Seeking1

Just as Christ healed "all manner of sickness and disease", He cast out demons. We are not told whether each and everyone who was healed or freed from demons put their faith and trust in Him as Lord and Savior. When the Lord sent out the apostles, it was on the same principle. And all the miracles of Christ and the apostles were primarily to authenticate the Gospel message. The issue of "sole habitation of the Holy Spirit" was not in view. It makes no difference whether it is pre- or post-Pentecost. Faith in Christ operated on either side, and people were saved on either side. There is nothing in Scripture to state that only those who would believe the Gospel should have demons cast out of them. It is true that if a demonized person remained unsaved, his latter condition would be worse than his former condition, since that is what Christ taught. But a prior commitment to believe the Gospel was never an issue. Since your assumptions are not supported by Scripture, this question is moot. How would that make sense, and how would these people be genuinely born-again with demons dwelling within? This does not compute. There seems to be some confusion in your mind about this subject. Just to reiterate, demonic possession occurs in the unsaved. They must first be free of demons in order to truly believe the Gospel and be saved. Those who genuinely repent and believe the Gospel are saved by grace and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who are born-again by the power of the Holy Spirit are children of God. They cannot be possessed by demons, since "GREATER IS HE THAT IS IN US, THAN HE THAT IS IN THE WORLD" (1 Jn 4:4). Thanks for your response, Ezra. How is the power of the gospel (good news not bad) being shown when demons are cast out of people who are not born again only to have them return later on and for the worse? Also, where in the Bible does it directly say that only those free of demons can respond to the gospel? How would that make sense, and how would these people be genuinely born-again with demons dwelling within? I think I wasn't clear enough in this statement. I meant to ask why the apostles would bother casting out demons of people who failed to properly believe the gospel. I asked why they wouldn't just preach the gospel and let the gospel work on its own. If they were born again, why not let the power of God alone cast the demon out automatically without the external, and even unnecessary, efforts on part of the apostles? If the person is born again under this premise, then the demons should be forced to leave immediately by the mere presence of God without any actions on part of the apostles at all. Isn't casting the demons out first before salvation works-based? I thought it was Jesus plus nothing.

I am testing the doctrine of whether or not Christians can have demons. I have some questions about this for both sides of the issue. 1.) Question for those who say Christians CANNOT have demons: Why would the apostles cast demons out of people AT ALL if belief of the gospel alone would ALWAYS cause them to be removed immediately for SOLE habitation by the Holy Spirit? Remember, this is POST not PRE Pentecost. This isn't OT stuff or before Christ died on the cross for our sins. As many on both sides assert, it is pointless to try and remove demons from someone who refuses to believe the gospel or even misunderstands it somehow, as the demons will not only return later but also in greater numbers the second time around, making the last state worse than the first. Since this is at least generally true, why would the apostles participate in and even promote such a thing? This would definitely lead to confusion, and God is not supposed to be the author of confusion. Why didn't the apostles simply share the gospel and leave the demons inside the unsaved? It could definitely lead to the idea of Christians being able to have them by doing such a thing rather than sharing the gospel alone. Exorcisms should be considered un-biblical in general then and even a hindrance to delivering the untainted gospel if ONLY the unsaved can have them. 2.) Question for those who say Christians CAN have demons: Jesus said that people who have had demons cast out of them are "empty" vessels right before the demons are able to return. How can a Christian who has the Holy Spirit be "empty" so that a demon might possess them? This argument is often used as an apologetic against those who say Christians can have demons.

I have wondered how Jesus could even be the saviour of men if the fleshly body He inhabited had no sin nature whatsoever. How could He feel our infirmities or even be tempted as men are tempted, if not? I know most Christians say no to my idea of Jesus having any flesh with a sin nature during His incarnation, but I am actually skeptical of Jesus having inhabited a fleshly body that was completely free of sin. I feel like it actually violates "1 John 4:1-3." If so, how could His flesh be fully after the nature of Abraham or mankind in general? If it was made sinless, how did Jesus in fact die for our sins then? Some Christians charge Roman Catholics as being in violation of "1 John 4:1-3" due to their teaching of the "immaculate conception" (sinless nature) of the virgin Mary, but how is the assertion that Jesus had no fleshly sin nature much different from this false doctrine? Some Christians have asked, "If Mary had no sin nature, then how can Jesus be the savior of men at all?" If Jesus had no sin nature even while assuming that Mary did, how is this not the exact same problem where the atonement is concerned? In both cases, Jesus is still without a fleshly body that has the problem of a sin nature from Adam. If Jesus cleansed the sin nature while still in the womb of Mary, then how could He have died for our sins 33 years later on the cross since the sinful flesh nature had already been eliminated? So, the cross seems unnecessary then for the elimination of sin, since Jesus may have already done it while in the womb at the moment of conception. By this reasoning, therefore, when He died, He did not die in a sinful body like that of the rest of the human race. Do you get why I am having a problem here? I know Gnosticism is definitely a heresy. I do not believe it. As I have understood it, the Gnostics believed Jesus could not have possibly inhabited a body of flesh since He would have been tainted by its sin nature and forced into sin. I disagree. I think Jesus could have had flesh with a sin nature but perfectly overcame the temptation to sin due to His divine nature, which man does not have. His Divine nature could have been used to override the genuine temptation of the sinful, fleshly nature every single time. Hence, in the sense of perfectly avoiding sinning via His Divine nature, He could still be said to be "free of sin" and having "no sin within Him (His heart/mind)" even while being sincerely tempted by the flesh itself. Most Christians say that temptation itself is not a sin but rather giving into it. I, of course, believe that the Bible clearly teaches Jesus never gave into any kind of temptation for it to yield any kind of actual sin. I have read a man online making the argument that if Jesus could have ever genuinely had the ability and/or choice to sin from His human nature (not from His Divine, as is evident from Titus 1:2 KJV), He could not be the trustworthy God of Scripture. Again, I disagree. He tried to argue that Christ only felt our infirmities in things like being hungry, tired, etc., which are weaknesses from having a natural body rather than from feeling any temptation to actually sin at all. I think this sounds lame and makes the proclamation "He was tempted in ALL ways as we are" a misleading statement at best and an outright lie at worst. Everyone knows being tempted to actually do something sinful is part of human nature and has plagued mankind since forever, and it is a real and ever-present infirmity, even for the Christian. If Christ lacked this, He did NOT experience temptation as mankind experiences it on a moment-by-moment basis, even in our very thoughts. So, for all practical purposes, the above proclamation is rendered worthless to me if this is true. If true, Jesus then cannot really relate to mankind's struggle in the way He has claimed. I find the man's apologetic for Jesus lacking a fleshly sin nature questionable for that very reason. Does anyone have any other ideas/thoughts? Or a better argument than this man? Thanks!

Wait a minute -- I realized something almost immediately after I originally submitted this for posting, but couldn't comment on sooner -- Moses made the "offer" to Sihon, but God Himself never did, if the passage is read carefully! God told Moses to contend with Sihon in battle, but nowhere in Scripture it is recorded that He ever instructed Moses to offer "peace." I didn't read this carefully enough. I was thinking about why God would have made such an insincere "offer," but now I am going to apply the following reasoning instead to Moses, and why God would allow Moses to be deceptive like this. The Israelites were actually quite faithless and cowardly many times, and God didn't even want them to pass through the land of the Philistines due to their lack of faith (Exodus 13:17). I believe that if the Israelites had been ordered by Moses to attack King Sihon directly, instead of getting him to attack the Israelites first, the Israelities may have turned back in the day of battle and refused to rid the land of these sinners. I believe this is why Moses wanted to "offer" King Sihon "peace" first, so that he would likely refuse the "deal" and attack them first, so that the Israelites would be forced to go to battle against that Amorite nation in self defense. I believe I may have figured out the answer myself. I regretted posting this once I did (which was almost immediately afterwards). However, someone else may have this question, too, and now they have a potential answer to it. However, if others have anymore ideas or comments in general, I would like to read them. Thanks!

For those who need more information about King Sihon, Numbers 21:21-31 records the following: And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king’s high way, until we be past thy borders. And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong. And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof. For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say, Come into Heshbon, let the city of Sihon be built and prepared: for there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon: it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites. We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. While Deuteronomy 2:24-33 provides more details: Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee. And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left. Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet; (as the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the Lord our God giveth us. But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. Here is my question: What was the purpose of hardening/strengthening the Amorite King Sihon's heart at all??? God already stated in Genesis 15:16 that the iniquity of Amorites was already full by this time. Also, King Sihon was not a righteous king and was a ruthless conqueror, even of the Moabites. Why did God first give an offer of peace to King Sihon which He never intended to fulfill? God could have justly instructed the Israelities to simply destroy King Sihon and his Amorite subjects without offering such a "deal." Such an offer has seemed insincere to me. Why was this whole "offer" and subsequent "hardening" even necessary? I can understand why it was necessary to harden Pharaoh of Egypt, but not so much in the case of King Sihon. The King of Egypt had to be strengthened in his own evil desire to do as he pleased in order for God to give Egypt multiple judgments without Pharaoh soon surrendering due to raw fear, rather than sincere repentance. However, King Sihon's judgment was merely a single event. I do have an idea of why God might have done this, but I would like to see if others have their own thoughts. Thank you!

Hi OneLight, I am actually in sympathy to your position, in spite of my OP question. However, I will now ask you the same question I have asked OakWood: "So you are therefore of the position that no truly born again Christian could EVER be influenced from the inside by a devil in the way that I described? Therefore, if such a person was claiming to be born again, you would definitely say no way? Just curious :)" Influenced on the inside would include thoughts of the mind and feelings, neither which are possession. Oppression causes both feelings and thoughts of the negative nature, which is not of God, but of the flesh or satan. To say that oppression does not influence how one thinks or feels would be untrue. WHat someone does with those feelings and thoughts is where He comes in. God never gives us more then we can stand with His help. The true question is do we accept His help during these times? We are sealed by the Holy Spirit and Jesus said He would never leave nor forsake us. Why would Jesus ever give one of His children over to Satan in order to advertise the enemies work? The answer is a blatant NO. You only post one verse out of all the context. Why? Let's see how it look in context. 2 Timothy 2:14-26 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ[c] depart from iniquity.” But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. So, what is being discussed is false teaching, not uncontrolled or unwilling hand singles. You would do good to keep a verse in the context it was designed to be in and not try to make it =mean what it does not. Who are "these people" you talk about? As I mentioned, God will not turn one of His children over to Satan. On the other hand, they may turn away from God and venture down the wrong path, opening them up to demonic activity, but as long as the Holy Spirit is in them, demons cannot enter. As for people who throw satanic hand signs, they know what they are doing, and they worship their own god, whomever that god may be. They do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They may not know the full consequences of their actions, but they understand they have a choice to do so or not. Demon possessed people in scripture do not live a normal life, nor do they profess Christ. The demons know who Jesus is, and they tremble at His name. Keep in mind that the title some people use, Christian, has an empty meaning to them. To those who falsely clam to be Christians, we will know them by their fruit. Luke 6:43-45 For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. If a man speaks either good or bad from their heart, they would also use the rest of their body for good or evil. Don't be fooled by what you read on the internet. Search scripture for yourself. Thank you OneLight for your response. I appreciate your feedback. I am considering your words, and your position makes sense overall. I too would think that God would destroy these kinds of works of the devil within any true Christian indwelt by His Holy Spirit, though I admit I could be wrong, but I really don't think I am either. I agree with your interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:14-26 being about false doctrine overall, but I still think my own idea about 2 Timothy 2:26 is onto something as well. I believe Biblical passages can have more than one application. The Biblical passage in 1 John 4:1-6, to me, implies that God's children would overcome having devils influence them this way from the inside, additionally. I would think that Jesus's work on the cross and the presence of His Holy Spirit would be more than effective against allowing a demon to influence a true Christian bodily in the sense that I described. I believe this is what you implied earlier, when you asked whether Satan is stronger than God, and your interpretation makes good sense to me. However, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, I believe St. Paul did indeed "have" a demon (a messenger of Satan to buffet him as a thorn in the flesh), BUT it may have been making him physically sick from the OUTSIDE of his flesh, NOT controlling his bodily movements from WITHIN, which is what I would tend to believe the classical definition of "having a demon" would entail. I don't think the demon was actually inside the body of St. Paul as it would have been in truly possessed people in the Bible, which is why I put the word "have" above in quotes. Yet again, for anyone who may be reading this, please do not take my word as gospel or as a final authority! I am a woman, and I have NOT received any absolute answer from God about this, either. I could be wrong, or I could be right. These are just my own thoughts from personal experience and research. Please do your own research and ask God for guidance as well!

Hi OneLight, I am actually in sympathy to your position, in spite of my OP question. However, I will now ask you the same question I have asked OakWood: "So you are therefore of the position that no truly born again Christian could EVER be influenced from the inside by a devil in the way that I described? Therefore, if such a person was claiming to be born again, you would definitely say no way? Just curious :)" Just as a reminder, of what I mean by "influenced," I also ask you the following for clarity: would you believe that the Lord would ever give a demon permission to enter into a born again Christian, even if only temporarily, in order to make blasphemous hand signals like the "666 Sign," "Hooked em horns (El Diablo)," etc. in order to deceive people or to flaunt their influence to those in the know? I have personally seen this happen, but I will not be naming names at this time. I have seen it being done by popular "Christian" leaders in online videos, like from YouTube. I just wanted to get the opinion of others on this. That's why I am asking you this question. The Bible makes an interesting statement in 2 Timothy 2:26: "And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." It seems only unbelievers could be "taken captive by Satan at his will," at least without God's permission. For a demon to be able to enter into somebody, even temporarily, in order to influence their hand movements seems to be an example of this passage in literal action. I do not believe most of these people doing these evil hand signs even know what is happening to them, that they are being influenced by a devil from the inside. I do not believe these demons inhabit most of these people all the time, but only temporarily as they are "needed" to deliver false teachings or to do other kinds of evil. I believe most of them do not have "familiar spirits" sticking around, but these demons instead go right into their bodies and right back out again. I do not believe God has given them permission to stay inside that person, even if unsaved, but only for a brief time. For some of these people, I could see this as simply being a work of the flesh in ignorance, but I know God did NOT inspire them to do these hand signs for a fact, regardless. To me, they CANNOT be Spirit filled! Also, I have discovered devils really are behind many of these hand signs, though, in part by doing some research online about Satanic symbolism. It isn't a stretch to say that actual demons are behind at least some of the people making these signs in online videos. Assuming it is indeed demons behind the people making these hand signs, would you question that person's salvation? Again, could a born again Christian ever be influenced by a demon is this way? For those who say NO true Christian can ever have a demon, I would be interested to hear your response to this question, like a survey. Thanks!

The author is also acting like no false spirit would or could ever approach a Christian entirely on their own in order to deceive. They act as if only Christians dabbling in the occult or seeking "angelic guides" could ever have such a occurrence, to which I say: nonsense!

Jesus also says directly that unsaved men CAN falsely call him "Lord" in Matthew 7:22-23: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Therefore, it is appropriate to put "1 Corinthians 12:3" into a greater context since it seems to contradict "Matthew 7:22-23" if taken at face value. However, notice that Jesus NEVER says that demons (who are spirits NOT flesh) can do this! There is NO example in the entire Bible of demons actually doing this either! If anyone can provide a single verse where this occurs, I will stand corrected. I have read the King James Version three times now with audio, and I have never seen this happen once! Therefore, there is no seemingly contradictory verse in conflict with "1 John 4:1-3," unlike "Matthew 7:22-23" and "1 Corinthians 12:3." Thus, I believe that "1 John 4:1-3" should be taken literally when it says EVERY spirit! I will warn that I could be wrong here, but it doesn't seem like I should be. Any other thoughts, both for or against? Thanks!

Oh, and unlike what the authors of this article are insinuating, I see NO place in the Holy Bible where demons EVER said the exact words "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" NOR "The LORD Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 12:3 -"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.") Unsaved men can say that Jesus Christ is Lord, but inwardly they cannot mean it. The flesh may allow for this. I think a demonic spirit may not be able to lie this way though, because nowhere in Scripture do they ever call Jesus "LORD!" It is always something like, Son of the Most High or the Holy One of God! I feel the author is definitely stretching here in favor of their argument to say that since demons do respect Jesus in their words, therefore they could pass "1 John 4:1-3." Exact words utilized in Scripture DO seem to matter, if you pay attention closely! More thoughts are welcome

1 John 4:1-3 (KJV) "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." I recently read an article (in which I have provided the full text below) about utilizing this test on spirits by Christians. I very strongly disagree with their conclusion. To me, this puts the Word of God into serious doubt! I have been strongly interpreting "1 John 4:1-3" as a tool primarily to test the spirit itself behind a prophet, and not a man of flesh and blood. While you could use it to test a man (as John also does), unsaved men can and do say the words "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Since the passage says EVERY spirit, I see no good reason to make it say "some" or even "most," as the authors of this article are doing. I know John does say that false prophets (men of flesh and blood) have denied "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" elsewhere in his epistles, but this particular passage highlights spirits, not people. (Although some versions say "people" when the original Textus Receptus Greek says "spirits" only -- I find the original TR Greek trustworthy over any translation). Again, this puts the very trustworthiness of God's own Word into serious doubt when testing a spirit claiming to be from God! In my opinion, no demonic spirit outside the flesh and blood of a man (host) should EVER be able to say these words at all, or else the Biblical test is too ambiguous and hence worthless! The authors of the article below, rather than helping Christians realize they shouldn't willingly communicate with familiar spirits, encourages them instead to distrust the absolute usefulness of the Word of God in testing them! I frankly find this article very dangerous. What if an "angel" from Satan claimed to be from God, and it could utter the words "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?" Remember, during the tribulation, Jesus said that the deception will be so good that even the elect could be deceived (at least away from God's protection). Since the authors have effectively voided the Word of God here, there is no absolute recourse for testing this spirit! To me, if a demon is able to even say "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" in any kind of believable manner, then the Word of God is FALSE! What the authors are proposing familiar spirits (devils) can do should be impossible by the very Word of God! I feel they are actually discouraging Christians from making the Word of God their final authority for faith and practice! I could see Satan saying, "Yes, has God REALLY said that EVERY spirit that confesses 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' is solely from God?" The first task of Satan in the Garden of Eden was to get Eve to doubt the very plain words of the Almighty God! Talk about a recipe for disaster and pure confusion! Not every Christian is a great theologian either -- some are babies in Christ! Could you imagine what something like this would do to them? What do you think? Please read my full opinion above and the article below before giving your thoughts though. I would appreciate your ideas on this matter Trying the Spirits (http://www.makestraightpaths.com/trying_the_spirits.htm) 1 John 4:1-3 One of the most controversial Family teachings concerns their long-standing belief that Christians may freely communicate with “spirit helpers.” To the Family, spirit helpers are people who have died, or angels, or other spiritual beings who are active in the ‘spirit world,’ an unseen dimension that coexists with the visible material world. According to the Family, these beings are unrestricted by human limitations and actively assist Christians in their work for the Lord. In John’s first epistle, there is an often-quoted passage that appears to contain a procedure for testing spiritual beings. The Family claims that this passage vindicate their stance on spirit helpers, saying that it proves that believers may communicate with the spirit world, and even engage in dialogue with the spirit beings there, to the point that one may question them in order to discern whether or not they come from God. Then, according to the Family, one may continue to communicate freely with those that do come from God, while those that do not come from God (that is, those that originate from the devil) are to be shunned. It should be noted that there are some Christian teachers, mainly from extreme charismatic churches, who appear to hold to a similar teaching. This pages examines the passage in First John in its original context in order to determine if that is its intention: Was John discussing procedures for dealing with spirit helpers? If he was, then it is reasonable to assume that he would have mentioned the topic elsewhere, and that the passage would clearly say so. If he was not discussing spirit helpers, then there are pertinent two questions for Family members: What does this passage actually mean? If the Bible does not say that Christians may 'test' spirit helpers, then what are the implications for the Family? Test the spirits 1 John 4:1-3 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. NASU A surface reading of this passage gives rise to the theory that one may question spiritual beings as to whether or not they proceed from God. It appears that demonic spirits would be unable to say that Christ has come, while God’s angels would have no trouble. The 'test question' appears to be, "Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?" or "Is Jesus Christ from God?" or a similar question. However, this interpretation has a number of difficulties. It ignores the context of First John - which does not refer to spirits, demons or angels - and it is incompatible with a number of other relevant Scriptures. For example, Jesus made it clear that evildoers would have no difficulty in working miracles or prophesying in His name (Matt 7:21-23), and Paul explained that Satan Himself could appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). Therefore, it seems that the Devil, who is the “father of lies” (John 8:44), would have no trouble lying about his own attitude towards Jesus Christ. In fact, some of the Corinthians had been deceived by some false preachers who were using the name of Jesus to promote a “different gospel.” 2 Cor 11:4 For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. RSV Jesus warned that many people would be misled by false teachers who would use His own name in order to lie and deceive. Matt 24:5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. NASU From these passages, we can see that the name “Jesus” does not have attached to it some kind of power to prevent its own misuse. This is, of course, an obvious conclusion that may also be reached by observing the fact that the words “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” are commonly used as curse words in the world. Several times in the Scriptures, we also see instances of when demons used Jesus’ name, and even told the truth about who He was. Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.” NASU (See also Luke 4:33-34) Therefore, questioning spiritual beings in an attempt to determine whether or not they originate from God would be a pointless exercise. In the first place, evil spirits are not afraid to use the name “Jesus.” Second, the Devil is a liar, and is under no compulsion to tell the truth about who he is or his plans. Third, there are specific warnings that false teachers will use the name of Jesus in order to propagate a false gospel. So, 1 John 4:1-3 does not mandate interrogating spiritual beings. Besides, it is difficult to imagine the setting in which a human may interrogate a demon. So, what does it mean to “test the spirits?” Is there any application from this passage that modern Christians may put into practice? First, it is important to do some research into the background of this letter. The First Epistle of John The first epistle of John is in the nature of a family letter from the heavenly Father to His “little children” who are in the world. The great theme of the epistle is fellowship in the family of the Father. The intimacy of the epistle has always had great attraction for the people of God. Occasion and Date. The epistle was apparently written to compete with various forms of error, particularly Cerinthian Gnosticism. False teachers of this cult had denied the essential truth of the incarnation, that Christ had come in the flesh, maintaining that matter was evil. The writer also combated false mysticism that denied the reality of the sin nature in the Christian. He also railed against those who violated Christian fellowship and rejected Christian morality and love. The first epistle of John is in a sense a moral and practical application of the gospel. The time between the two could not have been long. It was probably written a little later than the gospel, around A.D. 90 or 95. Purpose. The apostle plainly refutes the false ideas of the errorists. He does this positively, giving fresh interpretation and application of the gospel to the urgent demands of his time. He shows the reality of the fellowship with the Father and that believers possess eternal life now in this world. He stresses the close connection of the possession of eternal life with the manifestation of love, right conduct, and sound morality. The apostle apparently does not develop this thought in progressive fashion but in what has been called a “spiral” manner, treating a number of related topics and interweaving them. For this reason outlining the epistle is difficult and to some extent arbitrary. The book is commonly divided into two principal parts. (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary) While the letter has universal application, in that its principles may be applied to all Christians, it is important to discover exactly what those principles are. The recipients of the letter (probably believers in or near Ephesus), had been exposed to teachings from false prophets, so John wrote with a specific purpose in mind: He would refute their arguments and set the church straight. 1 John 2:26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. NASU In the letter, John addresses three main topics, each of which he returns to again and again. The three main topics are: The incarnation of Christ Sin and forgiveness Love and Hatred It appears that the false teachers were trying to infect the church with a form of Gnosticism, a heresy with mystic elements in which the universe was eternally separated into “good” and “evil.” This meant that it would have been completely impossible for Christ (good) to enter a human body (evil). John rejects this as “the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:3), and repeatedly emphasises the fact that Jesus was actually incarnated into a real human body. In fact, in his opening sentence to the epistle, John stresses the physical reality of Christ’s body. 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. NIV Following is a brief explanation of the heresy John was combating: EPISTLES OF JOHN Docetism: To such a view of the universe Christianity could be adjusted only by a docetic interpretation of the Person of Christ. A real incarnation was unthinkable. The Divine could enter into no actual union with a corporeal organism. The human nature of Christ and the incidents of His earthly career were more or less an illusion. And it is with this docetic subversion of the truth of the incarnation that the “antichrists” are specially identified (1 John 2:22-23; 4:2-3), and against it that John directs with wholehearted fervor his central thesis-the complete, permanent, personal identification of the historical Jesus with the Divine Being who is the Word of Life (John 1:1), the Christ (4:2) and the Son of God (5:5): “Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh.” In John 5:6 there is a still more definite reference to the special form which gnostic Christology assumed in the teaching of Cerinthus and his school. According to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.26, 1) this Cerinthus, who was John's prime antagonist in Ephesus, taught that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and was distinguished from other men only by superiority in justice, prudence and wisdom; that at His baptism the heavenly Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove; that on the eve of His Passion, the Christ again left Jesus, so that Jesus died and rose again, but the Christ, being spiritual, did not suffer. That is to say, that, in the language of the Epistle, the Christ “came by water,” but not, as John strenuously affirms, “by water and blood .... not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood” (1 John 5:6). He who was baptized of John in Jordan, and He whose life-blood was shed on Calvary, is the same Jesus and the same Christ, the same Son of God eternally. (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) So, with this in mind, we may now look at the passage containing the injunction to “test the spirits.” 1 John 4:1-4 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. NASU What does John mean by “spirit”? The Greek word used here can have a number of meanings. NT:4151 1. a movement of air (gentle) blast a. used of the wind: b. breath of the nostrils or mouth 2. the spirit, i.e., the vital principle by which the body is animated 3. a spirit a. generically: Luke 24:37 b. a human soul that has left the body Heb 12:23 c. a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel: plural Heb 1:14 d. the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels, close to God and most intimately united to him (in doctrinal phraseology the divine nature of Christ): 1 Tim 3:16 4. The Scriptures also ascribe a pneuma to God, i.e., God’s power and agency. By metonymy, pneuma is used of: a. one in whom a spirit (pneuma) is manifest or embodied; 2 Thess 2:2 b. the plural pneumata denotes the various modes and gifts by which the Holy Spirit shows itself operative in those in whom it dwells 1 Cor 14:12 5. universally, the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of anyone; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, 2 Cor 12:18 (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) While it is possible that John is referring exclusively to spirit beings, this is unlikely as there is no other reference in the epistle to spirit beings at all, whether angels or demons. It is far more likely that John is either referring to the false teachers themselves, or possibly to the demonic entities that influence these false teachers. In either case, the believers were not urged to examine a spiritual being as such, but to look closely at what the false teachers had said, and so discern whether or not these people were “from God.” Commentaries Stedman Stedman wrote that the “spirit” mentioned was the antithesis to the Holy Spirit, an evil spirit of antichrist that guides false teachers. It is of this that John writes and says, “Do not believe these spirits -- until you have tested them.” First test them. Don’t be a sucker, don’t believe anyone who comes along. It is important to note that there is here a very clear recognition of what the Bible teaches all the way through -- that behind the false prophet or false teacher is an evil spirit. Men simply do not speak out of their own intellectual attainments. Quite unconscious to themselves they are being guided -- and misguided -- by an evil spirit, a “spirit of error” John calls it, an anti-Christian spirit which is behind these false prophets and teachers. There is a true Spirit, the Holy Spirit of truth, the Spirit of love, and just as he speaks through men, so evil spirits, false spirits, the spirits of error, also speak through men. When you hear men and women talking about religious things or values, do not gullibly swallow everything they say, especially if they appear to be attractively setting forth something about love and sweetness and light and concern for others. Especially test that line, for it is the usual approach of error. Recognize that behind the individual may be a spirit of error. (Ray Stedman) Adam Clarke [beloved, believe not every spirit] Do not be forward to believe every teacher to be a man sent of God. As in those early times every teacher professed to be inspired by the Spirit of God, because all the prophets had come thus accredited, the term spirit was used to express the man who pretended to be and teach under the Spirit’s influence. See 1 Cor 12:1-12; 1 Tim 4:1. [Try the spirits] Put these teachers to the proof. Try them by that testimony which is known to have come from the Spirit of God, the word of revelation already given. [Many false prophets] Teachers not inspired by the Spirit of God, are gone out into the world-among the Jewish people particularly, and among them who are carnal and have not the Spirit. (Adam Clarke’s Commentary) Barnes Verse 1. [beloved, believe not every spirit] Do not confide implicitly in everyone who professes to be under the influences of the Holy Spirit. Compare Matt 24:4-5. The true and the false teachers of religion alike claimed to be under the influence of the Spirit of God, and it was of importance that all such pretensions should be examined. It was not to be admitted because anyone claimed to have been sent from God that therefore he was sent. Every such claim should be subjected to the proper proof before it was conceded. All pretensions to divine inspiration, or to being authorised teachers of religion, were to be examined by the proper tests, because there were many false and delusive teachers who set up such claims in the world. [but try the spirits whether they are of God] There were those in the early Christian church who had the gift of “discerning spirits,” (see the notes at 1 Cor 12:10,) but it is not certain that the apostle refers here to any such supernatural power. It is more probable, as he addresses this command to Christians in general, that he refers to the ability of doing this by a comparison of the doctrines which they professed to hold with what was revealed, and by the fruits of their doctrines in their lives. If they taught what God had taught in his word, and if their lives corresponded with his requirements, and if their doctrines agreed with what had been inculcated by those who were admitted to be true apostles, (1 John 4:6), they were to receive them as what they professed to be. If not, they were to reject them, and hold them to be impostors. It may be remarked, that it is just as proper and as important now to examine the claims of all who profess to be teachers of religion, as it was then. In a matter so momentous as religion, and where there is so much at stake, it is important that all pretensions of this kind should be subjected to a rigid examination. No one should be received as a religious teacher without the clearest evidence that he has come in accordance with the will of God, nor unless he inculcates the very truth which God has revealed. See the notes at Isa 8:20, and Acts 17:11. (Barnes’ Notes) The test Exactly how were John’s readers to administer this test? John gives specific criteria by which his readers would be able to tell if a particular teacher was speaking error. If he denied the incarnation of Christ, he had been inspired by the spirit of antichrist. If he confessed that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” he was from God. Now, it is important here to note that John does not imply that this is the only test of whether or not a teacher was from God. In his epistle, he gives many other ‘tests’ of truth and error. Other ‘tests’ of error in 1 John Each of the following references contain a ‘mini test’ in which John says that if his readers saw this particular thing happening, they would know that the person was not from God. Walking in darkness (1 John 1:6) Saying we have no sin (1 John 1:8-10) Disobedience to God’s commandments (1 John 2:4) Hating one’s brother (1 John 2:9-11, 3:15, 4:8, 4:20-21) Loving the world (1 John 2:15-16) Departure from the church (1 John 2:19) Denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) Practising sin (1 John 3:4-10) Not listening to the apostles (1 John 4:6) Clearly, John gave his readers many ‘tests’ whereby they could discern whether or not a particular person was a true or false teacher. If that person ‘failed’ any one of those tests, he was to be rejected. Summary of 1 John Now we may begin to understand the text as John’s original readers would have understood it. False teachers were present in the church, and John knew exactly what they were saying. His epistle repeatedly warned the Christians to avoid and reject them. False teachers could be recognised by any one of a number of errors they were prone to. There would then be no doubt; if someone failed one of those tests, he was a false teacher not to be tolerated. For example, if he said he had no sin, he was a false teacher to be rejected, whether or not he admitted that Christ had come in the flesh. In other words, suppose someone had proclaimed that they believed that Christ had come in the flesh (according to 1 John 4:2), but also claimed that he was sinless, this man would have been totally rejected as a false teacher, a liar motivated by the ‘spirit of antichrist.’ It is clear that the church was under attack from false teaching that specifically denied the incarnation. In fact, it seems that this false teaching was not entirely cleared up by this epistle, for the apostle refers to it again in his next letter. 2 John 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. NASU The passage in chapter four about ‘testing the spirits’ refers specifically to the false teachers who were infiltrating the church. John was not instructing the believers to attempt to interrogate spirit beings to determine whether they were angels or demons! Application The first principle we may apply from this passage is the responsibility of all believers to discern whether or not their teachers are from God. We are not to passively accept everything we are told, as John explained to his followers: 1 John 2:26-27 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him NASU People were trying to deceive them, and they were to reject those teachers. The second principle from this passage is that discernment of doctrine is only accomplished through comparison with true doctrine as revealed in the Bible. The New Testament contains a record of the inspired teachings of Christ and His anointed Apostles. These teachings are authoritative, in that God will hold us accountable if we fail to obey them. 1 John 4:1-3 does not contain an infallible quiz question for differentiating between angels and demons. Rather, it is one of a series of questions that should be asked to determine whether or not a teacher or his message is of God. If the teacher himself does not obey Scripture, or his message does not conform to biblical teaching, then both are to be rejected. Having understood the purpose of this passage, one can now see the spiritual peril involved in the false belief that this is a procedure that will provide protection against demonic deception. For example, a Family ‘prophet’ may assume that he can at any time trust that the ‘messages’ he receives come from God as long as he receives a confirmation that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” However, what may be happening is that a demonic entity is deceiving the ‘prophet’ in order to present messages that actually originate from the Devil. It is a major weakness in Family theology that ‘regular’ Family members are not permitted to evaluate the truth of prophecies they are given. The Bible, however, says that each believer can and must do so, and should reject any message that fails to conform to biblical truth. Conclusion The Family (and other churches with similar interpretations) have totally misinterpreted these verses, and in so doing have left themselves open for gross deception. Demons do exist, but the Family's false notions that they have the ability to discern between demons and angels, or between demons and spirit helpers who come "from God" leaves them in the perilous position of being open to demonic spiritual attack. The practice of contacting the spirit world is forbidden in the scriptures for good reason, and it seems that the Family is blindly walking to its own destruction.

Thank you for your reply, OakWood. So you believe that Matthew 17:21 only applied to times before the first outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, since the Holy Ghost hadn't been provided yet at that time? You may be correct, although the Bible never directly says this, but I guess it could definitely be implied. So you are therefore of the position that no truly born again Christian could EVER be influenced from the inside by a devil in the way that I described? Therefore, if such a person was claiming to be born again, you would definitely say no way? Just curious

How does "Matthew 17:21" make sense for those who believe no Christian can ever have a demon? I have been curious about whether or not a born again Christian can have a demon inside them, or be unknowingly influenced by one from the inside of their bodies and still be born again. When I say "influenced," I mean that a demon can literally control someone's bodily movements, such as giving Satanic hand signals like the 666 hand sign, the El Diablo hand sign, etc (if you don't know what I am taking about, look them up online for your own reference). I have seen so-called Christian leaders doing this in online videos, and I am confident the Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus would NEVER lead a person fully right with God (at least not one fully filled with the Holy Ghost) to make these kinds of blasphemous hand signs. It is possible the person may be born again that is doing these signs, but in my mind, there is NO WAY they can be fully right with God. They must either be holding to some false doctrine that is displeasing to God, or they have let evil in somewhere in their lives. I have some interesting doctrinal questions concerning this. There is an interesting passage in the Bible about getting rid of demons. Here is the account: Matthew 17:14-21 states, 14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. The last statement, "Howbeit this kind [of demon] goeth not out but by prayer and fasting," provides an interesting conundrum for those who believe no Christian could ever have a devil. If getting rid of a demon is ALWAYS a simple matter of being born again, why would Jesus Christ have ever uttered these words to his disciples? Why wouldn't He have simply stated, "The child must first believe in Me and the power of the gospel so that he can be born again and cleansed?" Remember, Jesus wasn't saying this to the unbelieving Jews, but to His own disciples! He did NOT utter parables to His disciples, but revealed all things to them! He wasn't trying to hide His true teachings from them! These same disciples would go on to later provide the doctrines and practices of the New Testament Church! Why would Jesus give them wrong or inferior advice which could get used later on in church teachings? If no Christian can ever have a demon, then why would Jesus say to "fast and pray?" "Fasting and praying" sure seems like works salvation if only a person who hasn't been born again is advised to do this! If a Christian is the one doing this, then that charge doesn't stand because it would be to his/her sanctification rather than salvation, since of course, they are already born again. If NO Christian can ever have a devil, why would Jesus Christ utter such a confusing statement? Remember, God says He is NOT the author of confusion. Why would God make things so complicated then for future believers with such a statement? Why not simply say that they must believe the gospel only, and His Holy Spirit will take care of the rest? This makes no sense to me! What do you think of this? I would be glad to hear your opinions!

I have recently realized that my apologetic is best used to defend slavery from the standpoint of the OT Jewish nation of Israel. Roman slavery indeed did have more similarities to New World Slavery than OT Israelite slavery did. However, the Bible does allow for slavery in the New Testament, particularly Roman slavery. When I realized this, I was bothered by it. However, I just found a good article this morning addressing this very issue for me. Here it is: Why was slavery allowed in the New Testament? The story of slavery in the Roman Empire at the time of the New Testament is a complicated one. Many have asked why the early church didn't universally denounce slavery, but the characteristics of slavery were not universal enough to allow for such a simple, sweeping response. Slavery in New Testament times had shades of early American chattel slavery, modern sex trafficking, Old Testament debt bondage, and even apprenticeships and internships. Some slaves were kidnapped, and other slaves owned slaves of their own. Some worked at hard labor their whole lives while others became business partners with their owners. These individual situations call for individual judgments. Source of slaves Slavery in the Roman Empire was not based on ethnicity or color, although ethnicity did play a role in determining what a slave might do. Greeks and Egyptians tended to be better educated while Europeans were valued more for strength and stamina. Most valued were Greeks, who were already educated in medicine or teaching, or any slave who could cook. - Most slaves were foreigners defeated in war. Enslaving them was an alternative to killing them outright or letting them go free to cause problems later. - In times of hardship, it wasn't uncommon for a family to abandon a newborn baby. There were no social services or ministries to care for them, and many of these babies were "rescued" and sold into slavery. - A child born to slaves was automatically a slave. But if the parents were freed slaves, their children had all the rights of a Roman citizen. - An impoverished family could also sell a child as a slave to raise money for the rest of the family. Often, the transaction would benefit the child, as well, as he would be in a more financially secure household. - If someone had an extensive amount of debt but no children to sell, he or she could be taken into debt bondage and forced to work off what was owed. - It was also possible for someone to sell himself into slavery. An ambitious man with few connections could gain access to education and the contacts necessary to be successful once he earned his freedom. Types of slaves Slavery in New Testament times could involve anything from manual labor under harsh conditions to a nine-to-five job with little oversight. Many slaves were abused, but others were treated almost like family. Mining:The Roman Empire needed resources and used slaves to obtain them. The lowest rural slave was probably kidnapped or taken in war and had very little education. Conditions were horrible. Release was not an option. The slave was owned as chattel by the state with no personal interaction with his master and no way to gain favor. Agriculture:Conditions for slaves working in agriculture depended on the wealth of their owners. A wealthy owner might own hundreds or thousands of agriculture slaves. The slaves lived in communal houses, led by a higher-ranking slave or freeman, and were often branded for identification. Their job was to work the fields, and, although their conditions were better than those for a mining slave, agriculture slaves were still chattel with little chance for release. An agriculture slave owned by a middle-class family was generally better off. He had more chances to earn a little money on the side and, if not released, could hope to attain a status similar to sharecropper, in which he worked the owner's land and paid a portion of the harvest to the owner. Some of these slaves would have been purchased from a slave trader, but others would have sold themselves for material support or to pay off a debt. Prostitutes and Gladiators:Women in the sex trade and men chosen to fight to the death lived in the worst urban conditions. Their lives were short and brutal. They were owned as chattel and, like miners, were often kidnapped by slave traders or through war. Chance for release was negligible. Tradesmen:The Roman upper class was too good for actual work, but they still needed shoes, weapons, furniture, and the like. Many tradesmen were technically slaves, and many more were freemen who had been released from slavery but continued on in their former owners' shops. Tradesmen often had a great deal of autonomy, as their owners had better things to do than monitor all their investments, and records from Pompeii show that even women held management positions. There was a good chance a tradesman would be released and, as mentioned, continue to work as a freeman with pay. Many down-and-out Romans sold themselves into slavery for the purpose of receiving room and board while learning a trade. Domestics:The vast majority of urban slaves were domestics who lived in their master's house and had regular interaction with the family. Domestic slaves were needed to cook, clean, sew, garden, care for the horses, carry litters, teach the children, and even provide musical entertainment for guests. Treatment varied depending on the personality of the owner; some slaves were undoubtedly abused, while others were released and married into the family. White collar:The rich Romans had no more time for paperwork than they did for carpentry. Many enterprising young men sold themselves to important families for the purpose of learning accounting, medicine, or politics. These slaves could generally trust to be freed after a time and allowed to continue their career. A freed slave could hold almost any position besides elected office, and their freeborn children could rise as high as their ambition could take them. Their position in society was a strange one; the established families looked down on them as nouveau riche, but also lauded them to their own slaves as an example of the rewards to be had if they worked hard. What does the Bible say about slavery in the New Testament? The Bible does not categorically condemn debt bondage. In fact, in the Old Testament it was regulated as a type of welfare. The New Testament speaks more about exhibiting Christian character within the context of slavery. - Slaves are not supposed to stay in the master's house forever (John 8:35) - Slavery is not ideal, and "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21-24) - Being a slave has no bearing on salvation or the spiritual state of a person before God (1 Corinthians 12:13;Galatians 3:28) - Slaves are to respect the world's system of authority while knowing that God is the only true authority (Ephesians 6:5-8;Colossians 3:22-24) - Masters are also to keep in mind that their position in Christ is no different from that of their slaves; they themselves are slaves to God (Ephesians 6:9) - Christian slaves are authorized to act on conscience if their master commands them to do something wrong, but they need to humbly accept the punishment for their justified rebellion, just as Jesus did (1 Peter 2:19-20) Indirectly, the New Testament has even more to say about slavery: - Kidnapping is a serious offense (1 Timothy 1:8-10) - Giving to the poor (which would prevent debt-bondage) is promoted (Matthew 6:2-3;19:21;26:11;Luke 14:13) - The church is responsible for giving to the poor (Romans 15:26;Galatians 2:10) - Widows and orphans are to be supported, not owned (James 1:27) Slavery as a metaphor Several places in the New Testament, slavery is a metaphor for a more honorable position. - Prophets (Matthew 21:33-41) - Believers awaiting the Lord's return (Matthew 24:45-51) - Ministry workers (Matthew 25:14-30) - Evangelists (Luke 14:16-24) - Obedient Christ-followers (Luke 17:7-10) Is slavery sin? This is a difficult question because of the different facets of slavery. - Kidnapping and selling and/or maliciously restricting the movements of another is wrong. - Leasing another's labor for a set period of time in return for support and monetary compensation doesn't fit the modern understanding of slavery, although it was called slavery in New Testament times. - Raising an abandoned child with the intent that he will work without compensation is not biblical. - Taking on an older child or adult who promises future work as compensation for training isn't slavery unless the provider refuses to let him go once the debt is fulfilled or calculates unfair wages for the work. - Abusing anyone by beating, emotional manipulation, or withholding necessary food and care is sin. - Assuming that any person can own the humanity of another is misguided; actually doing so is evil. - Selling a child for money to support the rest of the family is not right; arranging fostering for the purpose of support and/or training for the child might be. - Demanding absolute obedience is wrong; acknowledging that everyone is under the authority of God is right. Why doesn't the New Testament directly condemn slavery? Even though not all of the slavery in the Roman Empire was evil (and some was more beneficial to the slave than to the master), why doesn't the New Testament take a stronger stand against slavery? - Many of the slaves were young children or old and infirm. Freedom for them would have meant exposure to the elements and likely death since there was no support for freed slaves except that which Christians later provided. - Many slaves didn't want to leave. They were there for a purpose, and the training, prestige, personal effects, and opportunities they received far outweighed any pay they could earn as freemen. - Estimates vary, but up to 30 percent of the urban Roman populace were slaves. The immediate release of that many people with nowhere to go, combined with the sudden cessation of so much work, would have been socially and politically catastrophic. Millions likely would have starved, in part because the newly freed slaves wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and in part because most of the farmland was tended by slaves. The Roman Empire was dependent upon slavery for its very survival. Eventually, as the Roman Empire declined and fewer slaves were taken by military conquest, slavery morphed into serfdom where the poor did as much or more work for very little pay and even less support from the ruling class. Why didn't Paul push Philemon to free Onesimus? There are a couple of reasons why Paul may not have tried to help Onesimus escape from his master Philemon. One is that Roman law dictated that harboring a runaway slave for more than twenty days was punishable by labor in the mines or crucifixion. The Roman Empire had several alternatives for an abused slave to receive justice, and running away wasn't usually necessary. In restoring the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon, Paul planted the seeds of freedom: he emphasizes love (verse 9); he calls Onesimus "my child" (verse 10) and "my very heart" (verse 12); he points out that Onesimus is "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (verse 16 NIV); and he tells Philemon to "receive him as you would receive me" (verse 17). Everything that Paul writes to Philemon counteracts the cultural acceptance of slavery. Also, personal autonomy is not the point of the Christian life. Mutual submission through the love of Christ is far more important. The demonstration of brotherly love between servant and master would trump Onesimus's freedom. The Christian response In later years Christians went to great lengths to free slaves—sometimes even selling themselves into slavery to raise the money to free others. Christians have been at the forefront of modern abolition movements, from William Wilberforce's efforts to theInternational Justice Mission. The expectations God has of His followers regarding slavery have never changed: support the poor to keep them out of slavery, ensure fair and generous treatment of slaves, and proclaim liberty for the captives and freedom to prisoners. Read more:http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-New-Testament.html#ixzz34d3EGcIm

Thank you Steven!