simply an unjustifiable leap in reasoning to say, "Look. Demonic forces were working through false teachers to lead God’s people astray. Therefore it follows that they had demons in them. Therefore it follows that true believers who genuinely want to follow the Lord will also need demons cast out of them when they have any serious problems in their life." None of these things ‘follow’ from these passages! Is it not an abandonment of pastoral care in counselling to equate these two very different cases as if they were the same; namely, is the condition of a false prophet - as described by the apsotels - to be compared to that of genuine believer wanting to overcome a problem in his life? And how can you apply a ‘remedy’ to the true believer that wasn’t even counselled for the false teachers? Nothing is mentioned about deliverance from demons in these passages!

2 TIMOTHY 2:24-26

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Paul is here instructing Timothy concerning those that oppose (the truth of God) and thereby "oppose themselves" as the AV puts it, which is to say, they bring damage to their own lives by such opposition. Such opposition to the truth by individuals results in them being ensnared by the devil. Their hardness of heart and unbelief give Satan opportunity and scope to bring them into bondage to wrong thoughts and actions. Leaving aside the issue of whether Paul is here referring to believers or sinners, let us look at how he advised Timothy to deal with people in such a condition.

He exhorts that those that oppose the truth should be instructed in meekness, which was also the approach he adopted in dealing with the carnal behaviour and attitude of the Corinthians, "Now I Paul myself beseech you by the gentleness and meekness of Christ…", 2 Cor.10:1. The Greek verb that is translated as "instructing" in the above passage is paideuo, which apart from meaning "to teach", also carries the meaning of "to correct" or "to put right". Thus it is used in Rev.3:19, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten"; and in Hebrews 12:6,7 we read of fathers who chasten their children. So, those that stand in opposition to the truth should be instructed and corrected with meekness as a means of giving God an opportunity to make them realize their error and sin; and it is through this repentance that they awaken (again) out of the snare of the devil and the hold he had on them. This is the biblical approach adopted by Paul and the other apostles and it underlines what I have been saying in this article. If it is believed that these verses in 2 Timothy refer to backslidden believers, please note Paul’s counselling instructions! There is no mention of binding or casting out of demons. It is through the presentation of truth, which will also involve correction, that souls are to be led to repentance from attitudes that were the ground on which the devil could deceive and ensnare them – their repentance and acknowledging of the truth awakens or recovers them out of the snare of the devil. This was Paul’s principal approach in dealing with problems among the Corinthian believers.

More could be said about this passage in 2 Timothy but I trust sufficient has been said to point out the truths conveyed here concerning counselling such people and also to make clear that there is nothing here that indicates that Christians might need deliverance from demons.

So here we have some of the major passages which are meant to prove that Christians can have demons residing in them. The first thing we can say is that none of these passages, nor any others like them in the NT, prove or even indicate any such thing. We have seen that in no case do the apostles identify indwelling demons as the cause of any problems in the lives of God’s people. In no case do they counsel deliverance from indwelling demons as the solution or even as part of the solution for such problems – whether it’s to do with sin, carnal behaviour (individual or corporate) false teaching or demonic deception.

What can be the reason for this? Were the Christians of the NT holier than we are today? Not at all. The scriptures give us an honest account of all kinds of carnal behaviour, sin, personal and corporate problems, deceptions and false teachings that occurred at that time. These scriptures give us an account of the very kind of problems that modern writers say are due to indwelling demons – but the very scriptures they quote do not agree with their own diagnosis nor do these passages counsel deliverance from indwelling demons as a solution. It simply does not feature in any wise or guise! It is no wonder that is does not feature. The Greek word daimonizomai which is translated as "to be demonised" or "to be possessed by a demon" only occurs in the Gospels! It only occurs in the context of evangelism where demons are cast of those who hear the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

If the people in the above passages were ‘demonised’, then let us all recognise that indwelling demons were not the cause of the problems and the casting out of any such demons formed no part of the solution to them!

Some writers acknowledge this obvious truth, namely, that there are no instances of demons being cast out of Christians in the NT, yet they maintain that there is no scripture that says that a Christian can’t have a demon dwelling in them! On the basis of this ‘argument of silence’ they proceed to build with a logic that says: since no scripture says a Christian can’t have a demon, therefore it must be possible for a Christian to have a demon and therefore Christians will need deliverance from such demons! This is unthinking and disingenuous. The scriptures are not silent on this matter. They provide positive and practical biblical instruction concerning both the diagnosis of, and remedy for all the different kinds problems that Christians have. The approach varies from exhortation and teaching, to correction, rebuke and judgement; but the approach is consistent in all the passages and does not stay into other methods of handling problems – and certainly never involves the casting out of demons from believers. Why is this virtually totally ignored by modern authors who promote these ideas of ‘demonised’ Christians? In the passages we have looked at, the apostles do not fall into a despairing silence because they are at a loss to know what to do or how to counsel and instruct God’s people. In all of the passages that deal with the carnal behaviour of believers and the deceptions they fall into, Jesus and the apostles provide a definite diagnosis concerning the nature and cause of the problem and they offer counsel and instruction concerning the appropriate remedy. The above passages are quoted by these modern writers themselves as relating to ‘demonisation’! Will they now ignore the instruction and remedy that these very passages reveal unto us? How can someone say, "Look, here are examples of demonisation. Now, the apostles consistently applied a different approach to the one we are advocating in dealing with the problems of Christians. However, since the apostles don’t say we can’t use another approach in dealing with such cases, we feel justified in using an approach that the apostles never used and that was never mentioned by them!" Is this not bizarre?

What can explain such extreme inconsistency? I believe it springs from the fact that these authors are only interested in trying to show that Christians can be ‘demonised’. To this end they quote any scripture that shows that the devil or demons might have had some influence in the life of a believer. Once they have provided us with such scriptures, then they believe they have ‘proven’ their case that Christians can be ‘demonised’, since they automatically and unjustifiably equate ‘demonic influence’ with ‘demonisation’ or being inhabited by a demon. Believing they have proven their point, they forthwith ignore the diagnosis and remedy to what they call ‘demonisation’ which is offered by the very scriptures that they have drawn our attention to! Are demons involved in influencing the Christian? Then they believe this is sufficient evidence to show that ‘demonisation’ has occurred and that therefore the believer will need deliverance from demons. However, this is the very assumption that needs proving! All they do is read their assumptions into the interpretation of a passage and then expect us to believe that their assumptions have been proven! This is not an effective way of convincing others!

What shall we conclude then? They quote to us Paul’s thorn in the flesh as an instance of a Christian being ‘demonised’ (2 Cor.12). What are they saying? That God deliberately left Paul with a demon in him, saying that there was sufficient grace for him to go around with a demon in him? That Paul afterwards would have needed the demon casting out of him? Is this what they are teaching? If not, why are they calling this a case of ‘demonisation’? If Peter was demonised in Matt.16, then why didn’t Jesus cast a demon out of him? Why didn’t Peter try and cast out a demon from Simon the sorcerer? Or at least counsel him concerning demons they may have ‘remained’ in him since believing? Why did the apostles never apply the approach, which these modern writers on ‘demonisation’ adopt in dealing with the problems and sins of believers? The apostles never recommended the casting out of a demon from any Christian.

Or will these modern writers now concur with Jesus and the apostles that in all the above cases (of what they call ‘demonisation’), the correct procedure is to either exhort, instruct, teach, rebuke or discipline those that sin or fall into difficulties, in order that they should be led to repentance and true faith, and to a change of attitude and conduct – without the mention, let alone the requirement of Christians being delivered from indwelling demons? Will they follow the explicit biblical pattern - revealed in the above passages - of dealing with problems among Christians which they call cases of ‘demonisation’? Is it not tempting God to adopt an alternative approach to clear biblical guidelines of procedure, with the claim that scripture doesn’t explicitly forbid such an alternative approach? Is it not folly to apply such an approach when the supposition it is based upon, is not substantiated by the approach of the apostles?

We have seen that Paul counselled instructing those that oppose God’s truth (2 Tim.2:24-26) with the intent that such instruction should lead to repentance. This would lead to them being recovered from the snare of the devil. We have seen that this is the procedure Paul adopted in all his epistles in dealing with the carnal behaviour of God’s people. We have seen that our own carnal and sinful behaviour and attitudes gives the devil opportunity to influence both our thoughts and actions. (This point has never been in contention.) If such behaviour and attitudes continue then the consequences will be damaging and even destructive in our lives. But we have seen that the apostles’ way of dealing with these things is by instruction and correction (1 Cor.8,10:15-33; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 11:1-20), rebuke (Matt.16:13-26; Acts 5:1-11, 8:9-24) or church discipline (1 Cor.5:1-8). These form the approach adopted by Jesus and the apostles in the above passages.

These principles also apply when we look at the Old Testament. We are told that King Saul provides an example of someone who was demonised, and that this is grounds for casting demons out of Christians today! But when we look at the passage there is nothing about a demon being cast out of Saul as if this would help his walk with God? Nor is he counselled by Samuel or any other prophet that an indwelling demon is hindering his walk with God and that is what lies at the root of his problems. The root of his problem is explained in 1 Samuel 13:13,14 and 15:22,23. It was Saul’s repeated and deliberate disobedience that undermined his walk with God. His heart simply wasn’t right with God, as his life amply shows. Because of this, God’s Spirit left Saul and an evil spirit from the Lord came to trouble him and the Lord Himself was no longer with Saul (1 Sam.16:14; 18:12). Saul died in this miserable condition without having repented of his wayward heart. From these scriptures it is not even clear that Saul was inhabited by a demon – he was troubled by an evil spirit which was sent by the Lord.

I very much believe that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself, and I think we can see a clear principle emerging from passages such as the ones concerning King Saul, Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and Judas Iscariot in John 13:27. In all these cases the people concerned deliberately or coldly decided to disobey the Lord or to turn their backs on His way. These weren’t just momentary lapses in the lives of people who otherwise genuinely wanted to follow the Lord. These actions were a reflection of hearts wanting to go another way. It is this wilful disobedience and unrepentant attitude that also gives the devil great scope to influence their lives. In the midst of trial and temptation, their own selfish disposition is prone to the mindset of the devil, and this he exploits (and may we say, God allows him to exploit.) The result is an alignment with the devil’s own disposition which gives him this influence in their thoughts and actions. We can see that this influence of the devil in their lives has nothing to do with demonic intrusion into the life a believer who genuinely wants to follow Christ. Much more, it is the natural fruit or like a seal (of judgement) on those that have deliberately chosen another way. The devil’s ability to so influence these people stems from an unrepentant attitude in the face of all that God has shown and done for them. It is like a seal upon their ultimate choice. They have chosen a different way, and the devil himself leads them in this way now. (This principle could also apply to the case of the false prophets and teachers that we considered above.) They have aligned themselves to the devil’s disposition and their very thoughts and actions become a reflection and a vehicle for this disposition. Deliverance from demons is never counselled in these situations in scripture, for as we have seen, it can neither be shown that any of these people were actually inhabited by demons nor was this ever considered as the root of the problem in any of these cases.

In this connection it is worth mentioning the strong words uttered by Jesus in Matthew 12:38-45. The Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign but he responds by telling them that no sign shall be given to that evil and adulterous generation, except the sign of the prophet Jonah (His death). Jesus then proceeds to upbraid them because, despite all His wonderful works among them, they had not repented. He is talking concerning that whole generation of Jews who had not received Him. It is in this context that Jesus talks about an unclean spirit that is cast out of a person, returning to its ‘house’ that is ‘empty, swept and put in order.’ Jesus had healed many people and delivered them also from demons. He prepared them for the coming of the Kingdom of God into their hearts, but they would not repent. In this respect Jesus had ‘swept’ and ‘cleaned out’ the House of Israel, as is intimated by His words in Matthew 11:20-24. But Israel as a nation had remained ‘empty’. They received His blessings but they had not received His words and had not repented of their own sins; they had not received Him as Lord and Saviour over, or in their house – so the house remained empty; ready to be occupied by demons again because of their hard hearts and unrepentant attitude. Jesus tells us that the condition of the person (house) is now worse than it was at the beginning when the original demon was cast out. Then He proclaims: "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." So the story concerning demons re-entering a person is specifically in the context of the House of Israel refusing their Saviour after receiving so many blessings at His hands. According to these words, the resulting condition among them would be worse than when He first came. And so it was. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, knowing that judgement and desolation awaited the nation.

Let us notice here that the latter state of the person in the story is the result of an unrepentant and hardened attitude. The scenario is not of a true believer genuinely grieved over their condition and seeking help. The context is not of a believer weak in faith being overcome by evil against their will. Not at all! This awful condition is the consequence of determined refusal to go God’s way. The fact that the original demon could come and bring several other demons and enter the person again simply bears witness to the person’s determined choice not to follow the Lord. It is like a seal or kind of judgement on their determined choice – it is the fruit of the way that they have chosen. In this passage this story is specifically used in relation to the nation of Jews. If it applies beyond this to individuals, which the story also implies, then let us remember the spiritual condition being described which is given by Jesus. Namely, a person can show keen interest in the words of Jesus and also be enthusiastic about His works. A person can gladly receive His blessings too. But if none of these things lead to repentance, to a change of heart, to true commitment to Christ, then not only has all this been in vain but the selfishness and hardness of heart that is reflected by such refusal plunges the person into a worse state than before. This is what the story teaches us. Multitudes of Jews followed Jesus to hear the gracious words that proceeded out of His mouth. Some of them believed His words – on one level. Many were so taken by His miracles that they wanted to make Him King by force. But when He touched the raw nerve of their sin and pride then they tried to kill Him. (Luke 4:22-30; John 8:30-59). Blessed, but unrepentant and unchanged! Whoever we wish to apply the above words of Jesus to, it is clear from the context that we are not talking about a Christians who are grieved about their condition and who are seeking help from other Christians to overcome their problems.

These principles also relate to other scriptures that portray similar situations. There is the case of the man who committed incest in 1 Cor.5:5 and the deceived teachers in 1 Tim.1:20. Paul delivers these people to Satan. These verses are not easy to explain but surely they refer to a form of judgement on these lives. Paul delivers them over to the devil’s influence and power because of their persistent waywardness and unrepentance. This exposes them in greater measure than normal to the devil’s power of influence in their circumstances and life. And of course this influence is anything but beneficial to their selfish way of living. From Paul’s language it appears that this specific activity of the devil was meant to act as a kind of judgement in their lives, and that the result of this action would have some kind of corrective or inhibiting influence – "that his spirit may be saved" and "that they may learn not to blaspheme". What is clear is that deliverance from demons is not seen as playing any part in these cases.

The above are cases of a more extreme kind. But the devil’s influence is not excluded from any of our lives if we do not walk in the obedience of faith and love, if we fail to walk in the Spirit and in the grace of our God. We need to put on the whole armour of God if we are to stand against all the wiles and fiery arrows of the devil. We are also called to deny ourselves and to mortify the deeds to the flesh. This is abundantly clear in scripture and has never been a matter of debate among those that love God and His word. We are not ‘immune’ if we don’t to live by God’s word. We have already seen how Peter’s refusal to learn from Jesus, to let go of his prejudice and pre-conceived ideas, allowed the devil to influence his thinking and actions. Peter’s heart’s desire and ultimate intention was to love and follow the Lord, but prejudice and an unwillingness to change caused him problems. And we need to walk humbly with our God and be willing to learn of Him and change as His word directs us. Otherwise we will bring problems and distress into our lives and rob ourselves of that true knowledge of God that brings real peace and joy. We have seen how many of the Corinthians, because of their pride, selfishness and unwillingness to ‘learn’ Christ, were deceived and ended up behaving carnally in all sorts of situations. This allowed the devil to work havoc among them. And the devil will rob us of the truth and fill us with all sorts of unbelief and pride that will bring distress and failure into our lives, if we resist the revelation of God’s truth to our hearts; if we live selfishly. But we have seen that in all such cases the answer is repentance and a return to believing and obeying God’s word. And for those that walk in faith and love, we know that the evil one cannot touch or harm us! Praise God! Praise God too, that if we do fail or fall, He is abundantly willing to pardon and restore us in His grace if we come and repent before Him.

Let me here deal with two notions that are meant to prove to us that Christians can have demons dwelling in them. One well-known writer maintains that the case of King David’s sin with Bathsheba furnishes us with conclusive evidence that a Christian can have a demon dwelling in them. He deduces this from David’s prayer where he says, "...take not thy Holy Spirit from me." Psalm 51:11. We are told that this verse indicates that the Holy Spirit was still with David at this time and therefore it is possible for the Holy Spirit to live in an unclean vessel, since David had committed adultery and murder when he prayed this prayer. The author says that it therefore follows that the Holy Spirit and a demon can co-exist in a believer!

This incident with David is clear confirmation in the OT of the things I have been saying in this article. Here we have believer who had committed adultery, lied, schemed and murdered. However, when the prophet of God comes to him, there is not a word about demons being responsible; not a word about (eventually) needing deliverance from demons! Responsibility is laid fairly and squarely on David’s shoulders. And David immediately recognises his own sin. He is deeply grieved at his own wayward heart. No extenuating circumstances are sought after! David prays, "...I acknowledge my transgression; my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned..." David acknowledges that he alone is to blame for what has happened and he repents from his heart to the Lord, whom he still loves and wants to follow. "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin....Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." David humbles himself before God and repents. This leads to cleansing and forgiveness. It is a wonderful account of a man’s contrition and faith, and of God’s mercy and love.

In this incident we see that the word of God coming through God’s servant led David to repentance and that this repentance led to a cleansing and restoring of David’s relationship with God. This follows exactly the pattern that we discovered in the NT. This story doesn’t teach us that a Christian can have a demon. It shows us that a believer is forgiven and restored through repentance and an acknowledgement of the truth – without the need of him being delivered from demons.

The second notion that is meant to convince us that Christians can be inhabited by demons is the following: it is pointed out that the scriptures promise us victory in Christ and freedom from sin. This is wonderfully true. But then the point is made that Christians in the NT did commit sin, yet no one is surprised or raises an objection to the idea that Christians can sin. So why should we be surprised at the idea that Christians can be inhabited by demons? This is the question that is posed. The answer to this question supplies another fundamental rebuttal to this teaching.

The scriptures do reveal to us the liberty from sin that we have in Christ, but they also make it clear that temptations still remain and so do our choices in those temptations. It is also clear from scripture that the possibility of sinning remains. In the NT, both in terms of teaching and also by way of examples it is clear that Christians can sin and that they did sin. However, there is no corresponding development of thought in the NT concerning the teaching regarding demons inhabiting Christians. We are told of Christ’s victory over all the power of the enemy (Eph.1:19-23; Heb.2:14; Col.2:15) and how we have been turned from the power of Satan unto God (Acts 26:18); how we have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of Christ (Col.1:13); how our life is hid with Christ in God and that the old has passed away and that all things are now of God (Cxol.3:3; 2 Cor.5:17,18), and how the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin as we walk in the light (1 John 1:7). And much more could be said concerning the glorious promises of God that are ours through Christ in this New Covenant!

However, unlike what is taught about sin and Christians, there is no mention of demons remaining in Christians or Christians being inhabited by demons after conversion and needing deliverance from demons in order to resolve personal problems. This is exactly why we find it difficult to accept this teaching on demons in Christians. The possibility of sinning and being overcome by sin after conversion is clearly taught in scripture. There is no corresponding teaching concerning demons in Christians.

Another argument that is meant to ‘prove’ that Christians can be inhabited by demons is the incidents of demonic deliverance that we find in the Gospels. The argument goes something like this: Jesus cast demons out of many of the Jews that came to Him. Among those that were delivered of demons, it is only reasonable to suppose that must have been some who were devout, believing Jews. Therefore, since some believing Jews were delivered of demons in the Gospels, we are told that it stands to reason that some Christian believers - who have been born again and baptised in the Spirit - will also need deliverance from demons!

Let us first notice that this argument takes no account of Calvary and Pentecost. A believing Jew before Calvary and a Christian (Jew or Gentile) after Calvary and Pentecost are treated the same according to this teaching. Calvary and Pentecost don’t seem to have made any fundamental difference in peoples’ lives. Jesus’ death on the cross has not accomplished anything significant or different in delivering people from the devil’s power, according to this approach. Jews before Calvary needed demons cast out of them, so it’s reasonable to assume that Christians will need demons cast out of them too! Those who teach this approach may protest that they believe in the unique efficacy of Calvary, but how is it that they don’t allude to this unique efficacy when they make the above argument, and when they seek to abolish the huge difference that Calvary and Pentecost make in a person’s life? How is it they remain largely silent regarding Jesus’ death on the cross when they seek to draw this parallel between believers before Pentecost and after Pentecost – claiming that both needed deliverance from demons, as if Calvary had never happened!

It is in the nature of many errors that they fail to distinguish between the two Covenants. They fail to recognise the magnitude of what God has done in Christ and consequently undermine the Gospel itself. Such errors usually take us back to living under the Old Covenant and largely draw from the OT in support of their ideas. It is not much different with regard to this teaching. Finding no example of a Christian being delivered of an indwelling demon in the Acts or the Epistles, proponents of this teaching turn to conditions under the Old Covenant in order to try and validate their beliefs. As is customary with such errors, they even interpret OT scriptures according to their assumptions, as we have seen in the case of King Saul and King David.

Dear reader, the blood of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection have secured redemption and deliverance for us this New covenant! Praise God! Through this New Covenant we are brought into the Kingdom of God and we are made sons of God. I trust it is now abundantly clear that in the NT church, under this New Covenant, no child of God ever had a demons cast out of them nor does any exhortation or teaching exist that this should be done. This is undeniable from scripture. Whatever we have been through, however much we have suffered, whatever we have been taught before, however much we may feel condemned and a failure, whatever seems to bind us; let us believe God! Let us side with His truth as He has declared it and believe it with all our hearts! Some of us, by natural disposition, have our feet very much, if not too much on the ground. Others of us may be prone to be ‘super spiritual’. I, by nature, am more of the latter disposition. Left to myself, I would be more prone to think that a believer had a demon in them if they were in distress and were continually being overcome. The teaching I grew up in strengthened this disposition. But I can do no other than side with the word of God in this matter. Where else shall we go? He has the words of Life for us! Whatever our problems or distress, let us take hold of His word and believe Him. Let us repent where necessary; but not just repent; let us also believe in what God has accomplished on our behalf at Calvary, to deliver us from all the power of the enemy! Let us ‘consider Him’ and what He has done – not look for demons here in there - if we are God’s sons! Let us leave unbelief and self-pity and acknowledge His love for us at Calvary! Surely He is able to do in and for us what we really need if we turn to Him in faith and love.

I shall not pursue this matter of the New Covenant any further at the moment, as the proposition we are considering can be refuted as being unsound in itself, without bringing any other aspect into play. The proposition is based on an assumption; namely, that since so many Jews were delivered of demons by Jesus, there must have been devout believing Jews among those delivered. However, this is an assumption. If there were devout, believing Jews who had demons cast out of them by Jesus, we are not told explicitly about this in the Gospels. The scriptures are, in that sense, silent on the matter. The question is, can one prescribe a method of deliverance ministry to Christians on the basis of something that the scriptures are ‘silent’ about? Can you maintain that deliverance from indwelling demons is a necessary requirement among Christians in some cases, simply on the basis that some Jews in the Gospels may have had demons cast out of them – and can you maintain this when the apostles themselves didn’t later use this approach when dealing with problems among Christians? This is an argument based on silence and in no way can it have any validity as such.

However, in order to give the above argument strength, the account in Luke 13:11-17, is quoted. Two things are pointed out about the woman here. One is that she was described by Jesus as being ‘bound by Satan’ because of her physical infirmity. This is taken to mean that she needed a demon casting out of her. The second, that she must have been a genuine, devout believer because Jesus called her ‘a daughter of Abraham’.

Concerning the first point we read that Jesus laid his hands on her and she was thereby immediately healed. There is no account here of Jesus casting a demon out of this woman. Indeed, the fact that Jesus laid his hands on the woman suggests healing – and no doubt a healing that involved a release from the devil’s power. Demons were customarily cast out of people by Jesus rebuking them by His word, not by laying His hands on the people. Physical infirmity may be due to demonic activity but this does not necessarily mean that the person is inhabited by a demon. But as we have seen, according to the writings of the proponents of these theories, they often abolish or do not recognise such a distinction. We have already seen that God allowed Paul to be buffeted by Satan in his body, yet this had nothing to do with God allowing a demon to enter into Paul. We have no conclusive proof at all to show that this woman actually had a demon in her – the Lord Jesus refers to the agency of Satan with regard to this woman’s infirmity, He does not cast a demon out of her. He heals her.

This point alone is enough to invalidate their argument that this passage gives us an example of a demon being cast out of a believer. Nevertheless, let us consider their second point, namely that the woman was a genuine believer in the Lord. It is also pointed out that in many cases Jesus cast out demons at a synagogue and so this must have included genuine believers among the delivered – such as this woman.

John tells us that Jesus ‘came to His own and His own received Him not’, John 1:11. In Matt.15:21-28, a woman of Canaan, who wasn’t an Israelite, came to Jesus and asked Him to deliver her daughter of a demon, but Jesus answered that He was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Upon her further entreaties He says that one shouldn’t give the children’s bread to dogs. We can see from these passages, and other similar passages, that Jesus was primarily sent to declare the Kingdom of God to God’s covenant people - Israel. They are the children since they are the descendants of Abraham to whom the covenant was made. But just because they were sons and daughters of Abraham, this didn’t mean that they were spiritual or genuine, devout believers in the Lord. The words of John the Baptist makes this very clear: "And think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father,’ for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Mtt.3:9. Many may have been religious and followed the traditions of their nation after a fashion, but this certainly in itself didn’t make them genuine followers of the Lord their God. ‘His own received Him not’ sums up the general response of the descendants of Abraham to the Lord Jesus when He came to be their Saviour. Indeed, He counted them as lost sheep when He came to them. Jesus freely bestowed on the Jews all manner of blessings, in healing and delivering them and preaching the Gospel to them. He made His sun to shine on the just and the unjust, so to speak. In other words He manifested God’s mercy and goodness to all who came to Him, whatever their condition. In Matt.11:20-24 we read how Jesus upbraids the cities where He had done most of His mighty works. Why did He pronounce judgement on them? Because they hadn’t repented! They weren’t spiritual or changed because they had received miracles in their lives. Those miracles were an expression of God’s love and mercy, which were also meant to validate the words spoken by Jesus – words which should have led them to repentance! They were prepared to receive His blessings, but they weren’t prepared to receive Him! I think this point doesn’t need labouring.

In Luke 19 we read of Jesus inviting Himself to the house of Zacchaeus. In verse 7 we read that the people were amazed that Jesus had invited Himself into the house of a sinner. Zacchaeus obviously didn’t have a good reputation among the people, which was true for most tax collectors. And when Zacchaeus declares his intention to give half his money to the poor and to restore things that he wrongfully took, Jesus says: "This day is salvation come to this house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." - verses 9, 10. From these verses we can see that a change happened in Zacchaeus’s life because of the coming of Jesus to his home. Jesus speaks about him being lost and how that salvation had come to him that day. Jesus also points out that Zacchaeus was entitled to this blessing at this time because he was a son of Abraham. This designation refers to his entitlement to this salvation at this time, not to his spiritual condition!

From all these scriptures we can see that just because someone was at the synagogue, didn’t make him a godly person. Also, the fact that Jesus called the woman in Luke 13 ‘a daughter of Abraham,’ isn’t necessarily a comment on her spiritual condition of heart, indicating that she was a devout believer. She may have been, and I could have some sympathy with this viewpoint, but the language here doesn’t necessarily lead us to conclude this when we compare this incident with the language in other scriptures. So concerning this woman in Luke 13, we have no account of a demon being cast out of her nor can we conclude with certainty as to whether she was a devout believer before this occurrence.

We can now point out that nowhere in scripture do we have an example of a demon being cast out of a believer – whether in the NT or OT. As I have already said, though those who advocate the deliverance ministry seek to refer to extreme or exceptional cases in the Bible (such as the man who committed incest, Simon the sorcerer, Ananias and Sapphira, King Saul) to validate their arguments, what they in reality do is to apply this approach to any and every Christian who may be having a serious problem in their life. They tell us that believers can have problems. We already know this. They tell us that Christians can sin. We already know this. They tell us that Christians can sin and be deceived and that the devil is involved in these sins and deceptions. We already know this. They tell us that Christians can suffer continual spiritual defeat in their lives. We know all these things from scripture. What we can’t find anywhere in scripture – not even in the passages they themselves refer us to - is their approach being applied in any of these cases!

Footnote:

Christians who believe in the ‘deliverance ministry’, do so to varying degrees and apply the approach in different ways. If the approach, at any stage, involves presenting a distressed soul with the Truth as it is in Christ, and the person is led to repentance and renewed faith in goodness and provision of God, then I wouldn’t be surprised if the person experiences liberation and blessing. If after months or years of a person being plagued with wrong thoughts and feelings, where sin has lorded it over them, God grants cleansing and forgiveness and the hold of these other things lose their power in response to the person’s repentance and faith, then it would not be surprising if that person experiences not just inward comfort and joy, but also a sense of release or deliverance from things they knew had been plaguing them. You can call this deliverance as far as I am concerned, but it is quite distinct and different to having demons cast out of you.

The scriptures make it clear that if we do not walk by faith then we shall lack grace in our lives, since we have access to God’s grace through faith. This grace brings comfort and assurance concerning God’s goodness and love and it also enables us to endure and to overcome in our daily lives. So if we do not walk by faith we shall be prone to all sorts of wrong thoughts and emotions and even become captive to them – whether it be joylessness, a sense of rejection, hopelessness, feeling unloved and unwanted, self-pity, bitterness or blaming God. We shall obviously also lack the where-with-all to overcome in the circumstances of our daily life.

Likewise, if we do not walk in the Spirit, we shall lack that divine empowering in our lives that enables us to overcome sin and to live in a Christ-like manner. The scriptures make it plain that if we do not walk in the Spirit, then, as Christians, we shall not be able to do the things we want. There shall be failure. We are exhorted not to let sin lord it over us, which means we can allow this to happen – we can also build the things that we once destroyed at the time of our conversion. In other words, we can get ourselves into awful state, where there is continual failure (a state that seems like bondage since we don’t fell we can get free), and a depressing mixture of negative feelings and thoughts, which the Bible calls unbelief. The devil exploits this situation mercilessly in an attempt to destroy our faith completely and to destroy us. It can go on for months or even years and sometimes we develop strategies ‘to cope’ and things might not look so bad on the outside, but we know what’s going on inside us.

In other words, the scriptures teach us that a Christian can have all sorts of problems with sin, and this failure and powerlessness stem from (habitually) not walking by faith in the goodness and provision of God or not walking in the Spirit. These are clear spiritual laws. Just because there is failure and anguish, this does not validate the thought that the person has a demon dwelling in them. It can be for the reasons mentioned above. Or, of course, it can also be the result of living to please ourselves when temptations present themselseves. However, indwelling demons are never mentioned as the reason for these conditions in the Epistles. The following scriptures illustrate the point I am making here: Col.3:5-8; 1 John 5:4,5; Gal. 3:18; 5:16-18; 1 Cor.3:1-3; Rom.7:19,20; Heb.3:12-19; 1 Cor.10:1-13.

Copyright ã D. Stamen 2003