[AJPS 3/1 (2000), pp.

19-31]

1
DEMON POSSESSION AND THE CHRISTIAN

Steven S. Carter

1. Introduction

“Clinical evidence abounds that a Christian can be demon-controlled

as a carry-over from pre-conversion days or can fall under Satan’s power
2
after conversion and become progressively demonized, even seriously.”
The “clinical evidence” referred to here appears to be impressive. People
like Mark I. Bubeck, C. Fred Dickason, Kurt Koch, Charles H. Kraft,
Merrill Unger and C. Peter Wagner all give numerous examples of born-
again Christians who have been diagnosed as suffering from
3 4
“demonization.” The official Assemblies of God position, on the other
hand, has rejected their view and maintains that it is not possible for
Christians to be demon-possessed.
1
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Lectureship of Asia
Pacific Theological seminary in January 1996.
2
Merrill F. Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, rev. ed. with a forward by
Mark Bubeck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), p. 150.
3
Mark I. Bubeck, Overcoming the Adversary (Chicago: Moody, 1975), pp. 87-
92; C. Fred Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, with a forward by
Mark I. Bubeck (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), pp. 187-213; Kurt Koch, Occult
Bondage and Deliverance: Advice for Counseling the Sick, the Troubled and the
Occultly Oppressed (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal, 1970), pp. 67-71; Charles H.
Kraft, “Dealing with the Demonization,” in Behind Enemy Lines: An Advanced
Guide to Spiritual Warfare, eds. Charles H. Kraft, Tom Whilte, Ed Murphy and
others (Ann Arbor, MI: Vine, 1994), pp. 79-120 (89-91); Unger, What Demons
Can Do, pp. 141-67; C. Peter Wagner, How to Have a Healing Ministry without
Making Your Church Sick (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1988; reprint ed. Manila: OMF
Literature, 1990), pp. 189-96.
4
The General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, Can Born-Again Believers
Be Demon Possessed? (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1972).
20 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

This paper will attempt to identify the arguments used as support for
the assertion that Christians can be demon-possessed and will seek to
show that such assertions have been based on a priori theological
presuppositions, and questionable exegesis. It will then seek to identify
the implications, which this view raises in the areas of soteriology and
biblical anthropology. In the process, it will also be shown that the
scriptures most often utilized to support this position, do not teach that
demons can invade the lives of born-again believers.

2. Demon Possession or Demonization?

One of the controversies surrounding this issue is how best to

translate the Koine Greek verb daimonivzomai into English. The argument
5
is made by many advocate writers, that translating daimonivzomai as
“demon-possessed” is misleading and they prefer to use the term
6
“demonization.” While the lexicons and wordbooks translate
7
daimonivzomai into English as “to be possessed by a demon,” C. Fred
8
Dickason, for example, argues that the present passive participle form of
daimonivzomai, daimonizovmeno" should be translated as “a demon caused
9
passivity.” For him, daimonivzomai should not be understood to infer the
10
complete control of the invaded individual by the inhabiting demon.
5
The term “advocates” will be used during the remainder of this paper as a term
for all those who believe that Christians can be demon possessed.
6
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 37-39; Ed Murphy, The
Handbook for Spiritual Warfare (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), pp. 51-
52; Unger, What Demons Can Do, pp. 97-98.
7
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd ed.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 169: Werner Foerster, “daivmwn,
daimovnion, daimonivzomai, daimoniwvdh", deisidaivmwn, deisidaimoniva,”
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., eds. Gerhard Kittel and
others, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-76), II,
pp. 1-20 (19); William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan-Harper Collins, 1993), p. 130.
8
C. Fred Dickason is chairman of the theology department at Moody Bible
Institute in Chicago.
9
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 37-38.
10
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 37-38.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 21

The problem with using the word “possession,” according to Dickason, is

11
that it implies “ownership.” He asserts that the New Testament depicts
demons “as squatters or invaders of territory that does not belong to
12
them.” Consequently, the term “demonization” is offered as an alternate
English translation and is defined as “a demon caused passivity or control
due to a demon’s residing within a person, which manifests its effects in
13
various physical and mental disorders and in varying degrees.”
There is scriptural support for Dickason’s assertion that demons are
incapable of “owning” those they possess. In Luke 4:16-21 it is recorded
that on the Sabbath Jesus went into the synagogue at Nazareth and read
Isa 61:1-2 and then proclaimed that “today this scripture is fulfilled in
14
your hearing” (Luke 4:21). One of the statements from Isaiah which
Jesus applied to himself was that he would “proclaim freedom for the
prisoners” and “release the oppressed” (Luke 4:18). It is significant that
in the next recorded public appearance of Jesus (Luke 4:31-36), He is
again in a synagogue and while there, exorcises a demon from a man. The
phrase, e!cwn pneu'ma daimonivou ajkaqavrtou (one who has an unclean
demonic spirit) is used to describe the condition of the man from whom
Jesus cast out the demon (Luke 4:33). While the Greek verb
daimonivzomai is not used to describe the demon-possessed man’s
15
condition, the phrase utilized by Luke gives the same meaning.
Although, demons clearly are invaders of that which God created in his
own image (Gen 1:26), the point is well taken that daimonivzomai should
not be misunderstood to refer to the “ownership” of the possessed by the
inhabiting demon.
11
The primary definition for the word “possession” of Webster’s Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1965) is “the act of
having or taking into control.” While this definition does not deal with
ownership, the secondary definition does. It states, “something owned, occupied,
or controlled” (p. 663).
12
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 38.
13
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 40.
14
All scripture references were taken out of the New International Version.
15
In Luke 8 a man is introduced with the words e!cwn daimovnia (one who has a
demon) and later referred to with the first aorist participle daimonisqeiv" (one
who had been demon possessed) which is from the verbal root daimonivzomai.
The importance of this is that the condition of being demon possessed is referred
to in two different ways, both with the same meaning.
22 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

While the addition of the word “demonization” to the English

language has caused confusion, as long as it is used simply as a substitute
translation for the Greek verb daimonivzomai and the meaning of the
original Greek word is retained, there is no problem in adopting this term.
However, if, in the process of adopting this new word, the implied
English meaning of the Greek word is changed, then the use of this new
word is unacceptable. Demonization is nothing new; it is simply a new
word applied to an old concept.
Unfortunately, when advocates use the term “demonization,” the
implied meaning of daimonivzomai has often times been changed.
Dickason stated in his definition that there were “varying degrees” of
16
demonization. However, an analysis of the word’s biblical usage does
not support his assertion. The word daimonivzomai is used thirteen times
17
in the New Testament, occurring only in the gospels. Of these it is
significant that it is used a total of six times in reference to the Gadarene
18 19
demoniac. This man was totally controlled by the demons inside of
him, as Mark’s record indicates:

This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not
even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he
tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong
enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills
he would cry out and cut himself with stones (Mark 5:3-5).

This is a case of typical demon possession. This man was clearly

under demonic control and the demons possessing him seem to have
determined his every action.
Of the other passages which use the word daimonivzomai, only two
record symptoms for this condition. Matthew 9:32 states that the demon-
possessed man was blind (kwfoVn), while Matt 12:22 states that the
demon-possessed man was blind and mute (tufloV" kaiV kwfov").
Although, scripture does not give a detailed description of all the
16
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 40.
17
Scripture references which use a form of the word daimonivzomai; Matt 4:24;
8:16, 28, 33; 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Mark 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; Luke 8:36; John
10:21.
18
Matt 8:28, 33; Mark 5:15, 16, 18; Luke 8:36.
19
Matthew refers to two demon-possessed men, while Mark and Luke only
record one demon-possessed man.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 23

symptoms surrounding demon possession, the symptoms that are

recorded are significant. Demons are not just depicted as subjecting
mankind to their fiendish whims but also as seeking to destroy and distort
20
the divine image within mankind. Moreover, it should be observed that
these passages do not indicate variations in the degrees of demon
possession. Many advocate writers assert that there are degrees of
21
daimonivzomai, which seem to be a logical construct that is not validated
by the biblical text.
What is at issue here is the degree of “control” exercised over the
demon-possessed person by the invading spirit. Dickason asserts that it is
logical to assume that “the more demons [there are] inhabiting [a person],
the greater the hold the spirits have upon the person. This could result in
22
more control and possibly more violent manifestations.” While this
view may seem “logical,” the biblical texts do not support this idea. The
reason this is an important concern, is that advocates argue that demons
are only capable of exercising limited control within the demon-
23
possessed Christian. Murphy states very clearly, “Satan can gain partial
24
control over the hearts of believers who willfully sin.” Thus, what
advocates are claiming is the possibility that Christians can be
daimonivzomai, yet in a less severe way than the biblical examples.
However, this assertion is based only on a logical construct. Thus, it must
be rejected, since there is nothing in scripture to support such a view.
The terms “demon possession” and “demonization” have their
genesis in the same Koine Greek word, yet each has been defined
differently. While “demon possession” should not be understood as the
“ownership” of a human by a demon, it does convey the meaning of its
Greek root well. “Demonization,” on the other hand, as it is being used
by advocates, brings with it an extra-biblical meaning and, thus, should
not be used. The New Testament writers have established the meaning of
20
Foerster, “daivmwn,” pp. 18-19.
21
Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, pp. 98, 111-40 argues for three levels
of demonization: mild, moderate and severe. Dickason, Demon Possession and
the Christian, pp. 44-45 asserts that there are various degrees of demonization,
though he does not label them.
22
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 44.
23
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 134-35; Kraft, “Deanling
with Demonizatin,” p. 91; Murphy, The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare, p. 314;
Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, pp. 87, 150.
24
Murphy, The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare, p. 314.
24 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

daimonivzomai and no one has the authority to add to or subtract from that
meaning.

3. The Implications of the Advocate’s View of Demonization

For those who believe in the demon possession of Christians, two

searching questions come to mind; “Can God and evil reside in the same
person?” and “What happens to the salvation of a supposedly demon-
possessed Christian?” By looking at the responses to these issues, some
of the theological presuppositions which advocates bring to the scripture
will be identified. While it is acknowledged that advocates come from
many varied theological traditions and backgrounds, their responses to
these questions are very similar.

3.1 Biblical Anthropology

“Is it possible for God and evil to coexist?” To put the question
another way, “Can the Holy Spirit and a demon simultaneously inhabit a
Christian?” Advocates will universally respond with a “yes” answer. The
reasons they give as support for their conclusion are crucial in
understanding how they interpret the scripture.
In John 3, we read about the interaction between Jesus and the
Pharisee Nicodemus. Jesus told Nicodemus that “no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:5-6). It is clear
from this passage that the Holy Spirit is the agent of human
25
regeneration. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit’s work in people does not end
there. Paul reminds us in Rom 8:9 that Christians “are controlled not by
the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in [them]. And
if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to
Christ.” Basically, the Holy Spirit must be resident within a person in
order for that person to be a born-again Christian. If the Holy Spirit is not
dwelling there, then that person is simply not a Christian. Advocates and
non-advocates alike will agree on this point. The disagreement arises
when it is asserted that a demonic spirit is capable of cohabiting with the
Holy Spirit.
25
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, one vol. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1985), p. 873.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 25

In order to justify their assertion, advocates claim that man is “a

26
tripartite creature composed of spirit, soul and body.” This view is
based largely on 1 Thess 5:23: “May the God of peace, sanctify you
through and through. May your whole spirit (pneu'ma), soul (yuchV) and
body (sw'ma) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
It is then asserted that the Holy Spirit resides in the “spirit” of a human
being and consequently demons are unable to gain access to the “spirit”
27
of a Christian. However, a demon “may invade and cause upheaval and
28
chaos in the believer through his body and soul.” Thus, by dividing a
person into three distinct parts, the Holy Spirit and demons are not seen
as residing in the same part of the demon-possessed Christian.
While this argument may make logical sense, it does not stand up to
biblical scrutiny. In Mark 12:30, Jesus stated, “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart (kardiva") and with all your soul (yuch'") and with all
your mind (dianoiva") and with all your strength (ijscuvo").” If this
passage is interpreted in the same way as 1 Thess 5:23, then man is not
composed of three parts, but of at least six parts. Likewise, Luke 1:46-47
should also be considered, where Mary is recorded as singing, “My soul
(yuchv) glorifies the Lord and my spirit (pneu'mav) rejoices in God my
Savior.” Here, “soul” and “spirit” seem to be used almost
29
interchangeably. There is no universal consistency in the way these
various terms are used in the scripture.
1 Corinthians 6:15-20 also has some significant contributions to
make to this issue. “Do you not know that your body (swvma) is a temple
of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God
with your body (swvmati)” (1 Cor 6:19-20). It should be noted that Paul
uses the same Greek word for “body” in both 1 Thess 5:23 and 1 Cor
6:19-20. “Through the phenomenon of the indwelling Spirit, Paul now
images the body as the Spirit’s temple, emphasizing that it is the ‘place’
30
of the Spirit’s dwelling in the individual believers’ lives.”
26
Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, p. 86.
27
Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, p. 87.
28
Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints, p. 87.
29
Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 522.
30
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), p.
264.
26 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

Consequently, the conclusion can be drawn that the Holy Spirit not only
resides in the spirit (yuchv) of the Christian, but also in that same
Christian’s body (swvma). This passage clearly speaks against the
Hellenistic concept of dualism, which sought to separate the “material”
31
body from the “immaterial” soul or spirit. Christians are holistic beings
32
whom God, through Christ, has wholly redeemed. Paul is emphasizing
in v. 20 that Christ has redeemed Christians’ entire being and thus, they
33
are totally free to serve God.
The above distinction is vitally important. Christians are not to live
for themselves. “Do you not know that your bodies (swvmata) are
members of Christ himself?” (1 Cor 6:15). Fee argues that the term
bodies (swvmata) is used by Paul, not as a reference to the “church,” but
34
as a reference to the Christian’s relationship with Jesus himself. Fee
states, “this means that the believer’s physical body is to be understood as
35
‘joined’ to Christ’s own ‘body’ that was raised from the dead.”
Christians have been radically changed and have the Spirit of God
resident within them. This does not mean that just the Christian’s “spirit”
has been changed, but also his entire being. Thus, instead of cutting a
person up into different, autonomous parts, it is better to think of a human
being as a unified and integrated being.
Dickason responds to the above question in a different way. He
acknowledges that Christians are holistic beings and should not be
36
divided into various parts. Yet, he asserts that the Holy Spirit and
37
demons are capable of cohabiting in the same, fully integrated being.
He argues that Psalm 5:4, “You are not a God who takes pleasure in
evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell,” shows that God will not
“fellowship” with evil. Dickason makes the point that this verse is a
synonymous parallelism and that the first and second parts “have the
38
same or similar meanings.” Thus, that God is not taking pleasure in evil
31
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 266.
32
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 266.
33
C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2nd ed. (London: A. & C.
Black, 1971), p. 152.
34
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 258.
35
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 258.
36
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 136.
37
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 96.
38
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 95.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 27

is equivalent to God not dwelling with wickedness. He writes, “The main

idea is not the mutual exclusion of the presence of God and evil but the
39
lack of pleasure or fellowship of God with evil.” For him, “presence”
and “fellowship” are two different concepts that should not be confused.
It is then asserted that this passage “denies the possibility of evil’s having
40
fellowship with God.”
Dickason also points out that in Job 1:16; 2:1 and Zech 3:1-2 God
has allowed Satan into His presence which “does not defile God or
41
destroy Satan.” These passages are seen as further evidence for the
distinction between “fellowship” and “presence.” Consequently, while
God will not “fellowship” with Satan or demons, Dickason does not
believe that this means that God will not allow demons into his
42
presence. He concludes by stating, “One could speculate that a demon
might be present in a believer’s body but certainly not have fellowship
43
with God.”
While Dickason makes an interesting argument, it does not deal with
why God would allow a demon to reside in the temple of the Holy Spirit
(1 Cor 6:19) or to reside within Christ’s own body (1 Cor 6:15). It is a
huge logical leap from asserting that Satan may periodically be present
before God, to God being willing to share residence with demons within
his own possession, the Christian. There is no scriptural support for this
view, and as we have already seen, scripture contradicts the possibility of
this very thing.

3.2 Soteriology

Now to the second question, “What happens to the salvation of a

supposedly demon-possessed Christian?” The basic issue here is whether
or not a person who has come into a saving, born-again relationship with
Jesus Christ, can ever, for any reason, have that relationship severed.
Advocates like Dickason, Murphy and Unger are addressing the question
from the Calvinistic viewpoint that it is impossible for truly born-again
39
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 95.
40
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 96.
41
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 132.
42
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 96.
43
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 96.
28 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

44
Christians to ever lose their salvation. The advocate’s position colors
their exegesis of the text and is a crucial reason why they have concluded
that Christians can be demon-possessed. This will be seen by an
examination of 1 Cor 10:14-22.
This passage begins with the words, “Therefore, my dear friends, flee
from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14) and contains a stern warning for the
Corinthians to stay away from the worship of demons, which is what
idolatry is all about. This is a similar injunction to those found in the Old
Testament (Exod 20:3-6; Ezek 14:6; 23:49). Idolatry is a serious affront
to God and Paul is warning the church at Corinth not to repeat the
mistakes made by Israel in the past (1 Cor 10:1-13).
What is interesting about this passage is that the consequences of
idolatry are not clearly delineated. Dickason reads this passage and
understands that Paul is warning Christians to stay away from demonic
activities because this is “a testing of God that may evoke dire
45
consequences.” Romans 1:18-32 is referenced to show that God will
allow the unsaved to suffer the consequences of their actions. He then
states, “Is it logical for us to allow that God would chastise through
circumstance, illness and even death but that he would never allow
demonization as a form of punishment for the unsaved or discipline for
46
the saved?” Thus, he sees that these “dire consequences” may include
47
the demon possession of Christians.
It is clear that Paul is giving a very stern warning to the Corinthian
church to stay away from idolatry. However, Dickason’s assertion that the
result of such action may lead to the demon possession of Christians is
simply based on speculation. Paul’s primary intent was to admonish the
Corinthians to never involve themselves in the worship of demons and he
had previously referenced the history of Israel, which clearly showed
what could happen to them if they did engage in these activities. “God
44
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 56-7; Murphy, The
Handbook for Spiritual Warfare, p. 95; Unger, What Demons Can Do to Saints,
pp. 37-39. Unger states that Christians “can sin immorally and scandalously if
they recklessly give in to the old nature and seriously grieve and quench the
indwelling Spirit” (p. 39) He even uses the term “carnal Christians” to describe
such people (p. 83). Even so, he then goes onto to add that “no saint can ever
lose his sainthood; no one saved can ever be unsaved” (p. 39).
45
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 117; also see, pp. 146-47.
46
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 146-47.
47
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 146-47.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 29

was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the
desert” (1 Cor 10:5).
For Paul, there is an “absolute incompatibility” between idolatry and
48
being a Christian. This is very similar to Matt 6:24 and Luke 16:13 in
which Christ asserts that, “No one (or servant) can serve two masters.”
There is no middle ground with God! One is either for him or against
him. God is a jealous God (Exod 20:5) and Fee contends that the word
jealousy (parazhlou'men) in verse 22 is to be understood in the Old
Testament sense of God being “so absolutely without equal that he will
49
brook no rivals to his devotion.” Fee also notes that Paul makes a
reference to Israel (v. 18) and that in v. 22 an allusion is made to the
50
Song of Moses in Deut 32 were it is stated that due to Israel’s idolatry,
God “rejected them” (Deut 32:19). Paul clearly intimates that
participation by Christians in idolatry will provoke God today, just as it
did when Israel fell into idolatry during Old Testament times. It appears
that the consequence of participating in idolatry is, ultimately, to reject
and be rejected by God. Salvation, not demon possession is at issue in
this passage. In reality, what more severe consequence could there be
than to lose one’s salvation?
Advocates allow only one explanation for a person who once showed
signs of being a born-again Christian and later manifests signs of demon
possession. Believing that Christians cannot lose their salvation, they
conclude that Christians can be demon-possessed. There is no room in
their theological constructs for a person to be a born-again believer, with
a right relationship with God, then later fall away from the faith and
subsequently become demon-possessed. Furthermore, due to their
theological presuppositions, advocates are unwilling to entertain the
possibility that the stern warnings found in scripture concerning sin were
put there for any other reason than to warn Christians of the possibility
that they might be adversely afflicted by the demonic. The closest that
Dickason is able to come is to present the following as a hypothetical
possibility:

It may be argued that if a believer persists in sin and if that sin leads to
distrust and unbelief in Christ, this results in rejection of Christ and the

48
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 463.
49
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 474.
50
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 470, 473-74.
30 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3/1 (2000)

loss of salvation. In the process demons may possess the person either
51
before or after the loss of salvation.

He rejects this argument based on his presupposition that Christians

can never lose their salvation. However, “for the sake of argument,”
Dickason acknowledges that if the above view is valid, then Christians
52
cannot be demon-possessed. This is a significant admission. Dickason is
basically acknowledging that his theological presupposition on the
security of individual’s salvation determines his or her interpretation of
scripture. He is so certain of the validity of his beliefs that he is unwilling
53
to entertain any other explanations.
As a result of the advocate’s approach to scripture they find no clear
54
answers from the biblical text. Consequently, the advocates assert that
due to the inconclusiveness of scripture, they are “left to look for other
55
types of evidence.” Wagner explains:

When the Bible gives us clear teaching on a certain issue, we then

interpret human experience in light of revelation. But when the Bible is
neutral on an issue, it is legitimate for us to learn and apply what we
learn from human experience, so long as our conclusions don’t
56
contradict Scripture.

The advocates then use their personal experiences with the demonic
to form their theology of the demonic. Dickason asserts that the clinical
experiences of himself and others are “difficult to dismiss” and
57
conclusive. Unfortunately, clinical evidence is not enough on which to
base any theological teaching. Arguments from the silence of scripture
are dangerous and can lead to serious error.

51
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 139.
52
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 139.
53
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 139.
54
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 127; Wagner, How to Have
a Healing Ministry, p. 194.
55
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, p. 127; Wagner, How to Have
a Healing Ministry, p. 194.
56
Wagner, How to Have a Healing Ministry, p. 194.
57
Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, pp. 185, 213.
 Carter, Demon Possession and the Christian 31

4. Conclusion

From this analysis, we have seen how the term “demonization” has
crept into the English language. While it is based upon the Greek verb
daimonivzomai, its original meaning has not been retained in its current
usage. Consequently, it is a misleading term and should not be used in
place of “demon possession.”
We have also identified the faulty anthropological view held by those
who believe in the demon possession of Christians. A human is not
composed of various independent parts, which can be inhabited
separately by the Holy Spirit and demons, but is a unified and fully
integrated whole. Any biblically based theology must recognize and build
itself upon this.
Finally, we have examined the salvational implications of this view.
We have seen how the theological presuppositions of the advocates have
clouded their interpretation of the biblical text and led them to
inappropriate conclusions about demon possession and Christians.
We should consider one final thought. If the demon possession of
Christian is a reality, why is the New Testament silent on the subject?
Why is there not one reference to the reality of this threat? Or, did the
New Testament writers not see it as a threat? The only answer, which
seems reasonable, is that the New Testament writers did not see the
possibility in the first place!