Which Reformed writings explain their premise that natural laws can decide Christian claims?

[rakovsky]

Calvin frequently uses a strong, sensory based perception and concept of the order of nature to judge Christian claims of his era. I can think of many examples, one being his commentary on Christian exorcists that they cannot prove their claims with any specimens:

Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods.
www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xx.html

I am sure that in the late renaissance period there were cases or specimens of people whom exorcists claimed had been cleared of demons. However, based on external senses of the outward, visible order of nature, especially in a materialist sense, such claims of demons seem very hard to verify, and Calvin rejects them as "ignorant".

I am rationally sympathetic to Calvin's claim here, but for me, this quotation by itself does not explain the premise that the material or outwardly provable order of nature must be the reality here, as opposed to nonphysical supernatural or paranormal claims. If one accepts paranormal premises, I don't know why it follows logically that all the Christian exorcists lacked power.

To give another example, when it comes to Paul's claim that Christ was a spiritual rock in the desert following Israelites, Calvin concludes not only that the Lutheran view that "spiritual rock" was a title for Christ himself following the people, but that rock must mean stream, because rocks don't follow people:

That rock was Christ
Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make -- that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones. Their second objection is more foolish and more childish -- "How could a rock," say they, "that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?" -- as if it were not abundantly manifest, that by the word rock is meant the stream of water, which never ceased to accompany the people.
(SOURCE: Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor 10)

I am mentally sympathetic to his claim that a rock itself couldn't have been following Israelites in the desert, but it rests on a materialistic view of the order of nature. After all, if I were to accept a supernatural or paranormal view, why couldn't rocks actually move around following people?

There are many other examples, chiefly (but not always) relating to the issue of miracles. I am not saying that Calvin must be wrong, but would like to see if Reformed have ever fleshed out their premises here in detail about why a naturalistic view of reality must determine these kinds of religious questions.

I found a few references to the importance of natural order in Calvin's thought:
Randall C. Zachman in his review of The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin Susan E. Schreiner says:

Providence is the ordering power of God that wards off the continual threat of chaos and gives stability, regularity, and continuity to creation. The ordering power of God is ultimately rooted in God's immutability, which underlies the faithfulness of God both to preserve and to renew creation in light of the threat of chaos, sin, and death.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/489202

Peter Wyatt writes in Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin:

With Calvin, grace is primarily redemptive and meets the need of sinful creatures for regeneration. However, it does not do so by overturning the natural order or subverting the gifts of the divine Spirit... Because the order of nature arises from the ordinatio dei and is maintained by God, the order is firm and trustworthy... The order of nature is divinely mandated and as such is to be regarded as tacitly legislating.

However, the writer says on p. 40 that the future resurrection involves a transformation that contrasts with the "order of nature".

Kyle Dieleman writes in Exegetical Analysis of Calvin’s View of the Natural Order:

Clearly, in Calvin’s exegesis, the natu - ral order and God’s providence are intimately tied so that through them both, people can come to a knowledge of God, the Creator and Sustainer. Overall, Calvin’s view of the natural order, as created, is extremely positive. Schreiner is abso - lutely correct that Calvin views the natural order, in its original state, as a theater for God’s glory.

http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=pro_rege

Brian Edgar writes in CALVIN AND THE NATURAL ORDER:
positives and problems for science-faith dialogue:

A scientific hermeneutic focuses on empirical truth In addition to his theology of nature, Calvin (like Luther) worked with a hermeneutic which allowed for a non-literal (actual ly a ‘literarial’) biblical interpretation, although the main focus was actually to emphasise the plain meaning of the text. The intention was primarily to avoid the traditional allegorical interpretation of scripture which was employed by what was then the orthodox theology of the day, rep resenting the Church of Rome. However, although the intention was to deal with what was considered to be an unhelpful medieval hermeneutic, the result was more far-reaching. It had the effect of producing a process of interpretation which focused on the text according to its intended meaning, and this provided an escape not only from allegory but also from crudely literal and often scientifically inaccurate descriptions of the natural phenomena which are recorded in the Bible. The subsequent importance of this cannot be over-estimated. Contemporary ‘creationism’ which relies on literalistic interpretations of creation and the flood can find no support for their hermeneutical approach in John Calvin.

http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Edgar_B_2010-07_Calvin_and_the_Natural_Order.pdf

I understand the belief that God made the world and the world has a "natural order", and I rationalistically sympathize with his disbelieving reaction to paranormal claims of exorcisms or to the concept of a rock following people, or to many other religious and sometimes even scientific claims that contradict a base sensory or material perception of the world. However, do Reformed ever explain at length a premise that the status of the natural order is so rigid and so reflected in sensory perceptions that it invalidates conflicting religious and scientific claims?

 

[JM]

Rak,

Let me point out a few basic observations that many Bible believing Christians will be quick to point out:

1) God is sovereign. That means demon "possession," the taking possession of someone, is not biblical. Sure, demons may indwell a person but not take a person over...especially without God's permission. Read the scriptural passages dealing with the subject (a good concordance will be useful) and the matter will be clear.

2) Demon "possession," as you say, is more common in countries where the Gospel is not preached, where justification by Christ alone is confused with paganism, local customs and traditions. We find this in what are claimed to be Eastern Orthodox strongholds. (see Toll Houses, Amulets for protection against the Evil Eye, etc.) Across Eastern Europe, Africa and South America, where the Gospel is not central, superstition gives power to "God's Ape" and people are harried by him.

A member of the Eastern Orthodox denomination wrote,

"For the past few years now I have come across a superstition among the Greek people concerning good luck and bad luck, and how one may ward off evil. Some believe that they can protect themselves from evil by wearing an evil eye talisman (τέλεσμα) around their neck, many have it hanging on a chain together with their cross.

This is not proper for a Christian because the Cross of Christ is sufficient for our protection. Evil eye jewelry, whether a pendant or a bracelet, key-chain etc., is not Christian at all. It is pagan in origin as we shall see further down. By trusting in the "protection" of the evil eye talisman we show that we do not really have faith in Christ and in the power of His Holy Cross." Source
​

Where Christ is central, demons flee, He is the only succor for the faithful.

As for the rest you are essentially asking about hermeneutics and provided your own answer within the post. You are simply trying to correct Calvin by pretending to ask questions about his theology. If you take a look at church history you will find two schools of hermeneutics; one used more allegory and other used more of a historical grammatical hermeneutic. The Eastern Orthodox denomination relies heavily on the Alexandrian school while Protestantism seeks to understand the scriptures as they were first intended to be understood and have more in common with the school of Antioch. Both schools are historical but only one of the schools I've mentioned is less likely to be manipulated by unbiblical philosophies to produce a desired doctrine.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: Reformed Christians do not "follow" Calvin and it would be more beneficial for you to read the Reformed catechisms and confessions if you want to learn about Reformed theology. If you want to learn about Calvin read Calvin but you will not find any Reformed Christian who slavishly defends his work as if it's divine.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, JM!

My goal in the thread is to see whether Calvinists or Reformed spelled out the bases for the materialistic or naturalistic aspect of their Reason vs. "absurdity" test used against the traditions of preceding generations of Christians, Calvin's skepticism about exorcisms being one such example.

I understand one answer that faihtful Christians would not have demonic "indwelling" and thus no need for exorcisms or other methods to ward off demons (amulets against the evil eye being one such attempt), whereas the ungodly are not helped by exorcisms.

However:
(A) Communities in medieval Europe would naturally include both sincere Christians and people who were not sincere Christians, and thus if demonic "indwelling" were a real phenomenon, then it seems like the faithful Christians could use prayers successfully to exorcize them or ward them off. Yet Calvin categorically rejected the practice of Catholic exorcisms and the Reformed establishment did not provide a form of exorcism or prayers to replace the Catholic ones.

(B) Luther believed that demon beings were directly attacking him, so this belief and the risk thereof is not limited to RCs or Orthodox, nor is it limited to the Biblical period.

(C) The Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay colony believed that there were demon beings in their colony attacking people. I also understood you to claim that some places in Africa and South America have demon beings. It seems that there should be prayers to use against them then.

(D) If it was so simple that Godly people don't get demons and that as a result there is no need to exorcize demons, including people who had not had Jesus explained to them correctly, it would not make sense why the apostles ever exorcized any demons. They would basically be helping out the ungodly, when under answer #1 all the demoniacs needed and in fact could receive is Jesus, not exorcisms in Jesus' name.

I understand your second answer, that Calvin is not all of Calvinism. However, Jesus used commands against demons directly, and he recommended prayer and fasting against certain ones, but it looks like the establishment Reformed society of the 16th century did not work out a practice of exorcisms or certain prayers, commands, or fasting to be used against them. So this was not just an issue with Calvin himself. So the question arises of why they didn't teach exorcisms or prayers against demons if demonic "indwelling" was a real problem just like it was in Bible times. It seems to me that the answer is that they didn't believe that exorcisms and demonic indwelling were real as a phenomenon. And why would someone be skeptical about that if it's in the Bible, unless they thought that this was not part of the natural order anymore?

Third, you answered that Reformed look to the writers' intent to understand the Bible, while Eastern Orthodox look to allegory. Personally, I find that the Bible writers' intent was to say that there are real demon beings that "indwell" in some people, as you expressed it. And in Mark 16 I think that the intent was to say that the Christian community would keep the tradition of casting them out just like we see the apostles doing in Acts where they traveled among regions in the Roman world casting out demons on command. It also looks to me like RCs and Orthodox understand this and that the practice of casting out demons with certain prayers is descended from the apostles.

I find some Reformed writers on the other hand interpreting "demons" in the Bible as allegories/"metaphors" for the mentally ill or for dark forces rather than for beings.

The renowned 17th c. Reformed theologian Joseph Mede, whom the book Lives of the Puritans extols, commented on the Bible:
"I am persuaded... that these demoniacs were no other than such as we call mad-men and lunatics... (SOURCE: J. MEDE, DISCOURSES ON DIVERS TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE)

Pastor Dr. Teri Thomas of Northminster Presbyterian explains:

In Jesus day people believed in demons. Demon possession was an accepted belief of those ancient times. Scholars still find in graveyards skulls which have had a hole cut in them to let the evil spirits out... When times are tough and tragedy follows greater tragedy, when life tumbles in and there are more questions than answers, more people begin to believe in demons. The fall of Jerusalem increased Jewish interest in the problem of personal possession by evil spirits. ...

The view is commonly held that the writers of the New Testament were creatures of their age and therefore ascribed all physical illnesses and abnormalities to possession by evil spirits. Demon-possession was understood to describe insanity and mental illness. Now scholars are beginning to question this and see instead a distinction between the sick and the possessed. In scripture there is a difference in the way the person addresses Jesus and they way he responds to them if they are called possessed as opposed to being identified as sick or lame. ...

Cong: So are demons real or simply a metaphor for evil?

Teri: I know a very intelligent theologian who believes that demons are grey and smoky, about 4 ft tall, with red or green eyes, and able to come into rooms under the doors. I prefer the definition of demons as "those malevolent forces that are deceptive, destructive, and diametrically opposed to the good and gracious will of God" (Samuel D. Zumwalt).

Cong: Like the dementors in Harry Potter?

Teri: Sort of. ...Whatever our answer to these questions, we know that evil seems defiant and stubborn. ... Whatever it is that causes these actions and feelings can seem so strong that we believe it can't possibly be us- it must come from some other source- like a demon. ...But some demons do come from inside. Memories of parental neglect or abuse of some sort are inside. Memories of childhood taunts and humiliations are inside. Living with the road not taken whether career choices, romantic choices, or some other what-ifs are inside. Knowledge of one's failures and imperfections are inside. All of these things can become demons that possess and even destroy.

http://www.northminster-indy.org/sermons/when-demons-come-to-church

It seems to me that the basis for their metaphorical reading of the Bible here is that demon beings would not be a naturalistic phenomena, but would instead violate our common experience of natural reality.

I foresee that you might object that these two writers might not represent all of Calvinism, but what I am trying to get at, JM, is to understand why these two writers might feel this way? What is their motivation for seeing the Bible's meaning as allegorical here, when in my reading and in the Orthodox/RC/Lutheran one, the Bible intends to talk about real demon beings?

In case you agree with me that these two particular writers are using a materialistic basis for their skepticism about demon beings, then what are the premises behind their naturalism?

Thanks!

 

[JM]

My goal in the thread

is to see whether Calvinists or Reformed spelled out the bases for the materialistic or naturalistic aspect of their Reason vs. "absurdity" test used against the traditions of preceding generations of Christians, Calvin's skepticism about exorcisms being one such example.

The ideal basis for which we test all things are the scriptures and the scriptures alone. If a text of scripture rejects even the most cherished of all traditions then we must reject that practice as absurd. We do not merely object to a tradition using a naturalistic perspective, however, we may find naturalistic or materialistic examples to use as secondary support for our rejection.

I understand one answer

that faihtful Christians would not have demonic "indwelling" and thus no need for exorcisms or other methods to ward off demons (amulets against the evil eye being one such attempt), whereas the ungodly are not helped by exorcisms.

Just a reminder, you are a guest here and therefore not allowed to teach.

(A) Communities in medieval Europe…Yet Calvin categorically rejected the practice of Catholic exorcisms and the Reformed establishment did not provide a form of exorcism or prayers to replace the Catholic ones.

Based on scripture and not tradition, Reformed folks reject the need for individuals to be ordained and invested with a special power to perform a “rite” and ritual to remove demons. Calvin is mocking Romanism for holding to such unscriptural beliefs in the quote you posted in the op.



“Evangelicals do not need a rite of exorcism, because to adopt such an invention would be to surrender the high ground of the Gospel. We are engaged in spiritual warfare every minute of every day, whether we recognize it or not. There is nothing the demons fear or hate more than evangelism and missions, where the Gospel pushes back with supernatural power against their possessions, rendering them impotent and powerless. Every time a believer shares the Gospel and declares the name of Jesus, the demons and the Devil lose their power.” Al Mohler (Reformed Baptist – former Pres of SBC)

(B) Luther believed that demon beings were directly attacking him, so this belief and the risk thereof is not limited to RCs or Orthodox, nor is it limited to the Biblical period.


(C) The Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay colony believed that there were demon beings in their colony attacking people. I also understood you to claim that some places in Africa and South America have demon beings. It seems that there should be prayers to use against them then.

You have confused the question. Are we talking about outside spiritual attacks from demons or that Saints can be indwelt by demons? I have seen nothing in Calvin’s writings that deny demons may spiritual attack a believer just that a believer does not need a person invested with special powers to perform a ceremonial rite, borrowed from pagan practices, and used by the church to remove demons.


Your questions steam from a misunderstanding…

(D) If it was so simple that Godly people don't get demons and that as a result there is no need to exorcize demons,

Again, you are confusing spiritual attacks by demons with the indwelling of demons.

including people who had not had Jesus explained to them correctly, it would not make sense why the apostles ever exorcized any demons. They would basically be helping out the ungodly, when under answer #1 all the demoniacs needed and in fact could receive is Jesus, not exorcisms in Jesus' name.

This is more of a confusion about justification and the covenantal relationship between Christ and His people, than demons and witches. The Holy Spirit seals a believer preventing a believer from becoming indwelt.

it looks like the establishment Reformed society of the 16th century did not work out a practice of exorcisms or certain prayers, commands, or fasting to be used against them.


So the question arises of why they didn't teach exorcisms or prayers against demons if demonic "indwelling" was a real problem just like it was in Bible times.

Asked and answered above.

It seems to me that the answer is that they didn't believe that exorcisms and demonic indwelling were real as a phenomenon. And why would someone be skeptical about that if it's in the Bible, unless they thought that this was not part of the natural order anymore?

You are assuming way too much. As explained above Christians believe in the Bible. The Bible gives examples of demons being cast out but no rite, list of prayers, rituals, invested men set aside for the work, etc. can be found.


The Reformed Christians of the 16th century resembled the first century church on this issue. It’s odd that you would point out such a glaring example of an invented ceremony found in some churches due to superstition and pagan influences, somehow believing it was a mark against us.

Third, you answered that Reformed look to the writers' intent to understand the Bible, while Eastern Orthodox look to allegory.

Personally, I find that the Bible writers' intent was to say that there are real demon beings that "indwell" in some people, as you expressed it. And in Mark 16 I think that the intent was to say that the Christian community would keep the tradition of casting them out just like we see the apostles doing in Acts where they traveled among regions in the Roman world casting out demons on command. It also looks to me like RCs and Orthodox understand this and that the practice of casting out demons with certain prayers is descended from the apostles.

Let’s get this right, Christians all believe in casting out demons, however, not all Christians believe that a certain class of men are set aside and invested by the church for this purpose.

I find some Reformed writers on the other hand interpreting "demons" in the Bible as allegories/"metaphors" for the mentally ill or for dark forces rather than for beings.

I’m of the mind that demons could be both literal as well as metaphoric. I don’t believe it’s an either / or situation.

I foresee that you might object that these two writers might not represent all of Calvinism, but what I am trying to get at, JM, is to understand why these two writers might feel this way? What is their motivation for seeing the Bible's meaning as allegorical here, when in my reading and in the Orthodox/RC/Lutheran one, the Bible intends to talk about real demon beings? In case you agree with me that these two particular writers are using a materialistic basis for their skepticism about demon beings, then what are the premises behind their naturalism?

I get it but how am I to know what they “feel” and why they “feel” that way? We see a dangerous trend in the Eastern Orthodox denominations in North American toward Liberalism, denying traditional marriage, etc. but how are you to know why they “feel” the way they do? What is it in Orthodoxy that has caused them to slide, accepting the culture around them? Ever notice how “Orthodox” churches almost never affect the moral lives of the people but tend to accept the culture itself? Why? Sure, the rituals performed by the EO are kept but why are Christians ethics and morality the first to go?


Your questions are excellent questions but assuming Reformed theology is inherently “naturalistic” is an anachronism and not supported by the context of the quotation from the Institutes.


Yours in the Lord,


jm

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, JM!
The underlined part below was the kind of thing I heard from a Calvinist before, and what I thought you were saying:

"that faihtful Christians would not have demonic "indwelling" and thus no need for exorcisms or other methods to ward off demons (amulets against the evil eye being one such attempt), whereas the ungodly are not helped by exorcisms."

Just a reminder, you are a guest here and therefore not allowed to teach.

If you consider that my statements of my understanding of what Calvinism teaches or what you are explaining as the answer are "teaching" in violation of forum rules, please clarify that so I can move my Question to the Debate section.

I understand your answer to be that:
1) The RCs mistakenly made an unscriptural ritual of exorcisms
2) Indwelling of demons does not occur in believers
3) Warding off demons is basically achieved by spreading the gospel, as Al Mohler stated, thus rituals for it like set prayers are unneeded.
4) "Christians all believe in casting out demons", and so I take it you mean that this applies to the post-apostolic period.

Do I understand you correctly?

My two questions are these:
(A) If ritual praying against demon indwelling is unscriptural, therefore, categorically it failed to ever cast out demons in the post-apostolic period (150-1500 AD)?
(B) I take you as saying that direct casting out and direct warding away demon beings can still be practiced with prayer and fasting as it was in Biblical times. Do you know of any instances where major Calvinist figures from the 16th-17th centuries taught that Christians should still continue these practices in particular?

 

[JM]

Rak, you are not fooling anyone. You are seeking to teach by way of questioning. If you want answers I will give them but I'm not interested in debate.

(A) If ritual praying against demon indwelling is unscriptural, therefore, categorically it failed to ever cast out demons in the post-apostolic period (150-1500 AD)?

God uses even the worst of means to accomplish his purpose.

(B) I take you as saying that direct casting out and direct warding away demon beings can still be practiced with prayer and fasting as it was in Biblical times. Do you know of any instances where major Calvinist figures from the 16th-17th centuries taught that Christians should still continue these practices in particular?

Henry, Gill, Poole…many commentators have written on the passage. Besides, the passage is speaking to a lack of faith, which was why the demon was not cast out.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: I believe you secretly covet folks in the Reformed church. Drop the pretensions. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and join a Gospel preaching church.

 

[rakovsky]

A) If ritual praying against demon indwelling is unscriptural, therefore, categorically it failed to ever cast out demons in the post-apostolic period (150-1500 AD)?

God uses even the worst of means to accomplish his purpose.

Could you please answer in a Yes/No fashion?
Calvin asks: "Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession?"
Isn't this saying that he believes they have no proof that they ever succeeded?

(B) I take you as saying that direct casting out and direct warding away demon beings can still be practiced with prayer and fasting as it was in Biblical times. Do you know of any instances where major Calvinist figures from the 16th-17th centuries taught that Christians should still continue these practices in particular?

Henry, Gill, Poole…many commentators have written on the passage.

Could you provide a quote where they recommend using prayer, commands, and fasting in modern times to directly cast out and ward off demons like Jesus and the apostles did?

PS: I believe you secretly covet folks in the Reformed church. Drop the pretensions. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and join a Gospel preaching church.

Are you familiar with this blog?
https://patristicevangelism.wordpress.com/

 

[JM]

No, I will not.

No, please do your own research, I've answered your questions.

No thanks, I will not click the link.

So, are you ready to give up your human traditions and worship God in a bible believing, bible regulated church?

jm

 

[rakovsky]

No, I will not.

No, please do your own research,

As you wish.

No thanks, I will not click the link.

I thought it was an evangelical website about patristics that you might be familiar with, and I wasn't particularly advocating its views.

 

[JM]

rak,

If you honestly want to learn about Protestant/Reformed theology you must come to understand that everything flows from a biblical understanding of the Gospel and all its simplicity. If you want to know what we believe, you must get to know recorded church, and this can be found in the New Testament.

Why do we reject exorcisms? We don't. We believe Christ alone and faith in Him is sufficient to save us.

Why do we reject images? We don't...we reject to using them during worship and prayer because 1) scripture does not prescribe their use (Photius was rammed through clerical ranks in ONE week to force the issue of Icons, don't sleep, that was political, not religious), 2) scripture forbids creating ways to worship God outside of His revealed will and 3) scripture actually forbids creating images and likenesses of God for the express purpose of worship.

What is important to us? The glory of God through Christ alone according to His will revealed in scripture.

I hope that helps. If you want, and this might be the best way to go...start a thread asking/debating The Gospel.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: A simple tract. Not perfect by any means but a starting point. The simplicity of the Apostolic Gospel.

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

​

We have many ideas about what a person has to do to get to heaven. Some believe we must follow the “Golden Rule,” and do good deeds which will eventually outweigh the bad we have done, tipping the scales in our favour….after all, we are all basically good people…right?

If we assume we are good people we are also assuming a standard for what we consider good. Since we assume there is an absolute standard for what is good there must be an absolute standard giver. The Bible repeatedly states that God has given mankind a holy, universal Law, that is written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this Law. This Law is revealed and summarized in the Ten Commandments. When we look at God’s Law, we must understand that we have all sinned in some way or another; remember, you don’t have to break all Ten to be guilty of breaking the Law. The Bible warns, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

“… it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” Hebrews 9:27

Let’s look at a few of the Commandments and see how we fare:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? If you have, you are a blasphemer and can not enter the Kingdom of God.

“Honour your father and mother.” Have you always honoured your parents in a respectful manner? In a way that God would consider honouring?

“You shall not steal.” Have you ever taken something that didn’t belong to you (irrespective of its value)? What do you call someone who takes something that doesn’t belong to them? A thief – You cannot enter God’s Kingdom.

“You shall not bear false witness.” Have you ever told a lie? Just one? What do you call someone who told a lie? A liar. The Bible warns that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

You and I are guilty of sinning against God by breaking His Law, and because we have a conscience, we have sinned “with knowledge.” Isn’t it true that when you steal, lie, etc. you know that it’s wrong? Does the fact that you have sinned against God bother you? The punishment for breaking God’s Law is Hell. Eternal Death.

“Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail.[1]”

WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED FROM THE PENALTY OF BREAKING GOD’S LAW?

There is good news, there is a GOSPEL. God the Father has given us a mediator in Jesus Christ who is the incarnation of God. Jesus took upon Himself man’s nature, becoming subject to the Law of God, and perfectly obeying the Law in thought and deed for His entire lifetime on earth. While on earth Christ took the sins of His people upon Himself, and suffering the punishment due to all their sins paid the penalty by dying on the Cross, “…for the wages of sin is death.”

By dying in place of His people Jesus Christ became the mediator between God and man and revived in His people the righteousness, holiness and true knowledge lost as a consequence of sin.

As we find ourselves before a holy God we are convicted for breaking His righteous Law. The Holy Spirit moves in the soul to bring us to acknowledge our guilt and brokenness before God and His righteousness. We come to hate sin and find Jesus Christ precious. The Holy Spirit convinces the broken sinner of the shamefulness of sin and then brings the offender to a place where they can, “repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”

If you feel the weight of sin on your heart and have come to see the blackness of your soul in the light of God’s Law…if you have been brought to a place where you dread the judgement of the trice holy God, BELIEVE THE GOSPEL! If you believe that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins the Bible assures us that, “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”



__________________________________________________

[1] quote taken from a sermon by Jonathan Edwards titled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

 

[rakovsky]

Why do we reject exorcisms? We don't. We believe Christ alone and faith in Him is sufficient to save us.

JM,
Thank you for replying.
Based on Calvin 's quote in the OP and the one below, I will be interested to know if foundational Reformed figures like Edwards from the 16th to 18th centuries taught that real, successful exorcisms occurred in medieval times or afterwards. Any quotations directly saying this would be helpful.

In writing a tract called Antidote, about the Council of Trent, Calvin wrote:

《Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. ... For from whence could they better draw their dregs?》

 

[rakovsky]

rak,

If you honestly want to learn about Protestant/Reformed theology you must come to understand that everything flows from a biblical understanding of the Gospel and all its simplicity. If you want to know what we believe, you must get to know recorded church, and this can be found in the New Testament.



jm
PS: A simple tract. Not perfect by any means but a starting point. The simplicity of the Apostolic Gospel.

JM,
Here is my challenge: When I make the gospel my starting point, then based on Mark 16: 10-20, I would expect that occasionally in 500 to 1500 ad there were sincere Christian exorcists who sincerely and faithfully prayed to God and succeeded in casting out demons in Jesus's name, as we saw the power of Jesus's name for this in the Bible.

And yet when I try to think about that question in an academic, critical way, I find myself drawn instead to Calvin's rhetorical question:
《Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession?》
The way that Calvin asks the question gives me a feeling like he is probably right and that no one ever heard of faithful Christian exorcists proving that they were succeeding even though they used Jesus's name. But I dont like thinking that the gifts are just made up either. Its not pleasant. I prefer for supernatural miracles and gifts to be real and still sometimes happening. This is the kind of challenge I face between the naturalistic skeptical mentality and the mystical paranormal mentality.

 

[JM]

…I will be interested to know if foundational Reformed figures like Edwards from the 16th to 18th centuries taught that real, successful exorcisms occurred in medieval times or afterwards. Any quotations directly saying this would be helpful.

I have already directed you to three Reformed writers and their biblical commentaries. You may ignore that if you wish.

In writing a tract called Antidote, about the Council of Trent, Calvin wrote:


《Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. ... For from whence could they better draw their dregs?》

Let’s consider the quote in context.


Calvin, “Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge. These four things being established, who can deny that the war is ended? Wherefore, their after discussions were more for ostentation than from any necessity for them; for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?”


You are reading into the text what isn’t there. Calvin was addressing the use of the Apocrypha to build rituals for exorcisms.

Here is my challenge: When I make the gospel my starting point, then based on Mark 16: 10-20, I would expect that occasionally in 500 to 1500 ad there were sincere Christian exorcists who sincerely and faithfully prayed to God and succeeded in casting out demons in Jesus's name, as we saw the power of Jesus's name for this in the Bible. And yet when I try to think about that question in an academic, critical way, I find myself drawn instead to Calvin's rhetorical question:
《Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession?》
The way that Calvin asks the question gives me a feeling like he is probably right and that no one ever heard of faithful Christian exorcists proving that they were succeeding even though they used Jesus's name. But I dont like thinking that the gifts are just made up either. Its not pleasant. I prefer for supernatural miracles and gifts to be real and still sometimes happening. This is the kind of challenge I face between the naturalistic skeptical mentality and the mystical paranormal mentality.

I agree, it would be likely, considering the biblical text and using the logic of odds that exorcisms took place in that span of time.


I quoted Albert Mohler previously on the subject, evangelicals “believe in the existence, malevolence, and power of the Devil and demons. About these things, the New Testament is abundantly clear. We must resist any effort to 'demythologize' the New Testament in order to deny the existence of these evil forces and beings. At the same time, we must recognize quickly that the Devil and demons are not accorded the powers often ascribed to them in popular piety. The Devil is indeed a threat, as Peter made clear when he warned: 'Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.' [1 Peter 5:8] The New Testament is also clear that very real cases of demonic possession were encountered by Jesus and his followers. Jesus liberated afflicted individuals as he commanded the demons to flee, and they obeyed him. Likewise, the Apostle Paul performed exorcisms as he confronted the powers of evil and darkness in his ministry. A closer look at the crucial passages involved reveals no rite of exorcism, however, just the name of Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel. Likewise, there is no notion of a priestly ministry of ordained exorcists in the New Testament.”


“…wisdom is a spirit that is rational.” Wisdom of Solomon (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint Text)

 

[rakovsky]

I will be interested to know if foundational Reformed figures like Edwards from the 16th to 18th centuries taught that real, successful exorcisms occurred in medieval times or afterwards. Any quotations directly saying this would be helpful.

I have already directed you to three Reformed writers and their biblical commentaries. You may ignore that if you wish.

Hello, JM!

I found below commentary by Gill on Mark 16:17, which states "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And these signs shall follow them that believe,.... Not all of them, but some; and not always, only for a time; and which were necessary for the confirmation of the Gospel, and the establishment of Christianity in the world;...

In my name shall they cast out devils; so the Apostle Paul dispossessed the damsel, that had a spirit of divination; commanding the spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and it did; and evil spirits also went out of others, through his means, by the power of Christ, Acts 16:18; and this power continued for a considerable time among the saints: the phrase "in my name", is in the Arabic version, joined to the word "believe", in the preceding clause; and is omitted in the Persic version, but is rightly retained by all others in this place; for by the power and authority of Christ, and not their own, and by calling upon, and making use of his name, such miraculous operations were wrought by the apostles:

Isn't he proposing that the power to cast out demons was a temporary power during the time when Christianity was first being established?
It seems to me that if we start from the Bible, then faithful Christians would have power beyond that limited time period to successfully cast out demons with Jesus' name, prayers, and fasting, which I think is what you have been asserting.

Matthew, to whom you also referred me, said more generally about the miraculous gifts given to early Christians:

PAUL: "Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed."(1 Cor 12:1)

MATTHEW HENRY: What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel.
(Source: Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary, in reference to 1 Corinthians 12.)

MATTHEW HENRY:... the extraordinary gifts on which the Corinthians valued themselves were of short continuance. They were only to edify the church on earth, and that but for a time, not during its whole continuance in this world;
(SOURCE: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 1Corinthians13:8)

Here he did propose that there were certain categories of people with certain gifts. In 1 Corinthians we hear about people with what Matthew calls an office for prophecy, and another office for Psalm-writing. Based on Mark 16:17, it looks like exorcism was also a gift that Jesus gave the apostles, and as such Mathew would consider it an "office" like writing Psalms. But it looks like now that the "first ages" have passed, he proposes that such special gifts are over.

Feel free to directly quote any foundational Reformed figures like Edwards from the 16th to 18th centuries who taught that real, successful exorcisms occurred in medieval times or afterwards.

Let’s consider the quote in context. Calvin, “...there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?”

If you look at the context, isn't he saying that the Catholics are using the Apocrypha to justify "monstrous" "superstitions", whereupon he lists: "Purgatory and the worship of saints.... satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not"?
Doesn't this context mean that he puts exorcisms in the same category of "superstitions" (eg. lucky rabbit feet and other fake supernatural claims) as the others? Isn't he proposing that Catholics use "spurious paint" in the form of the Apocrypha to "color their errors", which he lists above?

You are reading into the text what isn’t there. Calvin was addressing the use of the Apocrypha to build rituals for exorcisms.

He did not specify "rituals" for exorcisms though, any more than he specified rituals for worshiping saints. On the face of it, isn't he rejecting purgatory, worshiping saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms as entire categories, rather than rituals that merely involve those beliefs?

I agree, it would be likely, considering the biblical text and using the logic of odds that exorcisms took place in that span of time.

Yes, JM. This is my personal challenge. As a critical minded modern academic, I sympathize with Calvin's question 《Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession?》, and with Gill's statement that the gift to cast out demons was only for a time. And yet when I start from the Bible like Mark 16:17 and the experience of the apostles, logic would say to me that faithful Christians, even those designated as such by their communities, calling on God and faithfully praying with Jesus' name and fasting like the Bible says, should occasionally succeed in casting out demons.

Likewise, the Apostle Paul performed exorcisms as he confronted the powers of evil and darkness in his ministry. A closer look at the crucial passages involved reveals no rite of exorcism, however, just the name of Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel. Likewise, there is no notion of a priestly ministry of ordained exorcists in the New Testament.”

It seems to me that using A. certain prayers (eg. the Lord's prayer), B. fasting, and C. using Jesus' name, D. directly ordering out the demon, and E. sending it into something (eg. pigs) amount to a ritual.
Ritual: "a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order." (SOURCE: Google Definitions)

The Evangelical writer Philip Schaeff speaks of using set formulas for casting out demons in the early church:

The power of casting out devils, promised by our Lord [140] , and exercised by Apostles [141] , and by Philip the Deacon and Evangelist [142] , was long regarded in the early Church as a direct gift still bestowed by the Holy Ghost, apart from any human ordinance. Justin Martyr [143] , Tertullian [144] , Origen [145] , all speak of exorcism as being practised by laymen, even by soldiers, and women, by means of prayer and invocation of the name of Jesus. .... From an early period certain set formulæ, such as the Divine names, "The God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," "The God of Israel," "The God who drowned the king of Egypt and the Egyptians in the Red Sea," were frequently invoked against demons and certain wicked persons [148] .

http://biblehub.com/library/cyril/l...ter_iii_special_preparation_for_baptism.htm#1

What the "office" of the exorcist was is that the community would designate certain people to read in church (readers) or to sing in the choir, or in this case to perform exorcisms. Of course a priest could do these tasks, or even a regular faithful Christian, and in particular they designated certain people for these purposes.

In any case, my own challenge is not over whether the apostles could be considered using "rituals" to cast out demons, or whether designating certain Christians in a parish for this task is correct, it is whether it is correct that casting out demons successfully basically ended with the time of the apostles and was over both in medieval times and since.

 

[JM]

I've been responding from work, reading your posts once, typing up replies here and there and posting.

That approach doesn't seem to be working out too well. lol

Try this, Exorcism: True or False? and Part 2

Essentially, because scripture defines an Apostle differently than your denomination does, and the gifts were specially given to the Apostles, exorcisms as you know them have ceased. It doesn't mean demons are not attacking or have stopped their activity, just that signs and wonders that accompanied the ministry of the Apostles have ceased.

And to head off the question...the Cascade Argument from scripture against the idea of continuation of gifts such as exorcism. Just give it a read and apply it to why ritual exorcism has been rejected.

Quote:

There are No Apostles of Christ on Earth Today

A) To be an Apostle of Christ was itself a gift to the church, and the foremost of the gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 Ephesians 4:8-11 – Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles.

B) The term “apostles of Christ” is to be distinguished from missionaries, aka “apostles of the churches,” which is a different office. Only “apostles of Christ” are no longer among us.

C) To be an apostle of Christ, there were three distinguishing marks:
i) Directly appointed by Christ (Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1:2, Acts 10:41, Galatians 1:1). That’s why the lot was used.
ii) Physical eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22, Acts 10:39, 1 Corinthians 9:1)
iii) They are able to confirm their apostlate by doing miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).

D) The apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 14:37).

E) There are five reasons we know from Scripture that the Apostlate ceased:

i) Ephesians 2:20 The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which alludes to Revelation 21:14. The analogy implies that the apostles and prophets were confined to the foundational period of church history.

ii) 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul “last of all” was the last one to see the risen Christ. And since being a physical eyewitness to the risen Christ is one of the marks of an apostle, Paul is the last apostle.

iii) 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1 indicate that Christians cannot seek the gift of Apostle of Christ – the greatest gift they could seek was prophecy, even though apostleship was identified as a gift.

iv) Galatians 2:7-9 Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the 12 apostles, but no one can today.

(Source)

 

[JM]

A. certain prayers (eg. the Lord's prayer), B. fasting, and C. using Jesus' name, D. directly ordering out the demon, and E. sending it into something (eg. pigs) amount to a ritual.
Ritual: "a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order." (SOURCE: Google Definitions)

MacArthur explains, "Under the Old Testament pattern, demons came out in an answer to prayer just like any other prayers. Praying and fasting was on behalf of people's illness too, wasn't it? People prayed and fasted over certain spiritual issues. And that was the same thing with demons. They could pray and fast and God would hear and answer their prayer. But when Jesus came, it was a whole new thing. He came in absolute authority over demons. And He passed on that authority to His apostles and they did the same thing. You say why did God give them the authority? And not us? God gave them the authority very clearly for the confirmation of the Word which they preached."

"There are people today who even use the name of Jesus as a gimmick, as a little formula. I read an article and this is a quote from one of the incidents. It said, "We ordered the spirit to leave in the name of Jesus and it screamed back, there is no Jesus, there is no Jesus." And it wouldn't leave. You see you can't use the name of Jesus as a gimmick. There's no magical power in the name of Jesus. And it bothers me that I hear even Christians going around just using the name of Jesus like a formula, or using the little formula of I plead the blood which becomes nothing but a formula."

"In Matthew 12:28, Christ said this, "I by the Spirit of God cast out demons." Alright, it is the power of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit that cast out demons. Now you answer me this question. Where does the Spirit of Christ live? Where does He live? In me. Right? Then whom do I need to cast out demons. I don't need any other humans. For a Christian to get rid of the problem of demons is as simple as the area of confession and holiness, just that simple."

"Historically for example the Roman Catholic Church has been involved in rites of exorcism and they've got all the secret formulas for it. Don't you see that isn't biblical. A superstitious, it's paganism tied into Christianity again which sucks the blood out of Christianity. Christianity mixed with anything is less than Christianity. Monsignor Luigi Novarese according to Newsweek magazine, February 11, this month. "The official exorcist for the Pope and for the Pope's diocese of Rome, estimates that he has performed the ancient rituality romanum 60 times.""

 

[rakovsky]

Essentially, because scripture defines an Apostle differently than your denomination does, and the gifts were specially given to the Apostles, exorcisms as you know them have ceased. It doesn't mean demons are not attacking or have stopped their activity, just that signs and wonders that accompanied the ministry of the Apostles have ceased.

And to head off the question...the Cascade Argument from scripture against the idea of continuation of gifts such as exorcism.

Yes JM,
I am not arguing necessarily for the same intensity of power as the apostles had, but simply that if the Corinthians who weren't apostles had gifts, then those gifts would probably continue.
And more specifically, if we make the Bible our starting point, then I would expect that faithful Christians praying and fasting like Jesus says could on occasion succeed in exorcisms, as you had agreed before:
《I agree, it would be likely, considering the biblical text and using the logic of odds that exorcisms took place in that span of time.》

 

[rakovsky]

MacArthur explains, "Under the Old Testament pattern, demons came out in an answer to prayer just like any other prayers. Praying and fasting was on behalf of people's illness too, wasn't it? People prayed and fasted over certain spiritual issues. And that was the same thing with demons. They could pray and fast and God would hear and answer their prayer. But when Jesus came, it was a whole new thing. He came in absolute authority over demons. And He passed on that authority to His apostles and they did the same thing. You say why did God give them the authority? And not us? God gave them the authority very clearly for the confirmation of the Word which they preached."

"There are people today who even use the name of Jesus as a gimmick, as a little formula. I read an article and this is a quote from one of the incidents. It said, "We ordered the spirit to leave in the name of Jesus and it screamed back, there is no Jesus, there is no Jesus." And it wouldn't leave. You see you can't use the name of Jesus as a gimmick. There's no magical power in the name of Jesus. And it bothers me that I hear even Christians going around just using the name of Jesus like a formula, or using the little formula of I plead the blood which becomes nothing but a formula."

"In Matthew 12:28, Christ said this, "I by the Spirit of God cast out demons." Alright, it is the power of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit that cast out demons. Now you answer me this question. Where does the Spirit of Christ live? Where does He live? In me. Right? Then whom do I need to cast out demons. I don't need any other humans. For a Christian to get rid of the problem of demons is as simple as the area of confession and holiness, just that simple."

"Historically for example the Roman Catholic Church has been involved in rites of exorcism and they've got all the secret formulas for it. Don't you see that isn't biblical. A superstitious, it's paganism tied into Christianity again which sucks the blood out of Christianity. Christianity mixed with anything is less than Christianity. Monsignor Luigi Novarese according to Newsweek magazine, February 11, this month. "The official exorcist for the Pope and for the Pope's diocese of Rome, estimates that he has performed the ancient rituality romanum 60 times.""

MacArthur is saying that demons are solved with confession and holiness, NOT with directly commanding the demons to leave and by saying Jesus's name, which he calls a gimmick.
However, when I make the Bible my starting point, it looks to me more likely what you said before about the ability to cast out demons with Jesus's name said in faith by command: 《I agree, it would be likely, considering the biblical text and using the logic of odds that exorcisms took place in that span of time.》

 

[JM]

MacArthur is saying that demons are solved with confession and holiness, NOT with directly commanding the demons to leave and by saying Jesus's name, which he calls a gimmick.
However, when I make the Bible my starting point, it looks to me more likely what you said before about the ability to cast out demons with Jesus's name said in faith by command: 《I agree, it would be likely, considering the biblical text and using the logic of odds that exorcisms took place in that span of time.》

It's not an either or situation. You are trying to force me onto the horns of a dilemma by limiting my choices.

I agree that exorcisms took place between 500 and 1500, but qualified it by explaining what exorcism is and is not by pointing you to different resources. The more I think about what Calvin wrote the more I agree. Gill, Henry and Poole are stellar examples of handing the word of God consistently.

Repeatedly I wrote that exorcism is not tied to human ritual. You fault MacArthur for calling the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, etc. rituals gimmicks, but he also explained why they are gimmicks. Why they are not needed. The Apostolic period ended with the death of the Apostles.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, JM.

At the moment, I am in fact in a dilemma on this, even when we ignore the issue of books of prayers against demons and having specific people in a parish designated for casting out demons.

You cited Maccarthur saying:

"Under the Old Testament pattern, demons came out in an answer to prayer just like any other prayers. Praying and fasting was on behalf of people's illness too, wasn't it? People prayed and fasted over certain spiritual issues. And that was the same thing with demons. They could [past tense] pray and fast and God would hear and answer their prayer. But when Jesus came, it was a whole new thing. He came in absolute authority over demons. And He passed on that authority to His apostles and they did the same thing. You say why did God give them the authority? And not us? God gave them the authority very clearly for the confirmation of the Word which they preached."

If I use the Bible as my starting point, then I would expect that Christians in the time after the apostles would not be in a weaker position than the Old Testament time regarding demons and illnesses. If in the Old Testament times before Jesus prayer and fasting could be used against demons, then I expect that we could occasionally successfully use them against these harms today. It would be strange that Jesus could use praying and fasting to cast out demons and so could the apostles, but that this power to use praying against demons is totally gone now, leaving only "confession and holiness" as protection for only oneself against demons, as opposed to being able to directly pray against demons in other people like in Old Testament and New Testament times.

Your answer seems to me to be that now exorcism is just what the Reformed writers say it is, like when Macarthur says: "For a Christian to get rid of the problem of demons is as simple as the area of confession and holiness, just that simple." Granted, Macarthur does not call that "exorcism".

You also cited Mohler saying "Every time a believer shares the Gospel and declares the name of Jesus, the demons and the Devil lose their power.” He also does not call this "exorcism". He just seems to say that evangelizing by itself means putting an end to demons for the people who get evangelized.

The dilemma for me is this. When I go by the Bible as my starting point, I look at Mark 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons;

He does not say that these signs accompany just the apostles. He says they accompany "those who believe". Back in the Old Testament and New Testament times there were Jewish and Christian exorcists. It is hard to think that Mark 16 would portray it as if authority for driving out demons "in Jesus' name" was limited to the apostles and ended with the last apostle. And yet that is actually what Macarthur proposes when he says that this authority was limited to the apostles. Gill seems to propose an expanded reach about the gift in this verse when he says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe,.... Not all of them, but some; and not always, only for a time; and which were necessary for the confirmation of the Gospel, and the establishment of Christianity in the world;...

In my name shall they cast out devils; so the Apostle Paul dispossessed the damsel, that had a spirit of divination; commanding the spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and it did; and evil spirits also went out of others, through his means, by the power of Christ, Acts 16:18; and this power continued for a considerable time among the saints:

But Gill is still limiting it to the past.

On one hand when I make the Bible my starting point, I sympathize with your allowance for exorcisms when you say: "I agree that exorcisms took place between 500 and 1500, but qualified it by explaining what exorcism is and is not by pointing you to different resources." But then I come up against Macarthur's rejection of it wholesale in the source you pointed me to when he says: "there is no exorcism that works." http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1771/exorcism--true-or-false--part-1

Based on the Bible I would expect you to be right when you say "I agree that exorcisms took place between 500 and 1500", and I would expect that even the ritual exorcisms by designated exorcists would be occasionally successful in that period, since I expect that some of them would be sincere in their faith, prayers, and fasting. At the same time, based on these passages I think that if we asked Macarthur, Calvin, Matthew Henry and Gill, they would not agree with either your statement or mine to that effect.