The Holy Spirit, dwelling within...

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Ok, maybe it would still matter. But my point is that the text plainly states that your body is a temple for the HS, and that he dwells in you.

1Co 3:16,17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

The temple the Holy Spirit dwells in is our mind. For example:

Quote:

The Holy Spirit found in Timothy a mind that could be molded and fashioned to become a temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because he submitted to be molded. (CT 310)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I didn't decline. I didn't even see the question.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have simply said you didn't respond to the request.

No problem. Just wanted you know the reason you didn't see a reply to your question.

[John317]

The temple the Holy Spirit dwells in is our mind.

Why do we use the word "dwells in"? What does it mean to say "the Holy Spirit dwells in" our mind?

Does it merely mean that Holy Spirit influences our minds?

Why do we say that through the Holy Spirit, Jesus "lives in" our heart? Why not just say "Jesus influences us"?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The Holy Spirit surely had a good reason to inspire the writers of the Bible to use the word for "in us." We have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Holy Spirit, believing that this was deliberate and that it communicates clearly what God wants us to know about the Holy Spirit.

We don't believe in verbal inspiration. The Holy Spirit doesn't dictate to Bible writes which words to use.

Quote:

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen.(1SM 21)

Yes, that is true, I don't believe in verbal inspiration, either. But that doesn't mean that God did not influence the very words that the writers of the Bible used. Remember that Ellen White herself said that she was as dependent on the Holy Spirit in the writing as she was in receiving the vision. She also wrote: "He [God] guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write" GC, introduction, p. 8. She does not mean that simply because humans wrote the Bible in human words, God did not influence which words were used. She says that the Bible presents "a union of the divine and the human." "The Bible points to God as its author.... The truths revealed are all 'given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim. 3: 16); yet they are expressed in the words of men." GC, introduction, p, 7, 8. One of those truths revealed is that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christ's true followers.

If God did not influence the use of particular words in Scripture, we would have an impossible time explaining why Jesus could say, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," or why Paul could base an important point on the fact that the word "seed" is singular and not plural. Many more such examples could be given.

Therefore, it is obvious that the words of Scripture are important and that the Holy Spirit had a purpose in influencing the prophets and apostles to use the language that they did. The Holy Spirit's influence is the reason that the entire Bible is one harmonious whole. The use of "en" in relationship to the Holy Spirit is just one example. It is a word that is used consistently in that way all through the Holy Scriptures. I believe the evidence is that this was according to God's will. It wasn't merely coincidental. It has an important bearing on the question before us, whether the Holy Spirit dwells within or without [or outside of] us.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

again, the meanings of the word translated "in"

Quote:

G1722 en

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

are you adverse to considering an alternate understanding?

From A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 106, regarding the use of the preposition en:

Quote:

On the expression en Christo, which occurs one hundred and sixty-four times in Paul's letters, Deissman says, 'There cannot be any doubt that 'Christ in me' means the exalted Christ living in Paul... and Paul is in Christ. Christ, the exalted Christ, is Spirit. Therefore, He can live in Paul and Paul in Him.' This mystic relation is likened to the air that is in us and yet we are in it.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's a text which speaks to the themes we've been discussing.

Quote:

To know God is, in the scriptural sense of the term, to be one with Him in heart and mind, having an experimental knowledge of Him, holding reverential communion with Him as the Redeemer. Only through sincere obedience can this communion be obtained. Where this communion is lacking, the heart is not in any sense a temple of God, but is controlled by the foe, who is working out his own purposes through the human agency. Such a man, whatever his profession or claims, is not a temple of the Holy Spirit. (Upward Look 295)

This is also bringing out the connection between submitting the will to God, being united to Him, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. These are speaking of the same thing.

Why do we use the word "dwells in"?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The Holy Spirit surely had a good reason to inspire the writers of the Bible to use the word for "in us." We have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Holy Spirit, believing that this was deliberate and that it communicates clearly what God wants us to know about the Holy Spirit.

my understanding is that those of us who are sda believe the bible to be inspired, not word-for-word dictated by the HS.

Yes, that is true, I don't believe in verbal inspiration, either. But that doesn't mean that God did not influence the very words that the writers of the Bible used. Remember that Ellen White herself said that she was as dependent on the Holy Spirit in the writing as she was in receiving the vision.

She also wrote: "He [God] guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write" GC, introduction, p. 8. She does not mean that simply because humans wrote the Bible in human words, God did not influence which words were used.

Significantly, she says that the Bible presents "a union of the divine and the human." "The Bible points to God as its author.... The truths revealed are all 'given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim. 3: 16); yet they are expressed in the words of men." GC, introduction, p, 7, 8. One of those revealed truths is that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christ's true followers.

If God did not influence the use of particular words in Scripture, we would have an impossible time explaining why Jesus could say, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," or why in Gal. 3: 16 the entire meaning turns on the use of the singular, "Seed" and not "seeds."

There are verses in Scripture that do not make sense if we say that the words of the Bible are not inspired or that we cannot depend on the trustworthiness of the very words of Scripture: For instance, in John 8: 58, it makes a big difference whether Jesus used the present tense, I AM, or whether he said, "I was" (imperfect). If Jesus said anything but "I AM," the entire text loses its point, that Jesus is God. (This is why the Jehovah Witnesses' New World Translation mistranslated it to read,"I have been." )

Other examples:

Jesus said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10: 35). There the significance of what Jesus is saying relies on the use of a particular word and on the fact that it is plural and not singular.

There are also texts which tell us that the words are those that God spoke: "Your word is truth." John 17: 17.

Acts 1: 16 says that "the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David...." In other words, it wasn't really David that was speaking but the Holy Spirit. David was merely God's mouthpiece.

See also Hebrews 1: 1, 2. This verse makes it plain that God didn't simply speak to us through Christ but that God also spoke to us through the prophets. The Bible nowhere makes a distinction between the authority of Christ's words in the Gospels and those that God spoke to us through the prophets. In fact, Christ constantly refers us back to the prophets and says that if don't believe them, we won't believe Him, either. Compare 1 Peter 1: 23-26; 2 Peter 1: 20, 21; 3: 15, 16; Rev. 1: 2; 2 Tim. 3: 15-17.

Therefore, it is obvious that the words of Scripture are very important indeed and that the Holy Spirit had a purpose in influencing the prophets and apostles to use the language that they did. The Holy Spirit's influence is the reason that the entire Bible is one harmonious whole. In fact, without the Holy Spirit inspiring the prophets to write as they did, including influencing them in the choices of words, the Bible would not be an infallible guide to God's truth. The use of "en" in relationship to the Holy Spirit is just one example. It is a word that is used consistently in that way all through the Holy Scriptures. I believe the evidence is that this was according to God's will. It wasn't merely coincidental. It has an important bearing on the question before us, whether the Holy Spirit dwells within or without [or outside of] us.

[John317]

Quote:

however one chooses to believe, do you have a problem with strongs and how the word "en" could have been translated?

Quote:

G1722 en

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

how about "(up-) on" as in the manifestation of the Spirit on the day of pentecost?

The Greek preposition translated "in" is "en." The root meaning of it is "within."

Depending on its context, "en" can be translated as "within" "in" (Matt. 2: 5), "during" (Matt. 2: 1), "as" (Luke 8: 5), "into" (John 3: 35), "on" or "upon" (Matt. 12: 2), "at" (Matt. 8: 6), "among" or "with" (Acts 1: 17), "among" (Matt. 9: 35; 16: 7, 8), "besides" (Luke 16: 26, Critical Text, not the TR), "with" or "by means of" (Rev. 6: 8), "by" (Matt. 12: 27), and "because of" or "for" (Gal. 1: 24 ).

For instance, in Acts 1: 17, it means "among us." Here it is referring to Judas as one who was "among" or "with" (not in) the disciples. The Greek is "en hmin."

How do you believe "en" in John 14: 17 should be translated?

Here are the only reasonable possibilities:

in you

within you

among you

with you

by you

for you

on you

There can be no doubt that in John 14: 17, the Greek preposition, en, should be translated "within" or "in," and not any of the "alternate understandings."

How do we know this? Because it uses "para" to signify "with you," and we know that Jesus did not mean to say that the Spirit would merely be "among," "by," or "for" His followers. Judas, the traitor whom Jesus called "a devil," was "among" [en] the disciples (Acts 1: 17). Certainly the Holy Spirit is to have a much more intimate and close relationship with us than is implied by "among."

This leaves only "in" or "within" as the true significance of Christ's words in their context, and this is the reason that all translations that I know of translate it in this way. I have 67 translations and I don't recall ever seeing the word en translated in John 14: 17 in any other way except "within" or "in."

If you have any Greek Lexicon or translation that gives a different reading, please share the reference.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

again, the meanings of the word translated "in"

Quote:

G1722 en

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.

are you adverse to considering an alternate understanding?

From A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 106, regarding the use of the preposition en:

Quote:

On the expression en Christo, which occurs one hundred and sixty-four times in Paul's letters, Deissman says, 'There cannot be any doubt that 'Christ in me' means the exalted Christ living in Paul... and Paul is in Christ. Christ, the exalted Christ, is Spirit. Therefore, He can live in Paul and Paul in Him.' This mystic relation is likened to the air that is in us and yet we are in it.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

my understanding is that those of us who are sda believe the bible to be inspired, not word-for-word dictated by the HS. [/quote']

Yes, that is true, I don't believe in verbal inspiration, either. But that doesn't mean that God did not influence the very words that the writers of the Bible used. Remember that Ellen White herself said that she was as dependent on the Holy Spirit in the writing as she was in receiving the vision.

She also wrote: "He [God] guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write" GC, introduction, p. 8. She does not mean that simply because humans wrote the Bible in human words, God did not influence which words were used.

Significantly, she says that the Bible presents "a union of the divine and the human." "The Bible points to God as its author.... The truths revealed are all 'given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim. 3: 16); yet they are expressed in the words of men." GC, introduction, p, 7, 8. One of those revealed truths is that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christ's true followers.

If God did not influence the use of particular words in Scripture, we would have an impossible time explaining why Jesus could say, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," or why in Gal. 3: 16 the entire meaning turns on the use of the singular, "Seed" and not "seeds."

There are verses in Scripture that do not make sense if we say that the words of the Bible are not inspired or that we cannot depend on the trustworthiness of the very words of Scripture: For instance, in John 8: 58, it makes a big difference whether Jesus used the present tense, I AM, or whether he said, "I was" (imperfect). If Jesus anything but "I AM," the entire text loses its point, that Jesus is God. (This is why the Jehovah Witnesses' New World Translation mistranslated it to read,"I have been." )

Other examples:

Jesus said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10: 35). There the significance of what Jesus is saying relies on the use of a particular word and on the fact that it is plural and not singular.

There are also texts which tell us that the words are those that God spoke: "Your word is truth." John 17: 17.

Acts 1: 16 says that "the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David...." In other words, it wasn't really David that was speaking but the Holy Spirit. David was merely God's mouthpiece.

See also Hebrews 1: 1, 2. This verse makes it plain that God didn't simply speak to us through Christ but that God also spoke to us through the prophets. The Bible nowhere makes a distinction between the authority of Christ's words in the Gospels and those that God spoke to us through the prophets. In fact, Christ constantly refers us back to the prophets and says that if don't believe them, we won't believe Him, either. Compare 1 Peter 1: 23-26; 2 Peter 1: 20, 21; 3: 15, 16; Rev. 1: 2; 2 Tim. 3: 15-17.

Therefore, it is obvious that the words of Scripture are very important indeed and that the Holy Spirit had a purpose in influencing the prophets and apostles to use the language that they did. The Holy Spirit's influence is the reason that the entire Bible is one harmonious whole. In fact, without the Holy Spirit inspiring the prophets to write as they did, including influencing them in the choices of words, the Bible would not be an infallible guide to God's truth. The use of "en" in relationship to the Holy Spirit is just one example. It is a word that is used consistently in that way all through the Holy Scriptures. I believe the evidence is that this was according to God's will. It wasn't merely coincidental. It has an important bearing on the question before us, whether the Holy Spirit dwells within or without [or outside of] us.

This sounds like verbal inspiration.

[John317]

[John317]

This sounds like verbal inspiration.

Verbal inspiration is plenary inspiration, in which God is viewed as having dictated the words as to a secretary.

Seventh-day Adventists, as you said, don't believe in this, but when you read Ellen White and the SDA Bible Commentary, you can see that Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Scriptures are God's words to us. They are both human and divine, just as Christ is both human and divine.

Could you look through my post on this subject and let me know what I said there that you believe is in error according to Ellen White's statements and our SDA beliefs?

Here is a quote from an introduction to SDA theology, The Reign of God (Andrews University Press) p. 31, written by one of my former teachers, Richard Rice:

"Although the prophets expressed their messages [i.e., God's messages] in their own words, we should not conclude that God's role in the process of revelation ended with the prophetic visions. In fact, he is involved in the entire process, including the people's reception of the message. The language of 2 Peter 1: 21, "men moved by the Holy Spirit," suggests that they were borne along by the Holy Spirit as they spoke. The activity of the Spirit ensures that their expressions communicate the intended message. As a result, the prophetic message, spoken and written, represents divinely imparted truth expressed in human words. It is reliable as the expression of God's will, even as it bears the individual characteristics of the authors. Its divine and human aspects form an integral, indivisible whole... "

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

john, while this might be a personal belief one would want to make clear it is the private belief of the poster and not the official position of the seventh-day adventist church. would you agree with that?

Sure, I wouldn't want anyone to think this is an official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church. But why would they think it is? [/quote']you would have to ask the following respondent.

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Originally Posted By: John317

From A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 106, regarding the use of the preposition en:

Quote:

On the expression en Christo, which occurs one hundred and sixty-four times in Paul's letters, Deissman says, 'There cannot be any doubt that 'Christ in me' means the exalted Christ living in Paul... and Paul is in Christ. Christ, the exalted Christ, is Spirit. Therefore, He can live in Paul and Paul in Him.' This mystic relation is likened to the air that is in us and yet we are in it.

Excellent! Thanks for shining some light on that John.

since,

the "authority" believes Christ to be some kind of immaterial spirit dwelling in us, and we able to dwell in it, but the sda church holds that Christ has retained His human form and will throughout eternity,

and

was used to try to prove that ------(?) literally dwells in us,

and

teaches a most insidious form of spiritualism,

i wonder what redeeming qualities it could have.

[John317]

[

since,

the "authority" believes Christ to be some kind of immaterial spirit dwelling in us, and we able to dwell in it, but the sda church holds that Christ has retained His human form and will throughout eternity,

and

was used to try to prove that ------(?) literally dwells in us,

and

teaches a most insidious form of spiritualism,

i wonder what redeeming qualities it could have.

You misunderstand the authors of the Greek grammar. They believe as I do and as the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches, that Christ dwells in us through His Holy Spirit. Through that same Spirit, the Father Himself also comes to us. God's being with, and within, each believer through the Holy Spirit is very literal, not metaphorical. If some want to believe that it is metaphorical, rather than literal, it's OK with me, but when they ask me what I believe and why, I'm also ready and happy to tell what my understanding is, and to hear what they believe.

The book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, contains the following paragraphs:

Quote:

1. The involvement of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Only the Creator can accomplish the creative work of transforming our lives (1 Thess. 5:23). However, He does not do so without our participation. We must place ourselves in the channel of the Spirit's working, which we can do by beholding Christ. As we meditate on Christ's life, the Holy Spirit restores the physical, mental, and spiritual faculties (cf. Titus 3:5). The Holy Spirit's work involves revealing Christ and restoring us into Christ's image (cf. Rom. 8:1-10).

God desires to live within His people. It was because He had promised "I will dwell in them" (2 Cor. 6:16; cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:12) that Paul could say: "Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20; cf. John 14:23). The Creator's indwelling daily revives the believers inwardly (2 Cor. 4:16), renewing their minds (Rom. 12:2; see also Phil. 2:5).

[Guest]

Amen

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

since,

the "authority" believes Christ to be some kind of immaterial spirit dwelling in us, and we able to dwell in it, but the sda church holds that Christ has retained His human form and will throughout eternity,

and

was used to try to prove that ------(?) literally dwells in us,

and

teaches a most insidious form of spiritualism,

i wonder what redeeming qualities it could have.[/quote']

You misunderstand the author of the Greek grammar. They believe as I do and as the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches....

which phrase do you believe i "misunderstand"?

the one that says "the exalted Christ, is Spirit?

or, the one that says, " 'Christ in me' means the exalted Christ living in Paul..."

which one of these, as stated by your authority, is in any of our official beliefs?

[pnattmbtc]

Verbal inspiration is plenary inspiration, in which God is viewed as having dictated the words as to a secretary.

[pnattmbtc]

You misunderstand the authors of the Greek grammar. They believe as I do and as the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches, that Christ dwells in us through His Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

since,

the "authority" believes Christ to be some kind of immaterial spirit dwelling in us, and we able to dwell in it, but the sda church holds that Christ has retained His human form and will throughout eternity,

and

was used to try to prove that ------(?) literally dwells in us,

and

teaches a most insidious form of spiritualism,

i wonder what redeeming qualities it could have.

I was talking about the manual on greek grammar, not the guy's crazy beliefs.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

since,

the "authority" believes Christ to be some kind of immaterial spirit dwelling in us, and we able to dwell in it, but the sda church holds that Christ has retained His human form and will throughout eternity,

and

was used to try to prove that ------(?) literally dwells in us,

and

teaches a most insidious form of spiritualism,

i wonder what redeeming qualities it could have.

I was talking about the manual on greek grammar, not the guy's crazy beliefs.

since the "authority" comes from a preconceived strong spiritualism bent i have a hard time seeing how he could be a reliable authority on the greek language and its nuances and meanings. :)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Sure, I wouldn't want anyone to think this is an official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church. But why would they think it is? It's a quote from a well-known book on Greek grammar. It's not really my personal belief but it's the belief of 3 authorities in Greek grammar. The part about the "mystic relation" is simply an illustration but not essential to the explanation of the use of the preposition "en."

But if you think I should do it, I would be willing to delete that sentence from the posts. When I first posted it, I actually deliberated whether I should include it, and I decided to keep it. Maybe I shouldn't have. [/quote']i dont feel i have the right to say one way or the other.

if we allow God to teach us, He could probably use it to give us a better understanding of spiritualism and a more accurate meaning of the truth, perhaps.

you have to admit it was one doozey of a good example of pantheistic spiritualism! :)

[John317]

since the "authority" comes from a preconceived strong spiritualism bent i have a hard time seeing how he could be a reliable authority on the greek language and its nuances and meanings.

Dana and Mantey are well recognized authorities on Greek grammar, and their book is used widely in virtually every university where NT Greek is taught, including Seventh-day Adventist schools.

Their book is over 350 pages long, so it would be foolish to judge the entire book, or the reliability of the writers, on the basis of one sentence that is an illustration of an idea, and has no direct bearing on the Greek grammar or translation itself.

[John317]

You would agree that God is everywhere, right?

No, certainly not. Through the Holy Spirit, God can be anywhere He chooses to be, but God the Father and Christ are not everywhere and neither is the Holy Spirit. He is not literally in the water we drink or in the trees, nor is He "in" people who are possessed or controlled by Satan. The demons and the Holy Spirit do not dwell in the same person at the same time.

There's a big difference between the Holy Spirit working on people's minds in order to get them to want to do what is right and the Spirit dwelling within people.

Demons actually and literally dwell in, and take over, people's bodies and minds.

People who are possessed often come to the realization, and when they do-- if they want to be free-- God will direct them to godly, Bible-believing people who know how to help them. The possessed will then usually tell them, "I feel like I have a demon inside me." They may hear voices telling them what to do and they realize that they are no longer in control of their minds or even their bodies. The demons actually work their bodies, besides manipulating them mentally and emotionally.

Quote:

The deception of sin had reached its height. All the agencies for depraving the souls of men had been put in operation. The Son of God, looking upon the world, beheld suffering and misery. With pity He saw how men had become victims of satanic cruelty. He looked with compassion upon those who were being corrupted, murdered, and lost. They had chosen a ruler who chained them to his car as captives. Bewildered and deceived, they were moving on in gloomy procession toward eternal ruin,--to death in which is no hope of life, toward night to which comes no morning. Satanic agencies were incorporated with men. The bodies of human beings, made for the dwelling place of God, had become the habitation of demons. The senses, the nerves, the passions, the organs of men, were worked by supernatural agencies in the indulgence of the vilest lust. The very stamp of demons was impressed upon the countenances of men. Human faces reflected the expression of the legions of evil with which they were possessed. Such was the prospect upon which the world's Redeemer looked. What a spectacle for Infinite Purity to behold! {DA 36.3}

[John317]

What does the Scripture say about whether demons enter people's bodies and are forced to come out of human bodies through the authority of Jesus Christ?

Mark 9: 17-27--

17 Then one of the crowd answered and said, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. 18 And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.”

19 He answered him and said, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.” 20 Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth.

21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”

And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”

23 Jesus said to him, “If you can believe,all things are possible to him who believes.”

24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!” 26 Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.

Note: When it says the spirit cried out, it means the spirit spoke through the boys mouth, using the child's voice box and tongue to make sounds. This still happens today in cultured, modern America, even with the most educated and sophisticated among us, including doctors, pastors, lawyers, psychologists, etc. Jesus is still able to free these slaves of Satan and He does it more often than many people would ever guess.

Why do the demons do this? Why would they want to take possession of people's bodies and minds in this way, and actually inhabit them?

Because people were made to be inhabited by God's Spirit, and therefore Satan hates us and loves to see those for whom Christ died and who were made in God's image being controlled or possessed by evil spirits and becoming his partner in the warfare against Christ. He can't strike at God or Christ except as he attacks and destroys us.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

that would seem to be a legitimate argument, on the surface, but is it true?

why wouldnt it matter?

the context

Quote:

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

given the context, how can you say it wouldnt matter?

[/quote']

Ok, maybe it would still matter. But my point is that the text plainly states that your body is a temple for the HS, and that he dwells in you.

1Co 3:16,17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Do you see the incredulity expressed by Paul here Richard?

He is saying:

What?

Don't you know this simple truth?

That you are a temple and the Holy Spirit is "within" you.

Mark :-)