What Should Christians Believe about the Causes of Demon Possession?

[Ben1445]

First Corinthians 10 seems to be a passage that likely points to one leading cause of demon possession, as follows.

Writing at least more than a decade after Jesus had been crucified, buried, raised, seen of many credible witnesses, and then had ascended to heaven, Paul instructed the believers in Corinth about what truly happens in idolatrous worship that involves the offering of sacrifices to an idol and then the subsequent consuming of those sacrifices in a worship context:

1 Corinthians 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

The Spirit reveals here that people who in a worship context partake of things that have been offered to an idol in a worship context come into fellowship with demons.

Although I do not think that such fellowship with demons necessarily entails possession by demons, it certainly means that the sinful people who engage in such activity come into contact with demons in some manner that was not true of them prior to their idolatrous partaking of those things that had been offered to an idol.

It would seem that coming into fellowship with demons in this manner would put a person into a susceptible state that would be a natural precursor to his subsequently being possessed and could readily lead to possession.

Continuing in 1 Corinthians…


All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
-- If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.




Paul says that the consumption of meat offered to idols is not to be done if it be made known that the meat was offered to idols.

1. It is not inherently in the meat offered or Paul would not say eat it.
2. It is for conscience sake that we do not eat it. So once more, it has nothing to do with the meat itself.
3 the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. It still belongs to God.
4. The conscience that we are careful not to offend is not our own in this case. We are already aware that we thank the Lord for what we eat. We recognize that God has provided it. But Paul says that we are not abstaining from the meat for our own conscience and why should we? The earth is the Lord’s. The key is that the person who perceives that we participate in the idol worship will have an offended conscience.
But if we notice again the word fellowship, there is a communion referenced in that thought. It is a going back and forth in agreement. I’m still quite certain that there must be complicity to some extent. It may not be complete understanding of what complicity means, but I think it must still be there.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

 

[JonC]

The problem is 1 Corinthians 10 is not talking about demon possession. There is disobedience, but no hint that a Christian will be possessed if he or she drinks wine that has been sacrificed to idols.

Actually, Paul points out he is not talking about drinking the wine offered to idols but participation in sacrificing to idols (the concern was not the wine that was used in idolatry, but participation with the pagans).

 

[rockytopva]

Why did that man kill that person?

1. Mentally challenged?
2. Spiritually challenged?

Too many in the US assume a mental condition when the actual problem is pure demonic hatred.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

But if we notice again the word fellowship, there is a communion referenced in that thought. It is a going back and forth in agreement. I’m still quite certain that there must be complicity to some extent. It may not be complete understanding of what complicity means, but I think it must still be there.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

An unbeliever does not submit himself to God. James 4:7 does not apply to unbelievers.

 

[JonC]

An unbeliever does not submit himself to God. James 4:7 does not apply to unbelievers.

But James 4:7 also does not speak about demon possession.

Christians struggle with sin in a way non-believers cannot. In this life we are the "new man" struggling against the "old man".

 

[Ben1445]

An unbeliever does not submit himself to God. James 4:7 does not apply to unbelievers.

It is not completely unrelated. When an unbeliever submits himself to God, that is about the most accurate, loose definition of becoming a believer.

So it may still apply. IMO.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

It is not completely unrelated. When an unbeliever submits himself to God, that is about the most accurate, loose definition of becoming a believer.

So it may still apply. IMO.

How is any of this relevant to the multitudes of people that we see in the NT who were possessed of demons? They were all unbelievers who somehow became possessed at some point in their lives. The fact that they were possessed proves that they were not in submission to God and therefore they were unable to resist the devil.

How then do you believe that they still were somehow complicit in their being possessed?

 

[Ben1445]

How is any of this relevant to the multitudes of people that we see in the NT who were possessed of demons? They were all unbelievers who somehow became possessed at some point in their lives. The fact that they were possessed proves that they were not in submission to God and therefore they were unable to resist the devil.

How then do you believe that they still were somehow complicit in their being possessed?

Because all people are complicit in their sin. That is why they may be judged for it. We are not victims of sin. We are perpetrators of it. So involvement in sin and fellowship with darkness comes from willingly accepting it.

Romans 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

[Ben1445]

And the devil is seeking whom he may devour. He may not just willy-nilly devour anyone in sight. He is looking for those who will be successfully enticed.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Because all people are complicit in their sin. That is why they may be judged for it. We are not victims of sin. We are perpetrators of it. So involvement in sin and fellowship with darkness comes from willingly accepting it.

Romans 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

True, but such complicity is not the same thing as permission because Scripture speaks of people who were demonically influenced and does not give any indication that they even knew what had happened to them. If that was true for those who were only demonically influenced but not possessed, how much more was it true of at least some of those who were possessed.

 

[Ben1445]

True, but such complicity is not the same thing as permission.

To be complicit is to work together or collude.

There is no form of collusion that allows for denial of permission to act upon what involved parties are agreed upon.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

To be complicit is to work together or collude.

There is no form of collusion that allows for denial of permission to act upon what involved parties are agreed upon.

So then do you believe that David knowingly gave Satan permission to move him to do that unrighteous census? Did Ananias knowingly allow Satan to fill his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?

More pertinent to this discussion, do you believe that the child that we see in Scripture who was possessed from youth (Mk. 9:21) knowingly gave a demon permission to possess him?

 

[Ben1445]

So then do you believe that David knowingly gave Satan permission to move him to do that unrighteous census?

They knowingly did what they knew was wrong for them to do. David even had Joab counseling Him to not do it. But he was complicit in his decision. And God clearly designed it to be that way. My understanding of it is like to Job’s scenario except that Scripture clearly says that God was judging Israel the people, at that point.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

But this is not an example of possession.

Did Ananias knowingly allow Satan to fill his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?

Yes Ananias willingly and knowingly allowed Satan to fill his heart. He may not and most likely did not call on the devil to do so.
But the teaching of Satan being the father of lies is before Ananias and Sapphira. So the works of the devil are attributed to him.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

But this is also not an example of possession.

More pertinent to this discussion, do you believe that the child that we see in Scripture who was possessed from youth (Mk. 9:21) knowingly gave a demon permission to possess him?

I do. I may be wrong about this. But I do believe that the youth, who may be defined as under 12 years old, could have been deceived into believing that there was some benefit to his being complicit.
I don’t see any grounds for anyone being born possessed or possessed against their own volition. In saying this, I do include interaction with devils being included though it may not be voluntary.
As has been previously stated, the quick way to possession is dabbling with the occult.

Example:
Acts 19:11-16
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.


First, they were labeled as exorcists before this encounter. This means they previously dabbled with the activity.
They presumed to continue to do this in the name of Jesus with no more belief in Christ than “Abracadabra.”

But I notice still that these ran out beaten by the possessed man and not possessed themselves. They were physically subdued by someone possessed, yet not spiritually possessed by the devil.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

They knowingly did what they knew was wrong for them to do. David even had Joab counseling Him to not do it. But he was complicit in his decision. And God clearly designed it to be that way. My understanding of it is like to Job’s scenario except that Scripture clearly says that God was judging Israel the people, at that point.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

But this is not an example of possession.


Yes Ananias willingly and knowingly allowed Satan to fill his heart. He may not and most likely did not call on the devil to do so.
But the teaching of Satan being the father of lies is before Ananias and Sapphira. So the works of the devil are attributed to him.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

But this is also not an example of possession.


I do. I may be wrong about this. But I do believe that the youth, who may be defined as under 12 years old, could have been deceived into believing that there was some benefit to his being complicit.
I don’t see any grounds for anyone being born possessed or possessed against their own volition. In saying this, I do include interaction with devils being included though it may not be voluntary.
As has been previously stated, the quick way to possession is dabbling with the occult.

Example:
Acts 19:11-16
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.


First, they were labeled as exorcists before this encounter. This means they previously dabbled with the activity.
They presumed to continue to do this in the name of Jesus with no more belief in Christ than “Abracadabra.”

But I notice still that these ran out beaten by the possessed man and not possessed themselves. They were physically subdued by someone possessed, yet not spiritually possessed by the devil.

Hmm. Your view about possession seems to require knowing, willing permission given by a person to demons as an essential requirement for a demon to possess a person. Is that so?

If so, atheists who do not believe in demons and would engage in occult practices to show that demons do not exist would be immune to demon possession, right, because they would not be giving knowing, willing permission to something that they do not believe even exists?

 

[Ben1445]

Hmm. Your view about possession seems to require knowing, willing permission given by a person to demons as an essential requirement for a demon to possess a person. Is that so?

Yes for possession. In the case of affliction, there are many examples of affliction without permitting it. Job is an obvious one.

1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

If so, atheists who do not believe in demons and would engage in occult practices to show that demons do not exist would be immune to demon possession, right, because they would not be giving knowing, willing permission to something that they do not believe even exists?

No. That is not what I have said or meant at all.
Ask and you shall receive. They go around challenging demons and involving them themselves with the occult. This is not anything like the case of those who were trying to exorcise the devil from the other man.

The difference is night and day. It is as if one is trying to remove, say, a bullet without knowledge of what he is doing. The other is saying I don’t believe in bullets and I’ll shoot myself to prove it.

The one may be foolish for causing more damage because a knowledgeable doctor should be found, or proper training obtained.
Russian roulette is just asking for trouble.

I hope that explains better what I meant.

 

[YeshuaistheLord]

The NT indisputably and emphatically reveals the reality of demon possession. Concerning those people who were demon possessed, one of two things had to have been true: (1) They were born demon possessed or (2) they became demon possessed at some later point in their lives.

The NT does not seem to provide any definitive information to establish that any people were born demon possessed. Taking that they were possessed at some later point in their lives, what caused them to become possessed?

None born with demons in them, as they need to have been invited in , and that can be thru being into the occultic, astrology, Ouija boards, etc, or lese onto alcohol and drugs big time, as basically all of those allow access to unsaved persons