Ship of Fools: 'Prayer Battle'?

Thread: 'Prayer Battle'? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023108

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

A prominent figure in the charismatic scene in London described (just yesterday) how after someone we knew died of cancer that we 'had lost a prayer battle'. A 'prayer' battle? With whom? If 'we' lost, who won?

Does this baffle others, or is it just me?

Thanks you in advance,

K.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I don't necessarily agree with his particular conclusion, but I can certainly understand the theological position on which he bases his view: that we are engaged in a spiritual war with the forces of evil (i.e. the devil etc), and that prayer is seen as one of the weapons in the arsenal of the Christian.

Certainly there is biblical support for this general position - Ephesians 6: 10-20; 2 Corinthians 10:4 etc...

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Of course I accept that Christians are, in some way, engaged in a spiritual battle. But prayer is not something you employ against someone—note how even those passages you cite, we are asked to pray for everyone. So back to my point, if we pray for someone who dies, how have we been 'defeated' and by whom?

K.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Komensky: A 'prayer' battle?

Here we see Father Davis in the left-hand corner. He opens with a viciously placed 'Hail Mary'. Pastor Jones is on our right-hand side. He counters with with a bout of improvised prayer. The audience roars!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I keep getting drawn to these threads like a moth to a candle.

There's nothing baffling about it.

It's symptomatic of the functional dualism that is typical of the "spiritual warfare" movement popularised by the likes of C. Peter Wagner.

Once again, I can't think of a single instance in scripture where anyone is described as "losing" a "prayer battle".

This is magic by any other name. It's also terribly guilt and paranoia-inducing. Run away.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

However directive we sometimes become in prayer, the beginning and the end (and, on a good day, the middle) is surely 'Thy will be done' (IMHO.)

If that is the case, then how can we 'lose a prayer battle?'

Am I too simplistic?

Anne

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Oh, boy. [Disappointed]

I'm with Eutychus here. What a sad thing, to think that a saint relieved of their suffering and ushered into the presence of the Lord, is the result of "losing a prayer battle." I can understand praying for healing, and have done so many times, but sooner or later, life is going to kill us all. And if we are to believe the Scriptures, the dead one is better off; as a matter of fact, they are then more fully alive than we are!

So at some point, are we not being selfish? Or egotistical, trying to show off our "faith muscles?" Is it Satan and his demons that killed the cancer-stricken one, or somehow prevented the prayers from being heard or answered? It seems insane.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Does that mean that Jesus 'lost a prayer battle' in the Garden of Gethsemane because the crucifixion still happened?

I would be curious to know who came out with that one, just so that I can avoid them like the plague.

[ 30. May 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A prominent figure in the charismatic scene in London described (just yesterday) how after someone we knew died of cancer that we 'had lost a prayer battle'. A 'prayer' battle? With whom? If 'we' lost, who won?

Does this baffle others, or is it just me?

Thanks you in advance,

K.

To say that 'we' lost is pretty lousy doctrine (IMHO). I thought we were supposed to trust in God's strength and occasionally, reluctantly and downright angrily, accept that events here on Earth don't turn out as we would have liked.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again, I can't think of a single instance in scripture where anyone is described as "losing" a "prayer battle".

It isn't quite the language of 'prayer battle' but there is Ephesians 6:10-17, in which verse 12 says:

quote:
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

Add this to the fact that whenever Jesus and the disciples healed people in the Bible, they didn't ask God to heal the person but prayed directly 'Be healed', 'Demon, leave this person' etc. I think you can use these passages to start building a reasonable 'prayer as battle' theology.

It also solves the apparent paradox in charismatic theology of God not healing everyone who gets prayed for, leading to a lot of horrible things getting explained away as part of God's greater purposes. I know about Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' so I'm okay with some suffering being within God's will, but I find the 'losing a prayer battle' concept more harmonious with God's overall character as revealed by Jesus.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again, I can't think of a single instance in scripture where anyone is described as "losing" a "prayer battle".
It isn't quite the language of 'prayer battle' but there is Ephesians 6:10-17, in which verse 12 says:

quote:
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.
Add this to the fact that whenever Jesus and the disciples healed people in the Bible, they didn't ask God to heal the person but prayed directly 'Be healed', 'Demon, leave this person' etc. I think you can use these passages to start building a reasonable 'prayer as battle' theology.

It also solves the apparent paradox in charismatic theology of God not healing everyone who gets prayed for, leading to a lot of horrible things getting explained away as part of God's greater purposes. I know about Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' so I'm okay with some suffering being within God's will, but I find the 'losing a prayer battle' concept more harmonious with God's overall character as revealed by Jesus.

What?

K.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

One of the things I most dislike about "prayer battle" imagery (aside from the fact that that terminology is so often used by American culture warriors who think that anyone who disagrees with them is the spawn of Satan) is the idea that one can manipulate God into doing what one wants by praying the "right way." It smacks of magickal thinking. (I was going to say spellcasting, but my pagan friends would point out that there's a whole 'nother dynamic that goes into their understanding of that practice.)

And, as noted -- what does it say to people who pray fervently for a particular outcome, when that outcome doesn't happen?

It just seems unnecessarily bellicose and presumptuous to me.

Even creepier: People who pray that God will "hedge in" people whom they don't particularly like...maybe because I've heard it used, not in the perhaps more understandable situation of a self-or-other-dangerous individual, but in a political context...you know, please, God, build a hedge around Teh Libruls/Obama/whomever. I really have a hard time understanding why the people who pray this way think what they do is fine but what pagans do by banishing or cursing or protection spells is wrong.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course I accept that Christians are, in some way, engaged in a spiritual battle. But prayer is not something you employ against someone—note how even those passages you cite, we are asked to pray for everyone. So back to my point, if we pray for someone who dies, how have we been 'defeated' and by whom?

K.

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again, I can't think of a single instance in scripture where anyone is described as "losing" a "prayer battle".
It isn't quite the language of 'prayer battle' but there is Ephesians 6:10-17

Where does that say anything about losing? Besides, it's a metaphor even if it's one grounded in truth. The emphasis is not on the mechanics of the struggle but on the fact that it's not against flesh and blood. Essentially, Paul is saying "attack the issue not the person".

quote:
Add this to the fact that whenever Jesus and the disciples healed people in the Bible, they didn't ask God to heal the person but prayed directly 'Be healed', 'Demon, leave this person' etc. I think you can use these passages to start building a reasonable 'prayer as battle' theology.

Where is the "prayer battle" there?. As in my "shirt ironing" illustration and in my contributions to many other debates on healing here, praying is precisely what they didn't do (or are at least not recorded as doing). They just healed, delivered and so on.

The one conceivable exception (and which rather proves my point above) is when Jesus says "this kind can come out only by prayer". And that's hardly a clear basis on which to build up ministries teaching things like the need to eat meat before engaging in deliverance (justification: Elijah was fed by ravens before he confronted the prophets of Baal, and no I'm not making this up).

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

But if your theology is a Theology of Glory, as opposed to the Theology of the Cross, there's not a lot of room for failure. You're supposed to be "living in Christian victory" and having your prayers all answered positively, right?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.

So every time somebody dies, the devil has won? [Paranoid]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
...the idea that one can manipulate God into doing what one wants by praying the "right way."

I think the point about the 'prayer battle' language and theology is precisely that it isn't about manipulating God; it's about fighting against the enemies of God (i.e. spiritual powers, not 'teh libruls', 'teh gays' etc.!) using the weapons and armour given to us by God.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where is the "prayer battle" there?. As in my "shirt ironing" illustration and in my contributions to many other debates on healing here, praying is precisely what they didn't do (or are at least not recorded as doing). They just healed, delivered and so on.

I meant the 'battle' part more than the 'prayer' part, I suppose. I was being a bit loose in my use of the word 'prayer' to include things like healing and deliverance - guessing that the person Komensky referred to in the thread starter was doing the same thing.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This still doesn't tell me where in Scripture we find the idea of losing a "prayer battle".

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was being a bit loose in my use of the word 'prayer' to include things like healing and deliverance - guessing that the person Komensky referred to in the thread starter was doing the same thing.

Maybe they were, but I find it astounding that so many people seem to confuse the idea of praying for something to happen with actually doing it. Maybe their homes are filled with heaps of washing waiting to be ironed while they pray for it to be ironed and tell everyone they have spent all night ironing? [Confused]

If one is "praying for healing" one is doing just that. One is not healing. How complicated can this be?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.
So every time somebody dies, the devil has won?

In a small way, I suppose every death represents a (temporary) victory for the Devil, if you want to strip in back to the basics of death being a result of sin which is the result of the Devil's temptation. Of course, that's just on one level; the flip side of that coin as someone has pointed out is that you have a saint ushered into glory and victory.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course I accept that Christians are, in some way, engaged in a spiritual battle. But prayer is not something you employ against someone—note how even those passages you cite, we are asked to pray for everyone. So back to my point, if we pray for someone who dies, how have we been 'defeated' and by whom?

K.
I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.

Ultimately, yes. More specifically, the demonic Strongman in control of the prominent charismatic leader's geographical area. The Prince of London perhaps?

Doesn't anybody still read Frank Peretti? I don't but somebody must. This Present Darkness explains how this sort of thing works.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In a small way, I suppose every death represents a (temporary) victory for the Devil, if you want to strip in back to the basics of death being a result of sin which is the result of the Devil's temptation. Of course, that's just on one level; the flip side of that coin as someone has pointed out is that you have a saint ushered into glory and victory.

Well for a start, some people think physical death pre-dated the Fall... I suppose that untimely death can be seen as a consequence of evil in the world but I'm not sure the Bible speaks of the devil winning anything at all.

To go on with, death is described as "the final enemy" by Paul but offhand I can't think of anywhere in the bible that dying itself is described either as a victory or as a defeat.

I think this whole win/lose terminology to refer to the way we interact with the spiritual realm is just a dualistic red herring that owes as much to Star Wars as to any serious theology.

[ 30. May 2012, 14:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This still doesn't tell me where in Scripture we find the idea of losing a "prayer battle".

How about Jesus himself in Mark 6?

quote:
Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family.” And because of their unbelief, he couldn’t do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific failed healing or demon-removal or whatever in the New Testament. I'd say the possibility of losing a 'prayer battle' is just implicit in the idea of it being a battle. Jesus has won the ultimate victory but along the way to that victory there will be wins and losses.

Our theology has got to explain why there is suffering in a universe supposedly created and sustained by an all-powerful, all-loving being. For those of us who believe in the possibility of supernatural healing (and all the other spiritual gifts), we have to give some thought to why some are healed while others are not. Clearly not all people who get prayed for are actually healed.

Personally, I'm more comfortable with the spiritual warfare idea than with God choosing to heal some but not others in an apparently arbitrary way. It's pretty clear that other people's mileage may vary, I see from most of the other posts in this thread!

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Wonder how they deal with this: Washington Post: Serpent-handling pastor dies from rattlesnake bite

[ 30. May 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In a small way, I suppose every death represents a (temporary) victory for the Devil, if you want to strip in back to the basics of death being a result of sin which is the result of the Devil's temptation. Of course, that's just on one level; the flip side of that coin as someone has pointed out is that you have a saint ushered into glory and victory.
Well for a start, some people think physical death pre-dated the Fall...

Which people? I can't find that in Scripture and it runs totally counter to the whole 'wages of sin is death' Pauline theme.

quote:
I suppose that untimely death can be seen as a consequence of evil in the world but I'm not sure the Bible speaks of the devil winning anything at all.

To go on with, death is described as "the final enemy" by Paul but offhand I can't think of anywhere in the bible that dying itself is described either as a victory or as a defeat.

Rev 21:4 speaks of there being no more death, mourning or pain.

quote:
I think this whole win/lose terminology to refer to the way we interact with the spiritual realm is just a dualistic red herring that owes as much to Star Wars as to any serious theology.

But the Christian worldview is of necessity dualist - not in a gnostic sense of course - not monist

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Personally, I'm more comfortable with the spiritual warfare idea than with God choosing to heal some but not others in an apparently arbitrary way.

We've been over this ground before and I don't have time to rehearse it here. But one question:

Do you think, then, that every death after prayer for healing is a "defeat"?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.
So every time somebody dies, the devil has won?

Well not EVERY time. Jesus came so that we might have life and life abundantly. Sickness is not a part of the abundant life. With enough faith, immortality is possible. On the other hand, the longer we stay on the earth the longer we stay out of heaven. Why would anybody want to be immortal if it prevented them from going to heaven? At some point, even those with the most faith grow weary of being in this world and choose to shuffle off this mortal coil so they can be with Jesus in heaven. To make a long story short, with enough faith, we can be like the elves in LOTR.

Don't play dumb with me. You know all that. [Biased]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Wonder how they deal with this: Washington Post: Serpent-handling pastor dies from rattlesnake bite

"Snake has 'wrong kind of faith'"?

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

"Losing a prayer battle" I suppose is possible. If we get distracted, stop praying and backslide massively, that's losing a prayer battle.

If the demonized person beats us up, that might be losing a prayer battle.

If the non-Christian dies without ever giving their life to Jesus because we couldn't be bothered praying for them, that might be losing a prayer battle.

But if a Christian dies without backsliding, that is victory. Perfect healing happens by resurrection - healing in this life is only ever partial and temporary.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd have thought that was fairly obvious - the Devil.
So every time somebody dies, the devil has won?
Well not EVERY time. Jesus came so that we might have life and life abundantly. Sickness is not a part of the abundant life. With enough faith, immortality is possible. On the other hand, the longer we stay on the earth the longer we stay out of heaven. Why would anybody want to be immortal if it prevented them from going to heaven? At some point, even those with the most faith grow weary of being in this world and choose to shuffle off this mortal coil so they can be with Jesus in heaven. To make a long story short, with enough faith, we can be like the elves in LOTR.

Don't play dumb with me. You know all that.

This smells like another thread, but what do you mean by 'enough' faith? Faith isn't a magic potion—if you can somehow 'get' enough of it, all the magic will start to happen! Is the magic not happening for you? Well then, you need more 'faith' (now available in sachets!), etc....

K.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Er...I think BA was being sarcastic.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Matt Black: You can't have life on earth without death. It's illogical to think that at some point everything on the planet was being "fruitful and multiplying" and not dying. You can't have unlimited life within the parameters of limited resources for that life.

Unless Christians can find a way to explain "the wages of sin is death" in a way other than literal (and I think that's possible, at least if you're not a fundamentalist), it's just another example of the Christian community promoting an untenable anti-science worldview.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Of course, it isn't magic. Magic is of the Devil. Obviously, faith is quantifiable and the more faith you have the greater things you can do. The Bible is a book of promises. We are who it says we are. We can be who it says we can be. We can do what it says we can do. The Devil and his demons try to prevent us from claiming the promises and blessings God made available to us through Jesus sacrificial death on the cross. Faith is our shield against the spiritual attacks of the Devil and his demons. Quoting scripture, as Jesus did in the wilderness, is our offensive weapon. Prayer is the way we engage in spiritual warfare with the Devil and his demons. Hence, you have a prayer battle that can be lost through lack of faith.

Simple [Big Grin]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which people?

The person I was thinking of was Roger Forster in his book Reason and Faith. I'll dig out some quotes if you like.

quote:
I can't find that in Scripture and it runs totally counter to the whole 'wages of sin is death' Pauline theme.

What LutheranChik said. Besides, your Bible doubtless records that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they did not keel over on the spot. I think they "died" though.

quote:
Rev 21:4 speaks of there being no more death, mourning or pain.

Amen. But also [brick wall]

Where oh where does that say that physical death per se is either victory or defeat?

quote:
But the Christian worldview is of necessity dualist - not in a gnostic sense of course - not monist

Possibly it's me who is using terminology sloppily here. I don't believe that christianity is dualistic in the sense that I do not believe we live in a world that is balanced on a knife-edge between Good™ and Evil™ and that actions on our part can tip the balance one way or another - which is what I mean by the "Star Wars" view of life which I fear has infected charismaticism extensively.

I'm quite enamoured (if not totally convinced) by CS Lewis' image of the tiniest bird in heaven being capable of swallonwing up all the evil in the world without that having the slightest impact on it. Or, to quote Lewis again, Lucifer is not the equal of God but if of anyone, Michael.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

If I recall correctly, when David Watson died John Wimber announced that it was a victory for the Devil. Mrs Watson was understandably annoyed at this, and Wimber later apologised and withdrew his remarks.

This whole way of thinking is quite opposite to that expounded by CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. There the devils want to keep the human alive, as then there is still a chance he will lose his faith. When the human dies his salvation is finally complete, there is angelic rejoicing, and the devils slink off defeated. I'm not sure that I accept Lewis' views here, but the contrast is stark.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

BA: "We can be who it says we can be. We can do what it says we can do."

Frank Sinatra: "Do be do be do."

More seriously:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Matt Black: You can't have life on earth without death. It's illogical to think that at some point everything on the planet was being "fruitful and multiplying" and not dying. You can't have unlimited life within the parameters of limited resources for that life.

Unless Christians can find a way to explain "the wages of sin is death" in a way other than literal (and I think that's possible, at least if you're not a fundamentalist), it's just another example of the Christian community promoting an untenable anti-science worldview.

Then Rev 21:4 is effectively null and void too; (and this @ Eutychus too) I can't see any reference here to talking about purely spiritual death either unless one wishes to eisegete that and, if one does eliminate the physical, does that not run counter to Paul's discourse on the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Wonder how they deal with this: Washington Post: Serpent-handling pastor dies from rattlesnake bite

From the Post article:

quote:
“I am looking for a great time this Sunday,” he wrote May 22. “It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good ’ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers.”

Sounds like he did get his "homecoming", bless the poor man. [Votive]

He and Jesus probably had a good laugh, though.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course I accept that Christians are, in some way, engaged in a spiritual battle. But prayer is not something you employ against someone—note how even those passages you cite, we are asked to pray for everyone. So back to my point, if we pray for someone who dies, how have we been 'defeated' and by whom?

K.

Human beings are not considered to be the only 'someones' in the spiritual universe, though.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If I recall correctly, when David Watson died John Wimber announced that it was a victory for the Devil. Mrs Watson was understandably annoyed at this, and Wimber later apologised and withdrew his remarks.

This whole way of thinking is quite opposite to that expounded by CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. There the devils want to keep the human alive, as then there is still a chance he will lose his faith. When the human dies his salvation is finally complete, there is angelic rejoicing, and the devils slink off defeated. I'm not sure that I accept Lewis' views here, but the contrast is stark.

I would agree, but can't it be 'both/and' rather than 'either/or'?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think 1 Cor 15 and anywhere else in the Bible after Gen 3 necessarily describe physical death as we now experience it in our fallen world, regardless of whether or not it existed prior to the Fall.

It now most certainly has an absurd aspect (in the philosophical sense of the word), especially when it's untimely, and it remains "the last enemy". But that does not mean that death itself is to be viewed in terms of victory or defeat. Sentimentally, at a pinch, just possibly*, but not theologically, which is how the term was described as being used by the OP.

*(And even then, think about the implications of saying that somebody "lost their battle against cancer". Didn't they try hard enough? Are they too "letting the side down"?)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again, I can't think of a single instance in scripture where anyone is described as "losing" a "prayer battle".
It isn't quite the language of 'prayer battle' but there is Ephesians 6:10-17
Where does that say anything about losing? Besides, it's a metaphor even if it's one grounded in truth. The emphasis is not on the mechanics of the struggle but on the fact that it's not against flesh and blood. Essentially, Paul is saying "attack the issue not the person".

No. Sorry, but no. It takes a massive and frankly bizarre twist of interpretation to treat that passage's references to 'not against flesh and blood' as saying fight against ISSUES.

It talks about fighting against enemies. If you have fights against enemies, you can lose fights.

Note that I'm not saying that the person referred to in the OP is correct in saying that a particular battle has been lost. But it's perfectly orthodox to talk about being in spiritual battles, and it takes a real determination to look at wording about principalities and powers and claim 'he really just means tough issues'.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Are we then to say that cancer is empirically a 'good thing'? [Eek!]

[reply to Eutychus]

[ 30. May 2012, 15:41: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It takes a massive and frankly bizarre twist of interpretation to treat that passage's references to 'not against flesh and blood' as saying fight against ISSUES.

Well, perhaps I was stretching it too far in the hope of making a Ship reference, but nonetheless I think that's the idea.

As I see it the point is that we are in a struggle. Paul has just been talking about human relationships. He is now saying that things will be tough, but that this should not pull us down into bickering and falling out. Rather we should remember that the real problem is this fallen world with its fallen institutions, authorities, thought patterns and so on.

The emphasis is on ensuring our struggle is directed at the right sort of target. That's all. It's not about how many "wins" or "losses" we can clock up, any more than Jesus telling us to be "fishers of men" means we should debate fly-fishing vs. nets or check how many fish we've landed.

Matt Black, I have no idea why you think I think cancer is a good thing. What I'm questioning is the popular phraseology that implies that victims have "lost a battle" if they die. In the light od some of the reasoning in this thread, that could be taken as suggesting that if they had only done the right thing, or prayed the right prayer, or been taken to the right ministry, they or their friends and family could have "won".

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
No. Sorry, but no. It takes a massive and frankly bizarre twist of interpretation to treat that passage's references to 'not against flesh and blood' as saying fight against ISSUES.

It talks about fighting against enemies. If you have fights against enemies, you can lose fights.

Note that I'm not saying that the person referred to in the OP is correct in saying that a particular battle has been lost. But it's perfectly orthodox to talk about being in spiritual battles, and it takes a real determination to look at wording about principalities and powers and claim 'he really just means tough issues'.

I think you are right. Paul clearly believes he and other Christians were engaged in battle with spiritual forces. Verses 19 and 20 hint at the possibility that the spiritual forces might win. The spiritual forces would win if they prevented Paul from boldly proclaiming the gospel not by taking Paul's life.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Matt Black, I have no idea why you think I think cancer is a good thing. What I'm questioning is the popular phraseology that implies that victims have "lost a battle" if they die. In the light od some of the reasoning in this thread, that could be taken as suggesting that if they had only done the right thing, or prayed the right prayer, or been taken to the right ministry, they or their friends and family could have "won".

I'm glad you clarify that, empirically*, it's not a good thing, in which case why not refer to a death by cancer as an empirical* defeat? Cancer patients whom I've known have found it helpful to refer to the existence of their condition as a 'battle'; are we to rob them of using that terminology?

*Of course, an 'untimely' death may be a Good Thing™ in the grand scheme of things as hinted by C S Lewis in Screwtape, for example where the deceased might have lost his/her faith had s/he lived. As I type, I'm reminded of that bastion of theological wisdom, Marvel Comics, and their X-Men story "What if Phoenix hadn't died?"

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky
...prayer is not something you employ against someone—note how even those passages you cite, we are asked to pray for everyone.

I think prayer can be against someone - and by "someone" I don't just mean the devil or demons, but certain human beings. The prayers of imprecation in the Psalms are a good example. Are they still relevant for today? The author of The Prayer of Revenge seems to think so (even within the context of pursuing forgiveness), and he makes some valid points about the need to pray to God for justice against those who are wilfully unrepentant.

The author - Doug Schmidt - compares the following two prayers and asks us which is the more "godly"? :

A: “O Lord, Remember not only the men and women of good will, but also those of ill will. But do not remember all of the suffering they have inflicted upon us: Instead remember the fruits we have borne because of this suffering, our fellowship, our loyalty to one another, our humility, our courage, our generosity, the greatness of heart that has grown from this trouble. When our persecutors come to be judged by You, let all of these fruits that we have borne be their forgiveness.”

B: Destroy thou them, O God.

Let their way be dark and slippery. May ruin overtake them by surprise ... may they fall into the pit, to their ruin.

In your faithfulness destroy them. Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell.

Consume them in wrath, consume them that they may not be.

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living.. And so on...

Prayer 'A' was written by a prisoner of Ravensbruck concentration camp, and left by the body of a dead child.

Prayer 'B' is a selection of some of David's prayers as recorded in the Psalms. (Remember that David was a "man after God's own heart".)

I'll leave it there without any more comment, other than to say that clearly the Bible is full of prayers against people.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*(And even then, think about the implications of saying that somebody "lost their battle against cancer". Didn't they try hard enough? Are they too "letting the side down"?)

I want to pick up on this point because I think it's important, and difficult. Thinking aloud a bit here, but if one grants the possibility of miraculous healing then there must be some reason why any particular person does not get healed. I'm not saying we should try and discern what that reason is in any specific case but, speaking generally, here are some of the options I can think of:

1) Those praying lost some kind of spiritual battle (through lack of faith, persistence or whatever)
2) The deceased didn't have enough faith
3) God's will was that the person died

Assuming God is both willing and capable of intervening in any situation, what options have I missed? As I see it, each of the above options lead to some disturbing conclusions.

For those people who can set aside problems like this and put them into that box marked 'mysteries that I'll let slide', I'm rather jealous! I can't seem to do that very easily...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Destroy thou them, O God.

Let their way be dark and slippery. May ruin overtake them by surprise ... may they fall into the pit, to their ruin.

In your faithfulness destroy them. Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell.

Consume them in wrath, consume them that they may not be.

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living..

...a selection of some of David's prayers as recorded in the Psalms. (Remember that David was a "man after God's own heart".)

Maybe it's a tangent but I don't think that these prayers being in the Bible means it's necessarily a good thing for us to pray like this. Sure, the fact that David prayed like this at times didn't stop him from being a 'man after God's own heart' but not everything David did was of the Lord. Perhaps these prayers of imprecation (good word, btw) fall in to that category.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thinking aloud a bit here, but if one grants the possibility of miraculous healing then there must be some reason why any particular person does not get healed.

I have to go off and lead a RL Bible study shortly. One of the verses we'll be reading is John 6:26-27

quote:
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

When God does a miracle, we're supposed to ponder on what it points to, not work out how to get the next one.

When no miracle occurs, no amount of amateur trouble-shooting will help us. That line of reasoning takes us straight into the territory of Job's comforters. And whether you like it or not, the end of that road is essentially God turning up and saying "shut up, you guys are so far out in left field you don't even know where the ball park is any more. Repent quick."

Matt Black, I'm really not convinced that all cancer sufferers agree with you. But I really don't feel qualified to comment on how others experience their suffering.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When God does a miracle, we're supposed to ponder on what it points to, not work out how to get the next one.

I was trying to avoid falling in to this trap; I fully agree that it's not helpful to speculate as to the reasons why a particular person has or has not recovered from illness. But I'm not sure that means we should avoid the whole issue in the general sense, that's all.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Tangent/

EtymologicalEvangelical: is that not an issue of progressive revelation? That David was obeying God's will as revealed to the ancient Israelites (just as he did when slaughtering Israel's enemies), due to man's 'hardness of heart'?

We live in New Covenant times - if David were alive now, as a 'man after God's heart' he would no more pray against enemies as slaughter them.

/Tangent

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

I too find the terminology of losing or winning in prayer uncomfortable at the very least. There really isn't anything in scripture to encourage us to think and pray along those lines and in this day and age it is unhelpful a) for those outside the Christian faith to hear this and b) when so many wars and conflict are occurring.

However I do wonder how much of western culture blinds us to give serious thought about this other spiritual realm the NT speaks about. We are taught to pray and ask that the forces opposing God are "bound".

To ignore the challenges from the spiritual realms seems to me theological ignorance.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Its not the "prayer battle" issue that I take issue with. Frankly I believe it is all par5t of a terminology employed by sections of the Church which is misguided.

What interests me about these prayer warriors is how they manage to reconcile losing the battle with the words of Jesus "whatever you ask in my name I will give it you".

Undoubtedly they asked in Jesus' name. Frequently.

They lost.

How do they explain it?

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
What interests me about these prayer warriors is how they manage to reconcile losing the battle with the words of Jesus "whatever you ask in my name I will give it you".

Undoubtedly they asked in Jesus' name. Frequently.

They lost.

How do they explain it?

The difficulty I have is with the language of "winning" and "losing" is neither a biblical one or helpful.

Prayer isn't about these things. It is primarily about our love relationship with the Creator God and seeking his agenda.

If what we pray doesn't go how we want it means we have not understood God's ways or he hasn't fully told us. I put this down to his ways not being our ways and so on (Isaiah 55).

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thinking aloud a bit here, but if one grants the possibility of miraculous healing then there must be some reason why any particular person does not get healed.
I have to go off and lead a RL Bible study shortly. One of the verses we'll be reading is John 6:26-27

quote:
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."
When God does a miracle, we're supposed to ponder on what it points to, not work out how to get the next one.

When no miracle occurs, no amount of amateur trouble-shooting will help us. That line of reasoning takes us straight into the territory of Job's comforters. And whether you like it or not, the end of that road is essentially God turning up and saying "shut up, you guys are so far out in left field you don't even know where the ball park is any more. Repent quick."

I think you've aomething of a blind spot here Eutychus. When they failed to cast out the demon in the boy in Mk 9:28-29, the disciples asked Jesus what they needed to do different next time. In Acts 4:30-31 they prayed both for boldness and for God to increase his miraculous interventions. There's no passive reflection on what miracles were pointing to here - rather an active sense of miraculous intervention being integral to mission.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.

But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.

Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."

What other options are there?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Obviously, faith is quantifiable and the more faith you have the greater things you can do. The Bible is a book of promises. We are who it says we are. We can be who it says we can be. We can do what it says we can do.

Really? Jesus was unsuccessful in healing some people and in persuading some people of his message. He was rather famously also unsuccessful in asking that the cup of suffering be taken away from him (although he added a qualifier that it be God's will, not his, that is done -- something I understand certain "victorious" Christians are loathe to do in their prayers because it's not "confident" and "faith-filled" enough).

Obviously many people of faith over the centuries have been equally unsuccessful in having prayers answered as hoped.

As far as the "new earth" promised in Revelation -- if it's the same as the old earth as far as being a finite hunk of planet with finite resources, how is it going to support the enfleshed redeemed (which, according to Paul, includes all creation, not just the human inhabitants thereof?

You either have to engage in some extremely creative extra-biblical speculation to make the text "come out right," or else conclude that whatever lies ahead for the redeemed is going to be a "new thing" outside a literal reading of the text that we can't comprehend, or conclude that the whole thing is just fuzzy wishful thinking.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
When they failed to cast out the demon in the boy in Mk 9:28-29, the disciples asked Jesus what they needed to do different next time. In Acts 4:30-31 they prayed both for boldness and for God to increase his miraculous interventions

I don't really have a problem with either passage as it stands. What I do have a problem with is people who think they can be as smart as Jesus in giving the right answers and those who ask for specific miracles that invariably don't show up. But again, we've been here before...

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.

But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.

Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."

What other options are there?

He never hears in the first instance.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.

But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.

Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."

What other options are there?

Prayer simply cannot be understood as a win or loose scenario. It must never be about I pray and get what I ask for and if I don't God's a meanie and I loose out.

This is a complete false way of understanding prayer.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

The words of the OP came from the mouth of a prayer leader whose surname looks like that of a Romantic composer from Norway.

K.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality. It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The words of the OP came from the mouth of a prayer leader whose surname looks like that of a Romantic composer from Norway.

I've got it! Johannes Haarklou and I claim my 5 kr.- !!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality. It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.

The Bible is chock full of military images too.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.

Exactly.

I used to go on many 'prayer walks' and 'circle the city in prayer' drives, thinking they made a difference - 'Destroying Dominions' of the devil.

They made no difference of course.

Evil is caused by people - not some imaginary 'devil'.

Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :

A very slight tangent, but on the subject of prayer battles: An Anglican church near me has a very liberal vicar. The local evangelicals do not like him and have started 'praying against' him with a view to getting him out. I pointed out to one of them that if someone were 'praying against' their church they would probably say that that was tantamount to witchcraft. When Christians start using prayer as a weapon against each other surely someone has lost the plot.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality.

I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no?

quote:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.

Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:

quote:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no?

You miss Steve H's point, which is the contemporary obsession in some charismatic quarters with quasi-medieval war imagery, lending a sense of romantic nobility to blood-and-guts combat and a sort of heraldic militarism which is, again, more to do with Star Wars and nice little quasi-spiritual fantasies than actually going out and confronting the powers in any meaningful way.

(If you really don't see this, just Google a few words like "prayer warriors' conference" "intercession ministry" or whatever. I haven't right now, but I can guarantee the results will match what I've outlined above).

Paul was taking his imagery from his day-to-day experience of the Roman Empire. If he'd been writing today he would be talking about the taser of the spirit, the riot shield of faith, the kevlar of righteousness, and probably something about pepper spray, too. Either way, the problem is that people are mistaking the accoutrements of the image for the substance of what he's on about.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Granted, and some of the language they use does make me cringe. But I think all traditions are guilty of inappropriate appropriation of language (try saying that after a few drinks!) that's off-putting to 'outsiders' eg: I well remember being asked by well-meaning con evos whether I had been "washed in the blood" ( [Projectile]

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no?
You miss Steve H's point, which is the contemporary obsession in some charismatic quarters with quasi-medieval war imagery, lending a sense of romantic nobility to blood-and-guts combat and a sort of heraldic militarism which is, again, more to do with Star Wars and nice little quasi-spiritual fantasies than actually going out and confronting the powers in any meaningful way.

(If you really don't see this, just Google a few words like "prayer warriors' conference" "intercession ministry" or whatever. I haven't right now, but I can guarantee the results will match what I've outlined above).

Paul was taking his imagery from his day-to-day experience of the Roman Empire. If he'd been writing today he would be talking about the taser of the spirit, the riot shield of faith, the kevlar of righteousness, and probably something about pepper spray, too. Either way, the problem is that people are mistaking the accoutrements of the image for the substance of what he's on about.

Exactly - and furthermore, it seems to me that Paul was using a contrast-metaphor, not a compare-one, i.e. he's saying "physical weapons are wicked, BUT spiritual ones are good", not "Physical weapons are good, AND spiritual ones are even better".
Incidentally, I must apologise for the dodgy spelling and synrax of my previous post, which was typed, and then edited, rather carelessly by me.

[ 31. May 2012, 11:34: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:

quote:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.

I admire CSL as much as anyone, but he could be wrong (indeed, he could be very silly), and he is here: he's made a rather obvious circular argument, since he's assuming the existance of devils, which is precisely the point under discussion.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sorry but I prefer to go with the Apostle Paul (and C S Lewis as it happens as he agrees with the Bible)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:

quote:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.

Not at all - I have moved from believing in an objectively-existing devil to realising that the devil is a metaphor for all evil.

Many times I have engaged in 'spiritual battle' with the 'devil'

None of it worked.

The thing which works is much, much harder than standing above a town and praying over it. Hard, loving work with damaged people is what works.

People damage each other - no devil needed.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

There is a whole chain of linked logical problems with belief in devils, but I haven't got time to go into them now, as I'm off to work in a few minutes. I'll expand tonight.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

But in anticipation of your post, let me point out that Christianity is hardly logical.

Christ explicitly referred to "[our] adversary, the devil."

And while I agree strongly with Boogie, that we are evil enough that we don't need devils, and the further point that active loving is better than praying over a city in the manner I've seen done (the prayers mean nothing without consequent action, other wise you really don't care enough to try to bring about the results that you are asking the Lord to bring about), yet I simply cannot dismiss the words of Christ and His disciples.

Blessings,

Tom

[ 31. May 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:

quote:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.
Not at all - I have moved from believing in an objectively-existing devil to realising that the devil is a metaphor for all evil.

Many times I have engaged in 'spiritual battle' with the 'devil'

None of it worked.

The thing which works is much, much harder than standing above a town and praying over it. Hard, loving work with damaged people is what works.

People damage each other - no devil needed.

I don't think it's an either/or. Whilst I look forward to Steve H's further elucidation, the existence of evil posits an originator of it - the Devil - since we are made in God's image in the first place. Also, as Tom has pointed out, the NT writers - and the Lord Himself - referred to the existence of a real, personal Devil; whilst accepting that there is "evil that men do", let that not detract from the fact that the Devil is very, very real and that we neglect that reality, perhaps believing ourselves to be so more sophisticated than our 1st century spiritual forebears, at our peril.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Also, as Tom has pointed out, the NT writers - and the Lord Himself - referred to the existence of a real, personal Devil; whilst accepting that there is "evil that men do", let that not detract from the fact that the Devil is very, very real and that we neglect that reality, perhaps believing ourselves to be so more sophisticated than our 1st century spiritual forebears, at our peril.

Not more sophisticated - just different in viewpoint. Our way of describing the world has changed completely. If Jesus had come now instead of then he'd have used our language to describe (and wake us up to) our evil ways - just as he did then.

There IS no evil other than that done by wo/men. There are terrible natural disasters, of course, but they have awful consequences - they are not evil acts. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw' - but this is not evil, it's simply because everything has to eat.

The only deliberate evil available is man made. We need no 'devil' to pervert us!

<eta code>

[ 31. May 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sorry, but there I utterly part company with you.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I join company with Boogie.

The concept of a Devil is the ultimate excuse for those wishing to evade responsibility.

It wasn't me Guv. I was tempted / forced / compelled by .........

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I think that the account of the Fall negates that particular straw man.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

But the Devil played no part in the Fall.

Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

If the devil really exists,and is a fallen angel, along with all the lesser demons, how did creatures who were sinless and had the ability to remain so come to sin in the first place, knowing as they must have done the dire consequences? Given that they did, why didn't God offer them forgiveness and restoration if they repented? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than letting them spend eternity in an existance which must have been miserable? Given that God didn't, why did and does God allow them to have any influence on the world?
See what I mean about awhole train of linked problems?

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Like I said, SteveH, Christianity isn't logical. And I think that, as Matt said, to do such violence to the text and to think of ourselves as so much more sophisticated than our 1st century brothers and sisters, is perilous.

Boogie, though, you are right in one very real respect. The actual evil is done by men and women, period. Barring some cheesy costume, Satan isn't robbing the convenience store. And it isn't Satan or some minion demon hitting the defenseless spouse or child, and they aren't making him do it. How the temptation bit works out, or where the dividing like between external and internal temptation is at, I couldn't codify. But I believe we ignore the text at our peril.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But the Devil played no part in the Fall.

Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)

Indeed. The Devil as a supernatural anti-God being plays no real part in Judaism even with Genesis as part of the Torah. Ha-satan is just the Hebrew word for "obstacle" or "adversary". The concept of Satan as a being didn't enter into the picture until the Persian exile when the Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism.

It doesn't necessarily make the concept of a devil-being invalid, but I'd agree that it's poor exegesis to link Satan with the serpent.

[ 31. May 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Like I said, SteveH, Christianity isn't logical.

Of course Christianity is logical. It isn't merely logical - there's much more to it than that - but it certainly isn't less than logical, i.e. illogical. If it was ,that'd be the end of all debate, and you could believe anything you liked, without challenge. This is what I mentioned before - the tendency of some Christians, when their particular beliefs are challenged, to come out with some infuriatingly pseudo-pious rubbish about how "mere human logic" can't understand God. If you've got any proper answers to my objections, let's hear them, but spare me that.

quote:
And I think that, as Matt said, to do such violence to the text and to think of ourselves as so much more sophisticated than our 1st century brothers and sisters, is perilous.

I'm not "doing violence" to the text (of the Bible), I just don't believe all of it, literally at any rate, and some of it not in any way. The Bible contains the word of God, but it also contains much that emphatically isn't, such as the appalling genocides described in the OT, supposedly commanded by God. As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy. They had neither. They were probably better Christians than us, and I certainly don't feel superior to them in any area of the faith that really matters, but the simple fact is that we know a great deal more than them - and that includes jesus himself: becoming fully incarnate meant not just becoming a man, but becoming a man at a particular time and in a particular culture, and sharing that culture's world-view, at least as far as the physical structure of the world is concerned. I'm sure Jesus believed in a literal three-decker universe with the earth at the centre of it, for example. If you think that Jesus knew that the earth is fairly average planet, elliptically orbiting an fairly average sun, one of billions in a fairly aver age galaxy which is itself one of billions, and is about 15 billion years old, you are, I'm afraid, believing a heresy, because you don't believe that Jesus was fully human during his incarnation. I'm sure Jesus also believed in objectively-existing devils as well, but I'm not bound to that belief. As a Christian, I'm bound to believe, and try to follow, Jesus's ethical and spiritual teaching, but I don't have to accept his physical world-view, including the onbjective existance of devils.

quote:

Boogie, though, you are right in one very real respect. The actual evil is done by men and women, period. Barring some cheesy costume, Satan isn't robbing the convenience store. And it isn't Satan or some minion demon hitting the defenseless spouse or child, and they aren't making him do it. How the temptation bit works out, or where the dividing like between external and internal temptation is at, I couldn't codify. But I believe we ignore the text at our peril.

We're not ignoring the text; we're using our God-given intellects to interpret it in the light of modern knowledge.

[ 01. June 2012, 07:44: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
There IS no evil other than that done by wo/men.

[complete tangent] Recently I was talking to some 16 yr old girls about a text, and the subject of domestic violence came up. One girl commented, "I don't know any person who would behave like that. Mind you, I can think of plenty of men." All I could do was raise my voice a couple of octaves, and squeak, "Right on Sister!" [end tangent]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I wasn't saying that the Eden serpent is the Devil (that's a whole different debate worthy perhaps of its own thread); rather I was using it as a Scriptural example of the existence of an external tempter not absolving one of personal responsibility for sin - indeed, Adam and Eve try to so absolve themselves and the LORD makes it clear that, as Samuel L Jackson might put it, "Your asses ain't talking their ways out of this one."

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy.

Ah, yes, the things that gave us inter alia the idealogies of racial purity and ethnic cleansing, plus the technology to implement them. As you say, "so much more sophisticated">

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy.
Ah, yes, the things that gave us inter alia the idealogies of racial purity and ethnic cleansing, plus the technology to implement them. As you say, "so much more sophisticated">

Yes, they've been horribly misused - what of it? Sarcasm isn't an argument.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Come off it Matt. You can do better than this. If you read your Bible things like genocide in the cause of racial purity and nationalism have been around for yonks and what makes it worse is that it was at God's command.

So dont blame science or philosophy and all things "modern".

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'm saying that human nature doesn't change.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm saying that human nature doesn't change.

What has that got to do with the thread topic, and specifically with the objective existance or not of demons?

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But the Devil played no part in the Fall.

Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)

So what or who exactly was the serpent?

Incidentally, someone once reduced Genesis to a haiku, thus:

Don't touch that fruit, Eve -
Oh my God! She's disobeyed!
Cosmic disaster!

or Limerick:

God's plan had a splendid beginning,
But we went and spoiled it by sinning.
We trust that the story
Will end in God's glory,
But at present the other side's winning.

[ 01. June 2012, 09:49: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A prominent figure in the charismatic scene in London described (just yesterday) how after someone we knew died of cancer that we 'had lost a prayer battle'. A 'prayer' battle? With whom? If 'we' lost, who won?

Does this baffle others, or is it just me?

Thanks you in advance,

K.

Completely ridiculous and adds support to anything Dawkins might perceive about people of faith.

Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on :

I can understand why you might disagree with the terminology but don't see why it is completely ridiculous. Wonder if it would seem completely ridiculous if the word "charismatic" hadn't been included in the OP as this tends to act as a trigger word for lots of people on these boards.

On the one hand you may have lost a prayer battle with God - you have been praying for a particular outcome, God didn't want that outcome - he's not going to budge. Not sure I would describe this as a battle but certainly an argument. There are parallals to Jacob wrestling with God in prayer. I am not sure whether this is what is being talked about here....

More likely, and this is how I would see things, they are talking from within a worldview that sees cancer - i.e. sickness and death as being outworkings of the fall and things to battle against in prayer. We all die but doesn't Paul describe death as the "last enemy"? and there is a huge difference between dieing in old age and dieing an untimely death perhaps leaving young children without a mum or dad. A theology of the kingdom of God which is "now and not yet" allows for losing the battle while acknowleding that ultimately God (and also His people) will win the war. The Lords prayer tells us that to pray that God's will is done on earth as in heaven which suggests very strongly that actualy it often isn't. I am not sure it is strictly correct in precise theology as science way to talk of prayer as a battle and losing the battle (not sure it isn't either!) - but certainly as a more poetic description it seems spot on.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I find the terminology baffling. I don't really believe in, or see the logical necessity for, intercessory prayer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
I am not sure it is strictly correct in precise theology as science way to talk of prayer as a battle and losing the battle (not sure it isn't either!) - but certainly as a more poetic description it seems spot on.

Perhaps, but having read a few of Komensky's posts I can guess the sort of environment this is being said in, and there it is often more than poetic. This Present Darkness is a popularised version of how these folk view the world.

In my view, it's essentially a combination of esoterism, superstition and folk religion masquerading as super-spirituality, and a huge distraction from incarnational christianity.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Posted by Sebby

"I don't really believe in, or see the logical necessity for, intercessory prayer."

You might, just possibly, if you re=arranged your mind-set about how intercessory prayer might work.

Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on :

Eutychus - your comment appears to be illustrating what I said in the first paragraph of mine.

You are not responding so much to what the OP told us had been said but the environment that you picture it being said in and your prejudice (which may be right or wrong) of how "these folk" view the world.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I wasn't saying that the Eden serpent is the Devil (that's a whole different debate worthy perhaps of its own thread);

That thread has now been started, also in Purgatory. Maybe you'd like to mosey over there and tell us who or what you think the serpent was, if not the devil.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm with Boogie too.

(Although I guess this would sound a lot better if I had a big Afro hairdo and some outrageous sunglasses [Cool]

)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0