As a new believer I was taught (by a friend) that the gift of the discerning of spirits was the ability to (quite literally) see demons. If someone was demon possessed (or oppressed as some make the distinction) then the gift would allow you to notice it and identify what kind of demon was at work. Now as wacky as it sounds there was some truth to it. I’ve seen some crazy stuff to be sure, but there are more spirits in the world that just demons. At the very least there’s always three kinds of spirit at work: (1) the Spirit of God, (2) demonic spirits (to include Satan), and (3) the spirit of man. I’m now convinced that discernment is all about knowing the difference between the three rather than spotting demons everywhere I look.
B”H
I agree. There is a danger when we focus so much of our attention on the enemy. Christ has already won the battle for us, so we need to invest our energy and time in sharing with those who don’t know, how awesome, powerful and merciful is the God who made the heavens and the earth.
For more on that, check out my last post entitled “Stop press! This will blow your mind” @ http://www.ransom33.wordpress.com
Thank you and God bless you,
ransom33 @ http://www.ransom33.wordpress.com
By: ransom33 on December 2, 2008
at 9:14 am
What do you mean by the “spirit of man”?
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on December 2, 2008
at 9:59 am
ransom33: Amen.
Bryan: Human spirit.
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 10:20 am
There’s also the sense in which if one looks for demons, you’re going to find ‘em – even if their not there.
Good thoughts, Nick, I agree with you!
By: Will on December 2, 2008
at 10:39 am
Will: Exactly. See my post from a year ago on that.
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 10:48 am
I guess I’m wondering what your conception of the human spirit is? Is it separate from the soul? How does it function in the body or is that even discernible? What would it look like to discern a human spirit in a situation (is it just being able to tell that whatever someone is doing comes from themselves rather than an outside force)?
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on December 2, 2008
at 11:16 am
I agree that your interpretation is possible, and probably better than the one it displaces. Unfortunately, in this day of narrative theology, based in part on a purely materialist anthropology (a necessary association, but one that the narrative theologians try to hide), the very idea that there *is* a human spirit is becoming more broadly decontested.
By: John C. Poirier on December 2, 2008
at 11:20 am
Bryan: Let’s say for example that someone gets in front of the Church and purports to prophesy. They can either be speaking according to the Holy Spirit (call it ‘inspired’ if you must), they can be speaking according to a demonic spirit (i.e., falsely prophesying with the intention of leading followers away from God), or they can be speaking according to their spirit, i.e., giving a personal opinion and passing it off as prophecy. So in answer to your last question, yes.
And I’m a believer in the tripartite person: body, soul, and spirit. Oh, and for the record, I’m not one of these people who say, “I am a spirit, I have a soul, I live in a body.” ;)
John: What reason do you see to contest that there is a human spirit?
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 11:29 am
You misunderstand: I *don’t* contest the existence of the human spirit. In fact, I heartily defend that view. It’s the narrative theologians who contest it. It’s fashionable nowadays to deny that humans have souls and/or spirits (e.g., see Joel Green’s recent book), but I’m not one to strive for fashion, especially with something as important as understanding the gospel and its implications.
Theological fashions are seldom, if ever, correct. Stick with Paul.
By: John C. Poirier on December 2, 2008
at 12:09 pm
John: Gotcha. Good to know. What’s the title of Green’s book? I don’t keep up with his writing.
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 12:28 pm
It’s published by Baker (2008), and it’s called *Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible*.
By: John C. Poirier on December 2, 2008
at 1:09 pm
There’s a whole new world out there (2 Kings 6:17).
Jeff
By: Scripture Zealot on December 2, 2008
at 2:28 pm
John: Thanks for the reference. I’ll see if I can’t read some of it on Amazon or Google Books.
Jeff: Yeah, maybe one day I’ll open my eyes to see horses and chariots of fire (btw, wasn’t that a movie?).
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 3:04 pm
btw, wasn’t that a movie?
I can’t believe I never thought of that.
Jeff
By: ScriptureZealot on December 2, 2008
at 5:55 pm
Jeff: That’s why this blog exists… to make you think… :)
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 6:12 pm
Nick:
Thanks, that’s what I thought you might be saying. I’m more of a dualist myself although I did give into the trendiness at one time and deny there was a soul at all or that it could exist separately from the soul. : )
I’d never heard that little saying you came up with.
One of the reasons I don’t hold to the tripartite nature is I can’t really tell what the difference is between a spirit and a soul and instead they just seem to be 2 words that basically describe the same reality.
Bryan L
By: Bryan L on December 2, 2008
at 9:24 pm
Bryan: I lean toward the tripartite view because of those passages that list soul and spirit together but don’t equate them (e.g., Heb. 4:12). And if you watch TBN you’ll come across that saying eventually. ;)
By: Nick Norelli on December 2, 2008
at 9:53 pm
John,
You are so right! The Christian physicalists have grown in popularity recently in evangelical circles due to the popularity of Shults and Murphy in the emerging church. I thought I had noticed that trend in previous reading from Joel Green, but I didn’t know he had a clear stance on the issue. The arguments of Murphy and Shults haven’t moved much beyond van Huyssteen IMO. I actually think van Huyssteen was a mentor to both of them.
By: Ranger on December 2, 2008
at 11:55 pm
Ranger: Shows how much I know; I didn’t even know that there was any debate over this. :?
By: Nick Norelli on December 3, 2008
at 12:01 am
Thanks, Ranger. As Green now teaches at the same school as Murphy (Fuller), we can now probably refer to the attempt to wed evangelical theology with the materialist view as “Fuller theology”.
By: John C. Poirier on December 3, 2008
at 7:01 am